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 »

• 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 »

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.

Following Israel’s raid on the Gaza flotilla which resulted in nine civilian casualties and a number of wounded soldiers and civilians, 63% of the Palestinians believe they came out the winners. Most Israelis (50%) put the blame for the grave results on the organizers of the flotilla rather than on the Israeli political echelon which approved the operation (28%) or on the military echelon which carried it out (13%).

There is an increase in support for the Clinton parameters overall package in both publics compared to 2009. The change is larger and is consistent across all parameters among Palestinians. Palestinians are now split half between support and opposition to the overall package (49% support and 49% oppose it). This level of support represents an increase in support of 11 percentage points from 2009. A majority of Israelis (52%) support the overall package, versus 37% who oppose it. This level of support is similar to that obtained in 2006 through 2008, and larger than the support indicated in 2009 (46%).

Despite the increase in willingness to compromise among the two publics, neither Palestinians nor Israelis consider it likely that an independent Palestinian State will be established next to the State of Israel in the next five years. Two thirds in both publics think that chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State next to the State of Israel are non-existent or low.

72% of Palestinians support the boycott on products produced in settlements, but 60% oppose preventing Palestinians from working in the settlements. 44% believe that the boycott will hurt the proximity talks, and the rest split between the belief that it will benefit the talks and that it will have no impact. About half of the Israelis think the boycott will make no difference, 37% believe the Palestinian boycott will hurt the talks, and 8% believe it will benefit the talks.

The Palestinian sample size was 1270 adults interviewed face-to-face in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in 127 randomly selected locations between June 10 and 13, 2010. The margin of error is 3%. The Israeli sample includes 810 adult Israelis interviewed by phone in Hebrew Arabic or Russian between June 6 and 16, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5%.

Click here to read more poll results »

This column has recently criticized major elements of the mainstream media for failing to deal adequately with the complexity of the Middle East "peace process" by, foremost, placing all or nearly all of the onus for progress on Israel while ignoring the responsibilities of the Palestinian side.

Some exceptions to this pattern, however, have come from unusual quarters. Take, for instance, the influential Economist magazine. In an editorial in its May 11 issue, while asserting the well-known expectations of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu concerning (then) pending indirect or “proximity” negotiations, the publication also turned its attention to certain, rarely heard, expectations of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Referring to an interview Abbas gave on Israeli TV (Ch. 2 on Apr. 25), the Economist noted that he spoke directly to the Israeli public and "conceded" that, with respect to borders, one of the final status issues, he is willing to consider land swaps instead of insisting on what is a deal-breaker for Israel – a return precisely to the Green Line, the 1949 armistice line with Jordan (which, in any event, was never an official border, although it is often incorrectly described as such).

Regarding a land swap, the Economist wrote that in the highly charged issue of Jerusalem, for instance, "some of the [Jewish] suburbs in what is occupied Palestinian territory could go to Israel, along with three or four of the main settlement blocks…If this were agreed to early on, it would draw much of the poison out of the recent row over [the city]."

Such swaps were reportedly on the table long ago at Camp David in 2000 – the deal that then-PA president Yasser Arafat rejected. So this is not a new idea. Yet Abbas's apparent willingness to be flexible on this matter is not insignificant. (Also not insignificant is the British magazine's willingness to term Jewish housing in east Jerusalem "suburbs" instead of, as is often the case in its pages, "settlements.")

The Economist was forthright on another deal-breaker for Israel – the longstanding insistence by the Palestinians that the refugees among them have an inherent "right of return" to Israel. Without any equivocation, the editorial argued the following: "The logic of having two states requires that Israel can be sure of keeping its large Jewish majority. Hence Mr. Abbas will have to accept that the Palestinians can have no actual right to return to the homes they lost after Israel was created in 1948."

(While the Economist wrote pointedly about what Abbas "will have to accept," it did go on to write that Israel "could acknowledge" what it called "the theoretical right of Palestinians to return" and then "accept a small symbolic number who would not alter [Israel's] demographic balance." However, as a great many Israeli and other international law experts have noted, contrary to popular misconception this "right of return" does not exist. What is feasible, and what Israeli leaders have spoken about, is accepting a small number of Palestinians on an individual, not group basis, as part of its long-standing humanitarian "family reunification" policy. But what would also have to be discussed is the wholly overlooked matter of compensating the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who were evicted or had to flee from Arab countries around the time of Israel's establishment.)

While Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad recently signalled, in an interview in Ha'aretz on April 2, that the Palestinians would have to confine a return of refugees to a Palestinian state (a position for which he encountered stinging rebukes from various PLO factions such as the PFLP and from Hamas), Abbas avoided making any similar statement when asked about the "right of return" during his Channel 2 interview. Unless Abbas and the main body of Palestinians are prepared to yield on this, their rejection of Israel as a Jewish state will remain the main impediment to a two-state solution.

At the moment, many Israeli and foreign analysts are pessimistic about the prospects for substantial progress in “proximity” talks, to say nothing of getting back to direct negotiations over final status issues discussed above. Nonetheless, in addressing tough issues pertaining to the Palestinians as well as to the Israelis, the Economist editorial represents a more even-handed approach that is generally all too lacking in media coverage of the Middle East.

The False Religion of Mideast Peace
And why I'm no longer a believer.
BY Aaron David Miller | APRIL 19, 2010
Foreign Policy Magazine

On October 18, 1991, against long odds and in front of an incredulous press corps, U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Soviet Foreign Minister Boris Pankin announced that Arabs and Israelis were being invited to attend a peace conference in Madrid.

Standing in the back of the hall at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem that day, I marveled at what America had accomplished. In 18 months, roughly the time it took Henry Kissinger to negotiate three Arab-Israeli disengagement agreements and Jimmy Carter to broker an Egypt-Israel peace treaty, the United States had fought a short, successful war — the best kind — and pushed Iraq's Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And America was now well-positioned to bring Arabs and Israelis across the diplomatic finish line. Or so I thought.

Baker, who lowballed everything, was characteristically cautious. "Boys," he told a few of us aides in his suite after the news conference, "if you want to get off the train, now might be a good time because it could all be downhill from here."

But I wasn't listening. America had used its power to make war, and now, perhaps, it could use that power to make peace. I'd become a believer.

I'm not anymore.

Click here to read the entire article »

April 15, 2010

Tonight, at 8:00 PM Israel time a siren will cut through the thoughts, actions and movements of every single Israeli, as memorial day for fallen soldiers commences.

For me, Memorial Day for Fallen Soldiers is a “civil Yom Kippur” as well.  A time to reflect deeply upon where we stand as people and as a nation.

Two weeks ago Miriam Peretz escorted her (second) son, Eliraz to his grave.  Maj. Eliraz Peretz, z”l, Deputy Commander of the Golani Brigade was killed in battle, 12 years after his older brother Lt. Uriel Peretz, was killed by a Hizbullah bomb in south Lebanon. Both brothers were in the Golani Brigade. Another son is currently serving in the same unit.

From the time of the death of her first son, Miriam knew what she was meant to do.  She went from school to school explaining the importance of the Israel Defense Force. Importance – not just in serving in the military, but in commanding and leading it.  She preaches it and she lives it.

Miriam Peretz is part if the myth of this country – a country where a small and brave nation fights for its right to live in peace “under his vine and under his fig tree”. Miriam does not come with complaints to God or to people. She does whatever she can to strengthen the Jewish people and nation.  Her son Eliraz, z”l was killed on the outskirts of Sderot, where there is no “Israeli occupation”. A front on which we fight for our right to a peaceful life, fighting both the Palestinian terrorists and the Goldstone Report.

Along with Eliraz, St.-Sgt. Maj. Ilan Sviatkovsky –-was killed. Ilan, a Russian immigrant, served as a fighter in the Barak battalion of the Golani Brigade out of true love for the Land of Israel. He was a young man, a new immigrant, who volunteered for combat service and served as a prime example of morals and responsibility.

And then we have Dr. Degani, the principle of the First Hebrew Gymnasia in Herzliya – who closes its doors to IDF officers who wish to expound the importance of serving and commanding in the Israel Defense Force. Degani explains that the military’s role is in borders and bases and not in schools !! and nobody beeps !!!

People like Eliraz and Ilan represent the better aspect of modern Israeli society.  A society that will shortly come to the point that it will have to clarify where it stands;

• with Miriam Peretz and what she represents
   
• or Dr. Degani – and what he represents.

This is the real and bitter conflict that confronts the Jewish people in our homeland and in our future.

Yossi

As stated by Prime Minister Netanyahu in July 2009, Israel is committed to a two state solution which will be achieved through a negotiable bilateral agreement. Israel considers the development of the Palestinian economy a challenge shared by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the international community.

Israel recognizes the importance of international support to projects in the West Bank in the areas of economic development, capacity building and the security and civil sectors, and supports efforts by the international community to promote Palestinian development.

This Report presents a series of steps and actions undertaken by Israel during 2009 and the beginning of 2010, which were intended to promote and substantially improve the West Bank's economy, alongside building security and other capacities. These measures were taken in parallel with a broader diplomatic and economic effort led by the international community, and notwithstanding the security risks posed by continued Palestinian terrorist activity.

The Report also briefly addresses the situation in Gaza and Israel’s actions to facilitate efforts by the international community to meet humanitarian needs. Israel acts to support these efforts despite the fact that Gaza is a hostile territory controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization supported by Iran, which continues to constitute a security threat to thousands of Israel citizens. As of the publication of this Report, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit remains in captivity, and has been held by Hamas for almost four years.

This Report provides an overview of Israeli measures related to the main sectors listed below:

• Chapter One provides an overview of economic growth in the West Bank, Israeli efforts to boost the West Bank's economy and to enhance infrastructure projects.
   
• Chapter Two describes steps taken by Israel in order to facilitate and ease access and movement in the West Bank.
   
• Chapter Three outlines bilateral cooperation between the governments of Israel and the PA, including the operations of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian committees that convened during the period covered by the Report.
   
• Chapter Four presents the security challenges in the west bank and information on Israeli and international capacity building efforts in the security sector and the legal system.
   
• Finally, Chapter Five outlines Israeli efforts to support and facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Click here to download the entire report in PDF format »