It was an expose in the best traditions of investigative journalism: Commerce Department documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that detailed how, between 1965 and 1977, more than one thousand American corporations colluded in the economic boycott of a small, embattled country, in a bid to please a group of powerful, oil-producing states. Though the boycott was prohibited under U.S. law, the government consciously looked the other way as these corporations went the extra mile in complying with the boycott. Like when they discriminated against employees deemed to have compromising ethnic ties to the targeted country.

The article in question appeared in 1981. The object of the boycott, organized by the League of Arab States, was Israel. And the magazine that published these revelations was The Nation.

How times have changed. Three decades after it named and shamed those American corporations who cozied up to some of the most repressive and reactionary countries on earth, The Nation has become the house journal of the American branch of the movement to subject Israel — and only Israel — to a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS for short.)

Click here to read the entire article »

Dear President Obama,

Settlements are not the problem.

Here’s why:

• It’s been done before:
  • 1979 – Egypt: Israel withdrew from all of Sinai (again) and dismantled all settlements.
  • 1994  – Jordan: Israel realigned on the international border; land swaps and long term leases were part of treaty
  • 2000  – Lebanon: Israel realigned on the international border to the last inch. The result: rocket fire and terror attacks from Lebanon by Hezbollah.
  • 2005  -  Gaza: Israel withdrew from Gaza, risking civil war to dismantle all Gaza settlements plus four from West Bank. risking civil war. The result: increased rockets and terror activity from Gaza.
• Most of the settlements are political, not ideological.

• A majority of Israelis are in favour of pulling out of the West Bank.

The fact is a majority of Israelis will gladly support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem on one condition: the day after the pullout, rockets don’t start flying into Israel.

Can you guarantee that no Palestinian rockets will be launched Mr. President? No, you can’t. And of course, neither can Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

So the settlements are not the problem, are they? But settlements are an easy, unpopular target you can press Israel with and not risk losing votes from American Jewish voters. Meanwhile, you can choose to ignore the facts. For example, Jerusalem is not the West Bank. And 1,600 apartments in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood of Jerusalem, which everyone agrees will remain part of Israel, are not impeding the peace process.

Israel needs a strong U.S. government it can trust in order to make concessions. And right now, Israel doesn’t trust the Commander in Chief.

Mr. President, here’s why Israelis don’t trust you:

• You can’t promise at the 2008 AIPAC convention that Jerusalem will remain undivided then steamroll Israel into dividing it.

• You can’t demand that Israel freeze 100 percent of settlement construction, and not expect the PA to take advantage and refuse to negotiate until Israel complies.

• You can’t give a bright warm smile to the Arab and Muslim world, and turn a cold shoulder to Israel.

• You can’t be a beacon of democracy to the world and ignore democracy in Israel.

• You can’t humiliate an Israeli prime minister and expect Israeli to think its just business as usual.

• You can’t make the Israelis bleed a little and expect the sharks to hold back.

You see Mr. President, in the Middle East, it’s a zero sum game. You hurt one side to strengthen the other. If Israel is weakened, its enemies are strengthened. There is a direct correlation between your hard line against Israel, and the rise in regional violence, terror and anti-Israeli rhetoric. This month, 35 rockets and eight mortars were fired into Israel from Gaza. People were killed on both sides of the fence.

Mr. President, your actions are not promoting harmony but pushing our region closer to war.

Uri Goldflam has been working in the field of Israel education, leadership training, and educational tourism for the past 17 years in various positions in Israel and abroad. Click here to read his biography »

In “Fanning the winds of war” (Winnipeg Free Press, March 2) Samuel Segev wrote about how, following the appointment of Robert Ford as the first U.S. ambassador to Syria in five years, the Obama administration was counting on Damascus to distance itself from Tehran and to stop arms transfers to Hezbollah.  However, neither is remotely likely to happen. As a result, the United States appears to be naïve about the influence it can yield.

Syrian President Bashar Assad “has no incentive to weaken his ties to Tehran,” Segev noted.  “On the contrary, he believe[s] his continued ties to Tehran would only increase his value and would increase the American incentives.”  (Ford will assume his posting following U.S. Senate confirmation, which seems assured. Yet, apart from his presence lending prestige to Assad’s regime, it’s not clear what the United States gains.)

Assad underscored this determination to stand by Iran by hosting a summit late last month with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah – a meeting that featured prominent denunciations of both U.S. Mideast policy and, of course, Israel.  Moreover, in response  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s calls on Damascus to free itself from Iran’s grip, Assad increased not only the quantity of Iranian arms to Hezbollah but also their quality, including advanced surface-to-surface missiles.

Segev quoted Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, who spoke in Washington on Feb. 26: “Lebanon is a member of the UN and is also now a member of the UN Security Council. But Lebanon has also a ‘private’ army [Hezbollah], not subordinated to the state and this militia has an arsenal of 45,000 missiles and rockets that can hit targets anywhere in Israel. We cannot accept this.”

Israeli analysts have expressed surprise that the United States has been under some sort of illusion that Syria could be pried away from its alliance with Iran.  They point out that during previous negotiations with Israel, Syria never indicated its willingness to break this bond.  So why not take Syria at its word?

Assad is not the only one to assert his ties with Iran.  Damascus-based Hamas head Khaled Meshal has been moving closer to Iran.  Following the Damascus summit, he was Ahmadinejad’s guest of honour in Tehran  at a conference on ‘Islamic and National Solidarity with the Palestinian People,’  during which calls for Israel’s destruction figured prominently.  Hamas policy has consequently become even more extreme (Meshal, for instance, has renounced previous talk of a  long-term truce along the 1967 borders with Israel).

Into this toxic assembly of Assad, Meshal and Nasrallah – with Ahmadinejad and gang close at hand  – Ford plans to inject his presence.  And this comes at a time that the international community, including foremost the UN,  has all but given up on pursuing Assad as the prime suspect in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri,  the event that prompted the United States to pull its ambassador from Damascus.

Providing an ostensibly different perspective, in “Report: Syria willing to consider gradual approach to peace” (Ha’aretz, Mar. 2),  Akiva Eldar related how Gabrielle Rifkind, a “conflict resolution specialist” with the Oxford Research Group,  told him that according to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, whom she met in Damascus last December, Syria is serious about peace with Israel.  This would involve stages of Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for a “form of normalization” according to Rifkind.  This of course sounds very encouraging to western ears.

Yet on the crucial issue of Syria’s ties with Iran and Hezbollah Eldar wrote: “[Muallem] said that [Syria] will not negotiate any change in its relationship with Hezbollah and Hamas until after the Golan is returned. ‘Key questions, such as Syria’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and its policy to Iran , would only be answered after withdrawal,’ [Muallem] said.”

Only after Israeli withdrawal?

In short, enough said.

* * *

No to be missed – from the Economist’s Feb. 27 “Lexington” column “Is Barack Obama tough enough?” about Obama’s policy of relying on drone attacks against in Pakistan:

“For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai.”

Many Church Leaders Remain Silent While Palestinian (Christian) Arabs Suffer at the Hands of Muslims

On December 11, 2009, a group of Palestinian Christian leaders issued a 13 page document known as   ”Kairos Palestine-2009: A moment of truth.” Having “reached a dead end” because of the “Israeli military occupation,” the leaders appealed to churches worldwide to treat Israel as they had apartheid South Africa by divestment and economic boycott.¹

Given that the authors of this document include Patriarch Emeritus Michel Sabbah from the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Lutheran Bishop of Jerusalem Munib Younan, Archbishop of Sebastia Atallah Hanna from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, we should not be surprised with this distorted description of the plight of Christian Arabs in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

Justus Reid Weiner, an international human rights lawyer, warns that the present Christian Arab leadership is not telling the truth about the real conditions in these areas, and who is really responsible for perpetuating the anguish of Arab Christians.  The “patriarchs and archbishops of Christian Arab denominations,” he says, “who are currently deceiving the international community, are self-interested people. They collaborate with the Muslim perpetrators of intimidation and violence. Against all evidence they claim that the Christians Arabs are living comfortable and prosperous lives. In fact the present situation is growing worse by the day.”²

Though these false accusations are not new, there is a danger they could change the way some of Israel’s Christian supporters view the Arab/Israeli conflict.³That is why we need to examine what is really transpiring in these areas.

Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station in Beit-Shahur, warned that, “15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here.”⁴ Population increases in the West Bank have been generally flat. In 1967 there were 40,000 Christians in the area; in 2006 there were approximately 45,800.⁵

The cause for the concern is the Islamic success at the municipal elections, ⁶ and the Muslim campaign of “intimidation” to force Christians to leave their homes and relinquish their land.  After the Palestinian Authority (PA) took control of Bethlehem in 1994, they altered the municipal boundaries of the city and the predominately Christian suburbs of Beit Jallah and Beit Sahour to incorporate the 30,000 Muslims residing in the nearby refugee camps of Dehaisheh, El-Ayda and El-Azeh, and thousands of residents living near the Ta’amarah Bedouin tribe. These boundary modifications created sweeping changes in the demographic balance of Bethlehem.⁷

At the same time, Muslims were persuaded to move from nearby Hebron to Bethlehem where large-scale Muslim housing was being planned.  In 1990, Christians comprised 60 percent of the population of Bethlehem.

By 2001 they were 20 percent of the population, resulting in a significant effect on local elections.  As a result, PA chairman Yasser Arafat appointed a Muslim as Governor for the Bethlehem District, and the bureaucratic, security and political apparatus was purged of Christians.⁸

Muslims boycotted Christian businesses in Bethlehem’s Nativity Square forcing many of them out of business.  Approximately ten percent remained by paying extortion money to Muslim terrorists. When a Christian owner of a café in Manger Square refused to be extorted, he was charged with collaborating with the Israelis, then later shot in the eye, and eventually had to escape from the country after having lived in Bethlehem for 30 years.  Refusal to pay was often fatal.  Furthermore, at the PA-controlled Voice of Palestine, Christian names are not permitted to be mentioned in the obituaries read on air. ⁹

Those who sell land to Jews are subject to the death penalty according to the Palestinian Land Law, a clear violation of two international rulings. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948), states that everyone has the right to own property. Part III, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil And Political Rightsstates, “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentences of death may be imposed for only the most serious of crimes. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.”¹⁰

In this environment of “officially sanctioned intimidation,” Christians have considerable trouble buying land or selling their own property to other Christians. There is even the perception that selling to any non-Muslim is prohibited. The PA does not recognize Christian property rights as sacrosanct, including holy sites on the West Bank. As early as 1997, the PA Ministry of Information claimed that the Palestinian people “have assumed their natural right to of controlling parts of the Palestinian land, the most important of which under Palestinian national sovereignty is in the Palestinian city of the birthplace of Jesus Christ—Bethlehem.”¹¹

Palestinian protection means little when Christian cemeteries and symbols are desecrated, property wrecked, monasteries robbed of gold and precious objects, and parishioners hindered from attending services. An atmosphere of intimidation and trepidation is created, especially since the perpetrators can buy their way out from serving time.¹²

Of all the abuses Christians are forced to endure, the treatment of their women is the most egregious. They are subjected to verbal sexual harassment and rape “perhaps the most blatant denial of basic human rights of religious identity.” Compounding the problem is that in the Middle East, a female who has been violated is regarded as having been sullied and “unfit for marriage.” Rather than bring shame to the victim, the rape is not openly acknowledged. Furthermore the victim must prove she has been raped. If not, a court can convict her of having had extra-marital relations.¹³

Raping a Christian woman often has fewer consequences than raping a Muslim one. The rapist knows that under a Muslim- controlled PA there is a greater chance of not being prosecuted. If the victim is Muslim, the perpetrator has to contend with members of her extended family, ¹⁴ who are obligated to obtain compensation or revenge. Each member is responsible for the welfare of individuals in the group. When one member is attacked, the group unites to protect themselves.  They do not expect government agencies, officials, police, courts or any other institutions or persons to intervene on their behalf. ¹⁵

Raping of Christian women is also used to reduce the Christian population by ensuring that Christian men will not marry these women and have children. Another method to lower the Christian populace is to force Christian women to marry Muslim men in violation of Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rightswhich states, “Marriage shall be entered in only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”¹⁶

Those willing to speak out openly about this bullying are subjected to death threats. Samir Qumsiyeh documented 160 attacks against Christians, including physical harassment, home robberies, and illegal seizure of land during the past several years. In response to Qumsiyeh’s own public statements, his home was fire-bombed.¹⁷

The 3,000 Christians living in Gaza among 1.2 million Muslims are also anxious and quite concerned about their future. Archimandrite Artemios, the Greek Orthodox priest who heads the St. Porphyrius church in Gaza, observed that Christians never felt so “endangered” as they do now. He did not know whether they were even still considered “part” of the Gaza community. ¹⁸

A rash of attacks has raised the level of their apprehension. On February 15, 2008, a library managed by the Young Men’s Christian Association was firebombed, resulting in the destruction of 10,000 books. The previous Fall a Christian book store owner was kidnapped and murdered. His shop was bombed twice. A Catholic church and a school were vandalized in August 2007. These incidents lead Artemios to conclude, “the edifice of tolerance is crashing down over our heads.”¹⁹ Before dawn on May 16, 2008 a bomb exploded outside the Zahwa Rosary School, a Christian school in Gaza city, operated by nuns primarily for Muslim students.²⁰

Writing in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Hussein Shubakshi, a Saudi columnist complains about Christian emigration from the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Syria which “has reached astonishing proportions.” In Gaza and the West Bank, there is “a plan to eradicate the entire deeply-rooted Christian presence from its territories.” There are 70,000 Palestinian Christian émigrés living in Chile, particularly in Santiago, the capital. Arabs from other areas emigrate to Europe, Australia, the U.S. and Canada.

That they are “openly and collectively” leaving by the thousands from Arab countries out of “fear, worry” and “society’s failures,” should be of grave concern, Shubakshi asserts. Failure to address the spread of extremism will be at a high price to all concerned. ²¹

What is particularly discouraging is that many church leaders throughout the world are aware of the myriad human rights abuses perpetrated by the PA against the Christian Arabs according to Justus Reid Weiner.²²

Yet despite the beatings, theft of land, kidnappings, torture, firebombing of churches, forced marriages, rape, extortion, and sexual harassment, these church leaders “remain silent.”  Others, “rather than identify the true Palestinian perpetrators of crimes against their people, take the politically correct path” by accusing Israel of being responsible for the strife and misery in the area. They do not even concede or criticize Muslim aggression.  Church leaders often blame Israel for the decline of the Arab Christian population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and for the suffering they experience under Hamas and Fatah rule.²³

The Western Christian leaders involved in this anti-Israel activity are from the American Episcopalian and Presbyterian movements.²⁴ Those taking comfort in evangelical backing for the Jewish state should think again.  Jim Fletcher, publisher of the pro-Israel Balfour Books and an evangelical Christian, observes that there is an increasing erosion of evangelical support for Israel that is being influenced in part by the constant attacks against Israel in the Western media.²⁵25Until there is a concerted effort to counter the lies and distortions within the Christian community, this erosion will continue.

ENDNOTES

1.      “Palestinian Christians urge boycott,”Al-Ahram (17-23 December 2009).

2.      Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs and Their Manipulation against Israel: Interview with Justus Reid Weiner,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs No. 72. (September 1, 2008).

3.      “Remember the Palestinian Christians,” Charisma Magazine (December 22, 2008) and Rev. Alex Awad, Dean of Students at Bethlehem Bible College, www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=58373227616.; Jim Fletcher, “Cold Winds Blowing.” onenewsnow.com

4.      Khaled Abu Toameh, “Bethlehem Christians fear neighbors.”Jerusalem Post (January 25, 2007), Online; Holy lands’ Only Christian TV Station to Shut Down.” Christian Post (October 30, 2007), Online; for the situation in other areas of Palestinian controlled areas, please see David Raab, “The Beleaguered Christians of the Palestinian-Controlled Areas.” Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Number 490, (January 1-15, 2003).

5.      Daniel Williams, “’Endangered’” Gaza Christians Mull Flight Amid Deaths, Firebombs.” Bloomberg.com (February 25, 2008); Etgar Berkovits, “Expert: ‘Christian groups in PA to disappear.” The Jerusalem Post (December 4, 2007); Daphne Tsimhoni, “Israel and the Territories-Disappearing Christians of the Middle East.” Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2001); “Christians Are Leaving the Middle East,” voanews (January 17, 2006); David Pryce-Jones, “Christians in the Holy Land,” Nation Review Online (March 20, 2008).

6.      Julie Stahl, “Bethlehem Christians Worry About Islamic Takeover in Jesus’ Birthplace,” CNSNews.com. (May 19, 2005).

7.      Khaled Abu Toameh, “Church official, wife beaten and robbed in Gaza,” Jerusalem Post (July 23, 2009); “PCHR (Palestinian Centre for Human Rights LTD) Strongly Condemns Desecration of Cemeteries of the Orthodox and Latin Churches in Jafna Village North of Ramallah,” IMRA (May 24, 2009); “Persecution of Palestinian  Christians: Cruelty and silence in Gaza,” IMRA (December 11, 2008); “Palestinian Columnist: Muslims Are Harming Christian Culture,” MEMRI Special Dispatch no, 2112 (November 12, 2008); Justus Reid Weiner, “Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (2005):10.

8.      Weiner, op.cit. 10-11.

9.      Ibid. 11-12.

10.  Ibid.13.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Ibid.13-14.

13.  Ibid.14-15.

14.   Ibid.13.

15.  Philip Carl Salzman, Culture and Conflict in the Middle East. (Amherst, New York: Humanity Books, 2008), 66-67.

16.  Weiner, “Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society” 15-16.

17.  Abu Toameh, op cit; Uriya Shavit and Jalal Bana, “The secret exodus –Palestinian Emigration.” Haaretz (Magazine section) (October 5, 2001).

18.  Williams, op.cit.

19.  Ibid.

20.  Gaza: Bomb explodes at Christian school.”  Jerusalem Post (May 16, 2008); “Middle East: The Other Christmas Rush Is Christians Fleeing Arabia.” Newsweek (January 5, 2008).

21.   “Saudi Columnist laments Expulsion of Christians from Arab Countries.” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1850 (February 21, 2008).

22.    Gerstenfeld, “Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs and Their Manipulation against Israel: Interview with Justus Reid Weiner,” op.cit.; For persecution of Christians in other Muslim countries, please see Paul Marshall and Lela Gilbert, Their Blood Cries Out (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1997); Nina Shea, In the Lion’s Den: A Shocking Account of Persecuted and Martyrdom of Christians Today and How We Should Respond (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2007).

23.  Ibid.

24.  Ibid.

25.  Jim Fletcher email to author December 8, 2009. For examples of how some evangelicals view Israel, please see Brian McLaren a Christian “activist” and author, is part of the so-called Emergency Community, liberal Christians who count activism for the Palestinians as one of their callings. www.brianclaren.net. His blogs often discuss “justice for the Palestinians; Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of American evangelicals. The CT staff contains many anti-Israel Christians. http://blog.chrisitanitytoday.com.ctliveblog/archive; Janet Parshall, www.christianpost.com/article/20070331/prominent-evangelical-leader-opposes-blind-support-forIsrael/index.html; General Council of the Assemblies of God, www.ag.org/top/beliefs/sptlissues Israel.cfm; Friends of Sabeel-North America (FOSNA) works in the United States and Canada to support the vision of Jerusalem-based Sabeel, a Christian liberation-theology organization. FOSNA cultivates the support of American churches through cosponsored regional educational conferences, alternative pilgrimage, witness trips, and international gatherings in the Holy Land (www.fosna.org); 2007 letter to President George Bush, from prominent evangelicals who support a two-state solution: www.christianpost.com/20070731/u-s-evangelicals-shatter-chrisitan-zionist-misconception/index.html

Independent Jewish Voices is an organization that opposes the two-state solution – that is, two states for two peoples – endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Canadians and the leadership of the organized Jewish community, and partners with groups that are actively trying to remove groups like Hezbollah from Canada’s list of terrorist organizations. Independent Jewish Voices also endorsed  the recent attempt to blacklist Israeli filmmakers whose work was appearing at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). This failed effort was widely condemned by Canadian media and by the international artistic community.

At the event, Daniel Taub, Director General Law Division, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described four considerations when entering a conflict: military necessity, necessary distinction, proportionality and humanity. These issues were prominent in the Gaza war with the debate focused on how to achieve a balance between upholding international law and responding to military necessity on the ground.

During the Gaza War, the conditions were particularly complex due to Hamas’ violation of international humanitarian law. Examples included dressing as civilians, using human shields, placing rockets among the civilian population, and booby traps in residential areas. He emphasized that a military objective does not cease to be one if it is located inside a civilian population. This makes the work of the IDF difficult because it has to fight within a civilian population against a group that does not abide by international law.

Click here to view the Powerpoint presentation Daniel Taub presented at the conference. (5.9 MB)

Click here to listen to Moshe Ronen interviewed on Israel Radio in MP3 format (4.24 minutes)

You can get Did You Know? and other CIC information by e-mail - join our mailing list today!

Obviously this reflects the extraordinary relationship, the special relationship, between the United States and Israel. It is a stalwart ally of the United States. We have historical ties, emotional ties. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, it is a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.

I have said from the outset that when it comes to my policies, towards Israel and the Middle East, that Israel’s security is paramount. And I repeated that to Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as a independent, Jewish state is maintained.

One of the areas that we discussed is the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon, by Iran, something that the Prime Minister has been very vocal in his concerns about. But it’s a concern that is shared by his countrymen and women, across the political spectrum.

I indicated to him the view of our administration that Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them to be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity, for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

And I indicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu, in private, what I have said publicly, which is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community, as a whole, and could set off a nuclear arms race, in the Middle East, that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course.

But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious. And obviously the prime minister emphasized his seriousness around this issue as well. And I’ll allow him to speak for himself on that subject.

We also had an extensive discussion about the possibilities of restarting serious negotiations on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. I’ve said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interest not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

We have seen progress stalled on this front. And I suggested to the prime minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they previously agreed to.

Those obligations were outlined in the road map. They were discussed extensively in Annapolis.

And I think that we can — that there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment for all the parties concerned to take seriously those obligations and to move forward in a way that — that assures Israel’s security, that’s — stops the terrorist attacks that have been such a source of pain and hardship — that we can stop rocket attacks on Israel — but that also allow Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state that allows economic development to take place, that allows them to make serious progress in meeting the aspirations of their people.

And I am confident that in the days, weeks and months to come, that we are going to be able to make progress on that issue.

So let me just summarize by saying that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has the benefit of having served as prime minister previously. He has both youth and wisdom.

 
PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: Well, I don’t dispute youth, so that’s good. (Chuckles.)  

PRESIDENT OBAMA: — and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring about historic peace. And I’m confident that he’s going to seize this moment and the United States is going to do everything we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process.

Mr. Prime Minister?

PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: President Obama, thank you. Thank you for your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader — a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world — a great friend of Israel, and someone who’s acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.

We — we met before, but this is the first time that we’re meeting as president and as prime minister. And so I was particularly pleased in your reaffirmation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States.

We share the same goal and we face the same threats. The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples.

In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable from any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.

So in that context, I — I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.

I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could, Mr. President. It’s a distant vision, but one that we shouldn’t let go. Maybe peace with the entire Arab world.

I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.

And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well.

If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will — will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself.

And if those conditions are met — if Israel’s security conditions are met and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy — its permanent legitimacy — then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity and security and in peace. And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you — a true friend of Israel — to the achievement of our common goals, which are security, prosperity and, above all, peace.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

We’re going to take a couple of questions. We’re going to start with you, Steve.

Q Mr. President, you spoke at length, as did the prime minister, about Iran’s nuclear program. Your program of engagement — policy of engagement, how long is that going to last? Is there a deadline?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I — I don’t want to set an artificial deadline. I think it’s important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you — since you’re all political reporters — are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done. Their elections will be completed in June, and we are hopeful that, at that point, there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first through the P-5- plus-one process that’s already in place, potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.

I want to reemphasize what I said earlier, that I believe it is not only in the interest of the international community that Iran not develop nuclear weapons, I firmly believe it is in Iran’s interest not to develop nuclear weapons because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways. Iran can achieve its interests of security and international respect and prosperity for its people through other means, and I am prepared to make what I believe will be a persuasive argument that there should be a different course to be taken.

The one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, at least, of negotiations with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow through. And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talks forever.

We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear — and deploying a nuclear weapon. That’s something, obviously, Israel’s concerned about, but it’s also a — a –an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.

My expectation would be that, if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress, and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn’t mean that every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we’ll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach. Okay?

You want to call on one of your –

PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: (Okay ?).

Q (Thank you ?). Mr. President, aren’t you concerned that your outstretched hand has been — (off mike) – especially Ahmadinejad, Musharraf, much equivalent — (off mike) – by the deadline? If engagement fails, what then, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.

Q (Off mike).

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry?

Q (Off mike) — and would — (off mike) — be on your side — (off mike) — Iran.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Oh, I — I — I think — I’d — yeah, I’m — I’m not sure about that interpretation.

I — look. We’ve been in office a little over a hundred days now, close to four months. We have put forward a clear principle that, where we can resolve issues through negotiations and diplomacy, we should. We didn’t expect, and I don’t think anybody in the international community – or anybody in the Middle East, for that matter — would expect that 30 years of antagonism and suspicion between Iran and the United States would be resolved in four months. So we think it’s very important for us to give this a chance.

Now, understand that part of the reason that it’s so important for us to take a diplomatic approach is that the approach that we’ve been taking, which is no diplomacy, obviously has not worked. Nobody disagrees with that.

Hamas and Hezbollah have gotten stronger. Iran has been pursuing its nuclear capabilities undiminished. And so not talking — that clearly hasn’t worked. That — that’s what’s been tried.

And so what we’re going to do is try something new, which is actually engaging and reaching out to the Iranians. The important thing is to make sure that there is a clear timetable of — at which point we say these talks don’t seem to be making any serious progress. It hasn’t been tried before, so we don’t want to prejudge that. But as I said, by the end of the year, I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we’re starting to see serious movement on the part of the Iranians.

If that hasn’t taken place, then I think the international community will see that it’s not the United States or Israel or other countries that are seeking to isolate or victimize Iran; rather it is Iran itself which is isolating itself by willing to — being unwilling to engage in serious discussions about how they can preserve their security without threatening other people’s security, which ultimately is what we want to achieve.

We want to achieve a situation where all countries in the region can pursue economic development and commercial ties and trade, and — and do so without the threat that their populations are going to be subject to bombs and — and — and destruction. That’s what I think the prime minister is interested in, that’s what I’m interested in, and I hope that ends up being what the — the ruling officials in Iran are interested in as well.

Don Gonyea. Where’s Don?

Q There he is.

Q Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, can you react to King Abdullah’s statements of a week ago that we really are at a critical place in the conflict and that if this moment isn’t seized and if peace isn’t achieved now, soon, that in a year, year and a half, we could see renewed major conflict, perhaps war? Do you agree with that assessment?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Why don’t you start?

PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: I think we have to seize the moment. And I think we’re fortunate in having a leader like President Obama and a new government in Israel and perhaps a new understanding, in the Arab world, that I haven’t seen in my lifetime.

And you’re very kind to me, calling me young, but I’m more than half-a-century old. And in my 59 years, in the life of the Jewish state, there has never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today and also see the need to join together, in working towards peace, while simultaneously defending ourselves against this common threat.

I think we have — we have ways to capitalize on this sense of urgency. And we’re prepared to move, with the president and with others in the Arab world, if they’re prepared to move as well.

And I think the important thing that we discussed, among other things, is how to buttress the Israeli-Palestinian peace tracks, which we want to resume right away, with participation from others, in the Arab world, how we give confidence to each other that we’re changing the reality, changing the reality on the ground, changing political realities top down as well, while we work to broaden the circle of peace.

So I think that the sense of urgency that King Abdullah expressed is shared by me and shared by many others. And I definitely know it’s shared by President Obama.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, I think, there’s an extraordinary opportunity. And the prime minister said it well.

You have Arab states in the region — the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis — who, I think, are looking for an opportunity, to break this long-standing impasse, but aren’t sure how to do it and share concerns about Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon.

In order for us to potentially realign interests in the region in a constructive way,  bolstering — to use the prime minister’s word — the Palestinian-Israeli peace track is critical. It will not be easy. It never has been easy.

In discussions, I don’t think the prime minister would mind me saying to him or saying publicly what I — I said privately, which is that there is a recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that, you know, the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish. The other Arab states have to be more supportive and — and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel. And next week I will have the Palestinian Authority president, Abbas, as well as President Mubarak here, and I will deliver that message to them.

Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well. And I shared with the prime minister the fact that, under the road map and under Annapolis, there is clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements; that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.

I think the humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed. Now, I — I was along the border in — in Sderot and saw the evidence of weapons that had been raining down on the heads of innocents in those Israeli cities, and that’s unacceptable. And so we’ve got to work with the Egyptians to deal with the smuggling of weapons, and — and it has to be meaningful, because no prime minister of any country is going to tolerate missiles raining down on their citizens’ heads.

On the other hand, the fact is — is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.

So all these things are going to have to come together, and it’s going to be difficult. But the one thing that I’ve committed to the prime minister is, we are going to be engaged. The United States is going to roll up our sleeves. We want to be a strong partner in this process.

I have great confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political skills but also his historical vision and his recognition that during the years that he is prime minister this second go-round, he is probably going to be confronted with as many important decisions about the long-term strategic interests of Israel as any prime minister that we’ve seen in a very long time. And I have great confidence that he’s going to rise to the occasion, and I actually think that you’re going to see movement in — among Arab states that we have not seen before.

But the trick is to try to coordinate all this in a very delicate political environment. And that’s why I’m so pleased to have George Mitchell, who is standing behind the scrum there, as our special envoy, because I’m very confident that, as somebody was involved in equally delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland, he’s somebody who — who recognizes that if you apply patience and determination and you keep your eye on the long-term goal that the prime minister articulated, which is a wide-ranging peace, not a grudging peace, not a transitory peace, but a wide-ranging regional peace, that we can make — make great progress.

MR. : Thank you, sir.

Q Mr. President, the Israeli prime minister and the Israeli administration have said on many occasions — on some occasions that only if the Iranian threat will be solved, they can achieve a real progress on the Palestinian track.

Do you agree — just with that kind of linkage?

And to the Israeli prime minister, you were speaking about the political track. Are you willing to get into final-status issues, negotiations like borders, like Jerusalem, in the near future, based on the two-state solution? And do you still hold this opinion about the linkage between the Iranian threat and your ability to achieve any progress on the Palestinian track?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me say this. There is no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to – to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That — that’s not conductive to negotiations. And as I’ve said before, I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause.

Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.

Having said that, I think that dealing with Iran’s potential nuclear capacity is something that we should be doing even if there already was peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I think that pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace is something that is in Israel’s security interests and the United States’ national security interests, even if Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. They’re both important, and we have to move aggressively on both fronts.

And I think that, based on my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he agrees with me that they’re both important. That’s not to say that he’s not making a calculation — as he should — about what are some of the most immediate threats to Israel’s security, and I understand that. But, look, imagine how much less mischief a Hezbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief, and vice-versa. I mean, so obviously these things are — are related, but they are important separately.

And I’m confident that the United States working with Israel can make progress on both fronts.

Q Thank you.

PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: We’ve had extraordinarily friendly and constructive talks here today. And I’m very grateful to you, Mr. President, for that.

We want to move peace forward. And we want to ward off the great threats. There isn’t a policy linkage. And that’s what I hear the president saying. And that’s what I’m saying too and I’ve always said.

There’s not a policy linkage between pursuing simultaneously peace, between Israel and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, and trying to deal with removing the threat of a nuclear Iran.

There are causal links. The president talked about one of them. It would help obviously unite a broad front, against Iran, if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely if Iran went nuclear it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area and threaten the existing peace agreement.

So it’s very clear to us. I think we actually — we don’t see closely on this. We see exactly eye to eye on this that we want to move simultaneously and in parallel on two fronts: the front of peace and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities.

On the front of peace, the important thing for me is to resume negotiations as rapidly as possible. And to — my view is less one of terminology than one of substance.

I mean, I ask myself, what do we end up with? If we end up with another Gaza — the president just described, to you, those rockets falling out of Gaza — that is something we don’t want to happen. Because a terror base next to our cities that doesn’t call — recognize Israel’s existence, calls for our destruction and acts for our destruction is not our view of peace.

If however the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they — if they fight terror, they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two peoples to live side by side in security and peace.

And I add prosperity because I’m a great believer in this.

So I think the — the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding. And I think — I think we can move forward on this. I have great confidence in – in your leadership, Mr. President, and in your friendship to my country, and in your championing of peace and security. And the answer is both come together. Peace and security are intertwined. They’re inseparable. And I look forward, Mr. President, to working with you to achieve both.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good.

Thank you, everybody.

Canada Commemorates 60th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations with Israel
May 11, 2009

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today made the following statement commemorating 60 years of diplomatic relations between Canada and Israel:

“Today, we celebrate the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Israel. This is a milestone that reflects the breadth and depth of the links between two democratic allies. Canada values its long-standing relationship with Israel, which is based on shared values, common interests and strong political, economic, cultural and social ties. I was pleased to visit Israel earlier this year to launch the year-long celebration of this momentous occasion.

“Our relationship has strengthened in recent years, as evidenced by increased cooperation in several areas, including public security, defence, trade and investment, and an increase in political-level contact.

“One of the underlying strengths of the Canada-Israel relationship is the extensive network of informal links between our two countries. There are some 20,000 Canadian citizens living in Israel, and many Canadians have family there. The Canadian Jewish community is 350,000 strong and acts as an important bridge between Canada and Israel. These strong ties give rise to significant cooperation between our two countries in business, education, culture, philanthropy and tourism.

“To commemorate this important milestone, 2009 will bear witness to a number of diplomatic, cultural and academic events in Canada and Israel. For example, the Israeli Embassy recently organized an Israeli-Canadian literature evening at the Ottawa International Writers Festival. In the month of May, there will be musical performances at the International Pavilion, as part of the annual Canadian Tulip Festival in Ottawa.

“As we reflect on the past 60 years, we see the emergence and growth of a permanent bond between the two nations. As we consider the next 60 years and beyond, we see endless possibilities for Canada and Israel. We look forward to continued growth in our strong partnership with Israel.”

- 30 -

* * *

FM Liberman’s statement in recognition of 60 years of Israel-Canada relations
11 May 2009

FM Liberman expressed his appreciation of the long-term friendship, and emphasized the importance of the multi-faceted relationship

(Communicated by the Foreign Minister’s Bureau)

FM Liberman emphasized the importance of the friendship between Israel and Canada after 60 years of diplomatic relations .

FM Liberman described the importance that Israel imparts to the special friendship with Canada, noting that not only was Canada one of the 33 countries who voted for the establishment of the state in the UN on 29 November 1947, but that the Canadian representative also played a central role in the passing of the resolution.

Since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries on 11 May 1949, the relationship has grown and flourished. The close relationship of the two democracies is multi-faceted, and includes political, economic, social, cultural, legal and academic relations. These relations are based on mutual support of the values of freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law. FM Liberman emphasized the role of the Jewish community in Canada in the preservation and strengthening of the relationship.

The diverse relationship between the two countries is currently expressed by the free-trade agreement, the joint industrial R&D fund, and bilateral cooperation in many fields, including agricultural research, water treatment, internal security, legal cooperation, relationships between universities and cultural exchanges.

To mark the 60th anniversary of the bilateral relationship, various events emphasizing the special relationship are planned to take place in both Israel and Canada during the forthcoming year.

- 30 -