The Flotilla Farce
Whether they are from Turkey, Ireland or Cyprus, those that participate reek of hypocrisy.

By DANNY AYALON

A couple of years ago, a Palestinian refugee camp was encircled and laid siege to by an army of tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers. Attacks initiated by Palestinian militants triggered an overwhelming response from the army that took the life of almost 500 people, including many civilians. International organizations struggled to send aid to the refugee camps, where the inhabitants were left without basic amenities like electricity and running water. During the conflict, six U.N. personnel were killed when their car was bombed.

Government ministers and spokesmen tried to explain to the international community that the Palestinian militants were backed by Syria and global jihadist elements. Al Qaeda condemned the government and the army, declaring that the attack was part of a "crusade" against their Palestinian brothers.

While most will assume that the events described above took place in the West Bank or Gaza, they actually took place in Lebanon in the summer of 2007, when Palestinian terrorists attacked the Lebanese Army, which struck back with deadly force. The scene of most of the fighting was the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon, which was home to the Islamist Fatah al-Islam, a group that has links with al Qaeda.

At the time, there was little international outcry. No world leader decried the "prison camps" in Lebanon. No demonstrations took place around the world; no U.N. investigation panels were created and little media attention was attracted. In fact, the plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon garners very little attention internationally.

Today, there are more than 400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon who are deprived of their most basic rights. The Lebanese government has a list of tens of professions that a Palestinian is forbidden from being engaged in, including professions such as medicine, law and engineering. Palestinians are forbidden from owning property and need a special permit to leave their towns. Unlike all other foreign nationals in Lebanon, they are denied access to the health-care system. According to Amnesty international, the Palestinians in Lebanon suffer from "discrimination and marginalization" and are treated like "second class citizens" and "denied their full range of human rights."

Amnesty also states that most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have little choice but to live in overcrowded and deteriorating camps and informal gatherings that lack basic infrastructure.

In view of the worsening plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon, it is the height of irony that a Lebanese flotilla is organizing to leave the port of Tripoli in the next few days to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. According to one of the organizers, the participants are "united by a feeling of stark injustice."

This attitude exposes the dishonesty of the whole flotilla exercise. Whether it is from Turkey, Ireland or Cyprus, those that participate in these flotillas reek of hypocrisy. There are currently 100 armed conflicts and dozens of territorial disputes around the world. There have been millions of people killed and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty without access to basic staples. And yet hundreds of high-minded "humanitarian activists" are spending millions of dollars to reach Gaza and hand money to Hamas that will never reach the innocent civilians of Gaza.

Click here to read the entire article »

In a July 12 Globe and Mail opinion piece, “Is Israel a normal country?” Ian Buruma raised a number of important questions about why Israel, as he acknowledged, is “judged by different standards from other countries.”

Buruma gave a few reasons for the double standard (although they are only part of a much longer list): the charge of imperialism and colonialism is projected onto Israel, making it bear the burden of the West’s past sins in the Third World; as a democracy Israel inevitably is going to be judged by higher standards than are applied to the surrounding Arab dictatorships; but related to this is what Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit has termed “moral racism” – which Buruma explains as the “bloodlust of an African or Asian people is not taken as seriously that of a European – or other white – people.” In other words, since the West has systematically low expectations of others (but why did Buruma fail to also mention Arab people in this context?), this racism results in intensified scrutiny on those seen to be “like us” – the Israelis.

What Buruma failed to note, however, is the crucial fact that Israel is not only judged by a higher standard than is applied to “Third World” people, it is frequently judged by a higher standard than is expected of the “First World” – of other democracies in the West. We see this most clearly in the emotionally charged rush to judgment by the United Nations and organizations such as Human Rights Watch, which condemn Israel for “war crimes” against the Palestinians while remaining silent when U.S. and NATO forces kill large numbers of civilians in their counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Buruma went on to fault Israelis for using their role as victims of the Holocaust as an excuse to act brutally and aggressively against Palestinians, implying that this is a wilful policy. Yet, by depicting Palestinians only as victims, not actors shaping their own destiny, he ironically committed the very sin he commends Margalit for recognizing.

Buruma, for instance, ignored the long history of Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel’s very right to exist. He ignored the fact that previous Israeli governments have tried to reach a negotiated resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians, only to be met with violence that has left the majority of Israelis who favour a two-state solution convinced that they do not currently have a reliable negotiating partner.

* * *

Speaking of “Israelis” – Jim Lederman, who is writing a book on the nature of Israeli society and governance, asked (in conversation from his office in Jerusalem), “Which ‘Israelis’ is he talking about? To Buruma and others like him, the ‘Israelis’ seem to be a formless miasma of oppression.

“That, of course, is not true. Most Israelis, Jew and Arab, are sensible, humane, sentient individuals.”

Lederman is appalled by the failure of journalists to pay any attention to the 70 per cent of ordinary Israelis who comprise what he calls the “rational centre” of the country. “They’ve not only been written out of the story of what is happening here, they’ve been written out of history,” he said. “And it is these people who make the country work, make all the final decisions on policy, and who have to clean up the mistakes their own governments make.”

Lederman added: “Instead, what we get is not even a cartoon or a caricature of ‘the Israelis,’ but a stick-figure drawing – one arm is the settlers, the other arm is the army; one leg is the government, the other is the ultra-Orthodox, and the torso is the ‘occupation.’ But in this case, the head – the people – is invariably left out.

“The situation is exacerbated by the fact the elites in the Diaspora follow the journalists and talk only about the elites. Then, both the journalists and the elites have the gall to claim that the Israeli public is apathetic because they’re not out marching in the streets. Those who count the most are simply too busy working. Nonetheless, when presented with an existential problem or the need to make a fundamental decision about peace, they do rouse themselves and provide the needed legitimacy for compromise. Without their participation and consent, no agreement is possible.”

Here is an opinion piece on Cameron's remarks by Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl:

Western leaders have been puzzling over how to respond to the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which in recent months has abandoned its former policy of seeking integration with Europe and begun seeking to establish itself as an Islamic power — with cosy relations with Iran and Syria.

On Tuesday Britain's new prime minister, David Cameron, tried shameless pandering. In a speech delivered in Ankara, Cameron first denounced European opponents of Turkey's membership in the European Union, saying they were motivated by protectionism or prejudice against Islam.

But Erdogan lost interest in the E.U. some time ago. So Cameron embraced the Turkish leader's new favorite subject: the evils of Israel.

"The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable," Cameron said. Then he added: "Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp."

A prison camp? Israel's enemies are fond of using that term, with its implicit hint that the Jewish state has adopted the policies of Nazi Germany. But according to the BBC, no British prime minister has ever spoken so harshly of Israel's handling of Gaza.

Asked about it later, Cameron protested that he was only repeating what he had said in a House of Commons debate several weeks ago. But the Guardian checked: in that instance, the prime minister referred to Gaza as "a giant open prison," not a prison camp.

Erdogan, of course, was delighted to have Cameron join his anti-Israel campaign. His Islamist ruling party encouraged the Turkish ferry whose attempt to break Israel's sea blockade of Gaza at the end of May led to a clash in which nine Turks — all of them members or supporters of a militant Islamic "charity" — died. Since then Erdogan has been using the incident in a bid to compete with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah for leadership of the Middle East's Israel-hating "street."

Click here to read the entire article »

Earlier this month, Madrid celebrated its annual gay pride festival, reputed to be the largest in Europe. It featured the usual mixture of calls for tolerance, righteous political speechifying and raucous display of sexuality. But the Spanish capital also earned a dubious distinction this year not for anything it included, but for what it excluded: Israel.

The municipality of Tel Aviv had originally planned to sponsor a float in the Madrid parade. But Spain's Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transgenders and Bisexuals revoked the invitation following Israel's raid on the Gaza flotilla that ended with nine dead pro-Hamas activists. "After what has happened, and as human rights campaigners, it seemed barbaric to us to have them taking part," the Federation's president, Antonio Poveda, explained. "We don't just defend our own little patch."

Mr. Poveda chose to ignore the video evidence supporting Israel's account of self defence. But even if Israeli soldiers were at fault, why Israeli gays should be made to answer for the actions of their government was something that Mr. Poveda never bothered to explain. His justification rings of the "collective responsibility" trope that critics of the Jewish state often invoke to attack its security measures, especially the Gaza blockade, which they claim unfairly punishes ordinary Palestinians rather than Hamas.

By joining the international campaign to delegitimize Israel, Spain's leading gay organization undermined its purported mission: the furtherance of gay rights. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that even has gay pride parades, never mind respects the dignity of homosexuals. Saudi Arabia beheads gays. Syria arrests them in sting operations. Iran hangs them from cranes in public squares. (Speaking at Columbia University in 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that there are no homosexuals in his country, an absurd assertion nonetheless portentous for its murderous aspirations.) As for Gaza, one of Hamas's leaders has referred to gays as "a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick."

Click here to read the entire article »

• While 71.5% of the Israeli Jewish public supports holding talks with the Palestinians, only 32.3% believe they will lead to peace. This wide gap between high support for talks and low belief in their outcomes has  characterized public opinion on this issue consistently since the signing of the Oslo  agreement in 1993.
   
• The prevailing view is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy regarding talks with the Palestinians is balanced (42.5%), with the rest divided between those who see it as too yielding (29%) or too tough (17%).
   
• As in the past, a considerable majority (57.5%) thinks President Obama leans too much to the Palestinian side. Twenty-eight percent see him as neutral, while only 8% say he leans more to the Israeli side. 
   
• About one-fifth (21%) of the Jewish interviewees said they had participated or intended to participate in protest activities for the freeing of Gilad Shalit – an unprecedented rate in Israel, and perhaps in the world, for public participation in civil protest. At the same time, the public is divided on whether the Shalit family should intensify its protest measures: 48.5% favor such an intensification and 43% oppose it.

Click here to download the entire July Peace Index in PDF format »

Charity is supposed to be fuelled by a selfless desire to help others, but it's hard to see any such motivation in the plans advanced by members of Gaza Freedom March (GFM) to charter a boat and sail to the Gaza Strip. On the contrary, the idea reeks of self-aggrandizement and narcissism, along with the usual helping of contempt for Israel.

Canadian activists belonging to the group launched fund-raising efforts last week with the aim of mustering $300,000 to hire and staff a vessel in an all-Canadian effort to sail to Gaza despite the Israeli blockade. The trek's primary aim is "to bring attention to the suffering of the people of Gaza," presumably without going into much detail as to why Israel believes its security requires it to take a stand against Gaza's Hamas run government, which still refuses to accept the Jewish state's right to exist.

Whether the boat will actually carry any goods on its supposed mission of mercy or sail empty has yet to be decided. This might reflect the fact that Israel has largely lifted the blockade, allowing in most consumer goods, or it might be a tacit admission that the trip is more about egoism than compassion. Why spend money on supplies when the goal is swift, efficient martyrdom? What these activists seek is a self-serving stint in Israeli custody, which amounts to both a badge of honour and a battle scar.

The GFM has talked vaguely of using an empty vessel to transport Palestinian goods abroad for export, but they are undoubtedly aware that regardless of whether they arrive with their holds bulging or yawning, Israel will not permit them to make landfall. The fate of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which was halted in May and resulted in the deaths of nine activists aboard a Turkish vessel during a struggle with Israel special forces, is surely very much on the Canadians' minds.

The GFM has been quick to proclaim that its mission will be peaceful, and doubtless the Israeli response will be similar after the fiasco in May, but all this careful talk on the activists' part fails to mask their other goal, shared by the earlier convoy: putting on a show meant to prompt the rest of the world to heap obloquy on Israel.

As a liberal democracy in the Middle East in a region awash in authoritarian regimes and militant puritanism, Israel has had to fight for its survival right from its inception.

Despite being a beneficiary of the very same freedoms Israel is defending, the GFM is anxious to lend its support to the other side in a struggle half a world away. These activists could do with a little less selfishness and a lot more self-reflection.

When Israeli commandos killed nine Turkish jihadis on board the lead ship of a Gaza-bound flotilla six weeks ago, Israel's enemies exhibited unusually fervid spasms of agitation. Never mind that about half the victims already had declared their aspiration to die at Israeli hands as violent "martyrs"; or that the organizers were part of an NGO that Western prosecutors and researchers have linked to terrorism. As with the Gaza war in late 2008, the case was presented as a black-and-white morality play, with Israel in the role of vicious marauder. Indeed, left-wing commentators could barely contain their glee at how these "martyrs" had passive-aggressively engineered an epochal shift in the balance of Middle Eastern power. "Israel's ill-fated boarding operation of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara has become a nightmare for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, but a dream come true for the leaders of Hamas," reported The Globe & Mail's Patrick Martin. "It took the deaths of nine international activists, most of them Turkish, to make a difference."

Sorry, Patrick, but this "dream come true" now appears to have been short-lived. Though tarnished in the court of global opinion, Israel's embargo remains intact (though the Israeli government has decided to expand the list of permitted humanitarian imports). A copycat Iranian flotilla operation was scrapped in the face of Israel's proven resolve. And this week, the captain of a Libyan ship chickened out in similar fashion — sailing his cargo to Egypt instead of Gaza. Turkey is still sulking, and has demanded an official Israeli apology. But as The New York Times reported earlier this month, "in most other respects, it is still business as usual between the longtime allies."

Meanwhile, Israel's economy continues to outperform other Western economies: As Robert Fulford reported in Saturday's edition of the National Post, the "boycott, divestment and sanctions" campaign (which, Mr. Martin and other left-wing pundits tell us, is poised to bring the Jewish state to its knees) remains a fantasy of union activists and student street marchers.

Click here to read the entire article »

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren and American President Barack Obama agree that Obama’s view of the Middle East is sharply different from previous presidents. While this dramatic difference spells trouble for Israel it also means that Obama’s view has not yet become US policy. No president has the power to make such a “tectonic shift" in US policy by himself. Israel must balance its acceptance of Obama’s policies with the reinforcement of parts of the American policy-making system that have not been converted to the President’s view.

Recent Hebrew-language press reports had Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren telling Foreign Ministry officials in Jerusalem that a great “rift” had developed between the US and Israel. Meanwhile he publicly gave The Jerusalem Post a very optimistic report on US-Israel relations. As the dust settles, it is becoming clear that Oren sought to deliver a single, clear message: that the Israel-US relationship has changed dramatically because US President Barack Obama has a fundamentally different view of the world than previous US presidents and is determined to change US foreign policy.  

Oren’s denial that there is a “crisis,” in the relationship becomes less reassuring, as well as more justifiable, when he explains that there is no crisis because it is not a short-term issue and not caused by any sudden event. However, his metaphor of a “tectonic shift” (not “rift”) in US-Israel relations was poorly chosen, because the phrase implies long-term movement of fundamental forces – and this is not the case.

Click here to download the entire paper in PDF format »

If you missed the broadcast, or would like to review it in depth, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has posted a transcript with annotated links.

You can also watch the show  on YouTube – part 1 is embeded below:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I just completed an excellent one-on-one discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I want to welcome him back to the White House.

I want to, first of all, thank him for the wonderful statement that he made in honor of the Fourth of July, our Independence Day, when he was still in Israel. And it marked just one more chapter in the extraordinary friendship between our two countries.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated in his speech, the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. It encompasses our national security interests, our strategic interests, but most importantly, the bond of two democracies who share a common set of values and whose people have grown closer and closer as time goes on.

During our discussions in our private meeting we covered a wide range of issues. We discussed the issue of Gaza, and I commended Prime Minister Netanyahu on the progress that's been made in allowing more goods into Gaza. We've seen real progress on the ground. I think it’s been acknowledged that it has moved more quickly and more effectively than many people anticipated.

Obviously there’s still tensions and issues there that have to be resolved, but our two countries are working cooperatively together to deal with these issues. The Quartet has been, I think, very helpful as well. And we believe that there is a way to make sure that the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically, while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas.

We discussed the issue of Iran, and we pointed out that as a consequence of some hard work internationally, we have instituted through the U.N. Security Council the toughest sanctions ever directed at an Iranian government. In addition, last week I signed our own set of sanctions, coming out of the United States Congress, as robust as any that we've ever seen. Other countries are following suit. And so we intend to continue to put pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations and to cease the kinds of provocative behavior that has made it a threat to its neighbors and the international community.

We had a extensive discussion about the prospects for Middle East peace. I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace. I think he’s willing to take risks for peace. And during our conversation, he once again reaffirmed his willingness to engage in serious negotiations with the Palestinians around what I think should be the goal not just of the two principals involved, but the entire world, and that is two states living side by side in peace and security.

Israel’s security needs met, the Palestinians having a sovereign state that they call their own — those are goals that have obviously escaped our grasp for decades now. But now more than ever I think is the time for us to seize on that vision. And I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is prepared to do so. It’s going to be difficult; it’s going to be hard work. But we've seen already proximity talks taking place. My envoy, George Mitchell, has helped to organize five of them so far. We expect those proximity talks to lead to direct talks, and I believe that the government of Israel is prepared to engage in such direct talks, and I commend the Prime Minister for that.

There are going to need to be a whole set of confidence-building measures to make sure that people are serious and that we're sending a signal to the region that this isn’t just more talk and more process without action. I think it is also important to recognize that the Arab states have to be supportive of peace, because, although ultimately this is going to be determined by the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, they can't succeed unless you have the surrounding states having as — a greater investment in the process than we've seen so far.

Finally, we discussed issues that arose out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Conference. And I reiterated to the Prime Minister that there is no change in U.S. policy when it comes to these issues. We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are leveled against us — against it, that Israel has unique security requirements. It’s got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that's why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests.

So I just want to say once again that I thought the discussion that we had was excellent. We’ve seen over the last year how our relationship has broadened. Sometimes it doesn’t get publicized, but on a whole range of issues — economic, military-to-military, issues related to Israel maintaining its qualitative military edge, intelligence-sharing, how we are able to work together effectively on the international front — that in fact our relationship is continuing to improve. And I think a lot of that has to do with the excellent work that the Prime Minister has done. So I’m grateful.

And welcome, once again, to the White House.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President.

The President and I had an extensive, excellent discussion in which we discussed a broad range of issues. These include of course our own cooperation in the fields of intelligence and security. And exactly as the President said, it is extensive. Not everything is seen by the public, but it is seen and appreciated by us.

We understand fully that we will work together in the coming months and years to protect our common interests, our countries, our peoples, against new threats. And at the same time, we want to explore the possibility of peace.

The greatest new threat on the horizon, the single most dominant issue for many of us, is the prospect that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is brutally terrorizing its people, spreading terrorism far and wide. And I very much appreciate the President’s statement that he is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

That has been translated by the President through his leadership at the Security Council, which passed sanctions against Iran; by the U.S. bill that the President signed just a few days ago. And I urge other leaders to follow the President’s lead, and other countries to follow the U.S. lead, to adopt much tougher sanctions against Iran, primarily those directed against its energy sector.

As the President said, we discussed a great deal about activating, moving forward the quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We’re committed to that peace. I’m committed to that peace. And this peace I think will better the lives of Israelis, of Palestinians, and it certainly would change our region.

Israelis are prepared to do a lot to get that peace in place, but they want to make sure that after all the steps they take, that what we get is a secure peace. We don’t want a repeat of the situation where we vacate territories and those are overtaken by Iran’s proxies and used as a launching ground for terrorist attacks or rocket attacks.

I think there are solutions that we can adopt. But in order to proceed to the solutions, we need to begin negotiations in order to end them. We’ve begun proximity talks. I think it’s high time to begin direct talks. I think with the help of President Obama, President Abbas and myself should engage in direct talks to reach a political settlement of peace, coupled with security and prosperity.

This requires that the Palestinian Authority prepare its people for peace — schools, textbooks, and so on. But I think at the end of the day, peace is the best option for all of us, and I think we have a unique opportunity and a unique time to do it.

The President says that he has a habit of confounding all the cynics and all the naysayers and all those who preclude possibility, and he’s shown it time and time again. I think I've had my opportunity to confound some cynics myself, and I think if we work together, with President Abbas, then we can bring a great message of hope to our peoples, to the region, and to the world.

One final point, Mr. President — I want to thank you for reaffirming to me in private and now in public as you did the longstanding U.S. commitments to Israel on matters of vital strategic importance. I want to thank you, too, for the great hospitality you and the First Lady have shown Sara and me and our entire delegation. And I think we have to redress the balance — you know, I’ve been coming here a lot. It’s about time –

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm ready.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: — you and the First Lady came to Israel, sir.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We look forward to it. Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Any time.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right, we’ve got time for one question each. I’m going to call on Stephen Collinson, AFP.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As part of the steps which need to be taken to move proximity talks on to direct talks, do you think it would be helpful for Israel to extend the partial settlement moratorium, which is set to expire in September?

And if I could just briefly ask the Prime Minister, with regards to the sanctions you mentioned, do you think that these measures will contain or halt Iran’s nuclear program where others have failed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me — let me, first of all, say that I think the Israeli government, working through layers of various governmental entities and jurisdictions, has shown restraint over the last several months that I think has been conducive to the prospects of us getting into direct talks.

And my hope is, is that once direct talks have begun, well before the moratorium has expired, that that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success. Not every action by one party or the other is taken as a reason for not engaging in talks. So there ends up being more room created by more trust. And so I want to just make sure that we sustain that over the next — over the next several weeks.

I do think that there are a range of confidence-building measures that can be taken by all sides that improve the prospects of a successful negotiation. And I’ve discussed some of those privately with the Prime Minister. When President Abbas was here, I discussed some of those same issues with him.

I think it’s very important that the Palestinians not look for excuses for incitement, that they are not engaging in provocative language; that at the international level, they are maintaining a constructive tone, as opposed to looking for opportunities to embarrass Israel.

At the same time, I’ve said to Prime Minister Netanyahu — I don't think he minds me sharing it publicly — that Abu Mazen working with Fayyad have done some very significant things when it comes to the security front. And so us being able to widen the scope of their responsibilities in the West Bank is something that I think would be very meaningful to the Palestinian people. I think that some of the steps that have already been taken in Gaza help to build confidence. And if we continue to make progress on that front, then Palestinians can see in very concrete terms what peace can bring that rhetoric and violence cannot bring — and that is people actually having an opportunity to raise their children, and make a living, and buy and sell goods, and build a life for themselves, which is ultimately what people in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories want.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think the latest sanctions adopted by the U.N. create illegitimacy or create de-legitimization for Iran’s nuclear program, and that is important. I think the sanctions the President signed the other day actually have teeth. They bite.

The question is — how much do you need to bite is something I cannot answer now. But if other nations adopted similar sanctions, that would increase the effect. The more like-minded countries join in the American-led effort that President Obama has signed into act, into law, I think the better we’ll be able to give you an answer to your question.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Is there somebody you want to ask here?

Q Mr. President, in the past year, you distanced yourself from Israel and gave a cold shoulder to the Prime Minister. Do you think this policy was a mistake? Do you think it contributes to the bashing of Israel by others? And is that — you change it now, and do you trust now Prime Minister Netanyahu?

And if I may, Mr. Prime Minister, specifically, did you discuss with the President the continuing of the freezing of settlements after September? And did you tell him that you’re going to keep on building after this period is over?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, say that the premise of your question was wrong and I entirely disagree with it. If you look at every public statement that I’ve made over the last year and a half, it has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel, that our commitment to Israel’s security has been unwavering. And, in fact, there aren’t any concrete policies that you could point to that would contradict that.

And in terms of my relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I know the press, both in Israel and stateside, enjoys seeing if there’s news there. But the fact of the matter is that I’ve trusted Prime Minister Netanyahu since I met him before I was elected President, and have said so both publicly and privately.

I think that he is dealing with a very complex situation in a very tough neighborhood. And what I have consistently shared with him is my interest in working with him — not at cross-purposes — so that we can achieve the kind of peace that will ensure Israel’s security for decades to come.

And that's going to mean some tough choices. And there are going to be times where he and I are having robust discussions about what kind of choices need to be made. But the underlying approach never changes, and that is the United States is committed to Israel’s security; we are committed to that special bond; and we are going to do what’s required to back that up, not just with words but with actions.

We are going to continually work with the Prime Minister and the entire Israeli government, as well as the Israeli people, so that we can achieve what I think has to be everybody’s goal, which is that people feel secure. They don't feel like a rocket is going to be landing on their head sometime. They don't feel as if there’s a growing population that wants to direct violence against Israel.

That requires work and that requires some difficult choices — both at the strategic level and the tactical level. And this is something that the Prime Minister understands, and why I think that we’re going to be able to work together not just over the next few months but hopefully over the next several years.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: The President and I discussed concrete steps that could be done now, in the coming days and the coming weeks, to move the peace process further along in a very robust way. This is what we focused our conversation on. And when I say the next few weeks, that's what I mean. The President means that, too.

Let me make a general observation about the question you posed to the President. And here I’ll have to paraphrase Mark Twain, that the reports about the demise of the special U.S.-Israel relations — relationship aren’t just premature, they're just flat wrong. There’s a depth and richness of this relationship that is expressed every day. Our teams talk. We don't make it public. The only thing that's public is that you can have differences on occasion in the best of families and the closest of families; that comes out public — and sometimes in a twisted way, too.

What is not told is the fact that we have an enduring bond of values, interests, beginning with security and the way that we share both information and other things to help the common defense of our common interests — and many others in the region who don't often admit to the beneficial effect of this cooperation.

So I think there’s — the President said it best in his speech in Cairo. He said in front of the entire Islamic world, he said, the bond between Israel and the United States is unbreakable. And I can affirm that to you today.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much, everybody.