Israel and the News Update

Wednesday, October 19

Headlines:  Faces Stiff Fight Next Week Over UNESCO Vote on  Palestinian Envoy: UNESCO Vote About ‘Occupation’, Not Temple Mount  Bachar Report: Israel Was Unprepared for 2014 Tunnel Threat  Israel to Assist Egypt's Fragile Economy  19 Year-Old Palestinian Killed in Attempt to Stab Police Officers  200 Women Demand Peace Deal on Israel’s Lebanese Border  Turkey Expects Up to 400,000 to Flee Mosul

Commentary:  Al-Monitor: “Obama’s Three Diplomatic Options for Mideast Peace”  By Uri Savir, Honorary President, Peres Center for Peace  New York Times: “Israel Knows That Putin Is the Middle East's New Sheriff”  By Shmuel Rosner, Political Editor, Jewish Journal

S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace 633 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 www.centerpeace.org ● Yoni Komorov, Editor ● David Abreu, Associate Editor

News Excerpts October 19, 2016

Jerusalem Post Israel Faces Stiff Fight Next Week Over UNESCO Vote on J'lem Prime Minister is set to contact many of the leaders of 21 member nations of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee Executive Board in hopes of swaying them not to support next week’s vote on a resolution that ignores Jewish ties to the Temple Mount. Israel’s Ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama-Hacohen said that Israel faced a stiff battle before that committee because it’s composed of countries with a history of voting against Israel. See also, “Despite UNESCO Vote on Jerusalem, Israel Hails Small Step Forward” (Times of Israel)

Ha’aretz Palestinian Envoy: UN Vote About Occupation, Not Al-Aqsa A Palestinian representative to UNESCO defended on Tuesday the omission of any reference to Jewish claims to the Temple Mount in a contentious resolution passed last week about Jerusalem. Mounir Anastas told reporters the vote was "about occupation." Israel has protested the resolution's failure to include any reference to the site where al-Aqsa Mosque stands as revered by Jews as the Temple Mount, or the site where two ancient temples once stood. Elias Sanbar, a second Palestinian representative to the organization, said that Jordan had "wanted" to include the Jewish reference.

Israel Radio News Bachar Report: Israel Was Unprepared for 2014 Tunnel Threat A military source said the IDF investigation into the tunnels on the Gaza border demonstrated that the IDF had been aware of the tunnels’ existence but had not realized the severity of the threat they posed. The investigation found that the brigades were not prepared to handle the tunnels in the course of fighting, certainly not on the scale discovered during Operation Protective Edge. The committee that conducted the investigation, headed by Maj. Gen. Yossi Bachar, found many flaws in the army’s preparations in planning the operational orders and in coordinating between the various units. Among other things, the report stated that the enemy’s control and command systems and its rocket array operated continuously up until the last day of the fighting. See also, “IDF Probe: Army Failed to Internalize, Train for Tunnel Threat” (Times of Israel)

Ynet News Israel to Assist Egypt's Fragile Economy Israel is preparing for a series of large-scale projects with Egypt after many years of separation in economic cooperation between the two countries. The joint discussions on the projects reflect not only a rapprochement between the two countries, but also an urgent need for improved infrastructure in Egypt given the severe economic crisis that threatens the political stability of the country. After the signing of the 1979 peace agreement, economic cooperation between the two countries saw a significant boost, which was gradually reduced after Egypt expressed little interest in its renewal. See also, “Israel to Assist Boosting Egypt Economy” (BICOM)

2

Times of Israel 19 Year-Old Palestinian Killed in Attempt to Stab Police Officers A Palestinian woman allegedly attempted a stabbing attack at the Tapuah Junction, south of Nablus in the , Wednesday, and was shot dead by Israeli police. There were no injuries to Israeli security forces or civilians. “Attempted stabbing at Tapuah Junction,” the Israel Police tweeted. “A short while ago a female suspect approached Border Police officers at the scene holding a knife. When she failed to heed their calls to halt, they shot and neutralized her.” In a subsequent statement confirming the alleged attacker was killed, police said officers fired warning shots in the air before opening fire on her. They said she was 19 years old, from the nearby village of Asira ash-Shamaliya.

Ynet News 200 Women Demand Peace Deal on Israel’s Lebanese Border More than 200 women and several men took part in a rally on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border on Tuesday. The rally was organized by Women Wage Peace, a social movement working "to bring about a viable peace agreement," as their page states. After the rally, the women marched toward the northern town of Metula, raising signs that featured then prime minister Menachem Begin, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and US president Jimmy Carter sign the Israel- Egypt Peace Treaty in 1979, with the words "Yes. It's possible" written above. The organization is due to carry out another protest in front of the Prime Minister's House in Jerusalem on Wednesday.

Times of Israel Turkey Expects Up to 400,000 to Flee Mosul Turkish official says between 100,000 and 400,000 people could flee the fighting in Mosul and make their way toward Syria, Iraq’s Kurdish-administrated region or the border with Turkey. Kerem Kinik, head of the Turkish Red Crescent organization, tells The Associated Press on Wednesday that the “humanitarian aspect” of the Mosul operation had not been well thought out by the coalition forces. He warns that with more than 3 million people already displaced in Iraq, officials would struggle to cope with the exodus. Kinik says his organization was working with officials in northern Iraq and the Iraqi Red Crescent to help support humanitarian efforts there. Some 20 Turkish aid trucks had been dispatched to the region. New camps for up to 20,000 families are under construction by international aid agencies in northern Iraq and could be ready within a week. The Turkish official says he believes the refugees would mostly be “taken under control” within Iraq, but added that Turkey is prepared for a refugee influx. See also, “Turkey Joins Coalition for Mosul Operation” (Hurriyet Daily News)

3

Al-Monitor – October 16, 2016 Obama’s Three Diplomatic Options for Mideast Peace By Uri Savir  Both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships are opposed to policy moves by US President on a two-state solution. Obama is apparently going to make an announcement on US Middle East policy after the Nov. 8 elections, Al-Monitor has learned from a senior American diplomat in .  Currently, Obama is fully engaged in the election campaign on the side of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. He will do very little on the Middle East front, so as not to damage her chances among American Jewry. Suspicious that Obama will make a policy move on the region, 88 senators have signed a letter to the president asking him to veto any UN Security Council resolution that is not balanced. That letter was advanced by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC with some help by Democrat activists and by the pro-Israel pro-peace J Street lobbying organization. A senior official at J Street told Al-Monitor on the condition of anonymity that the organization conditioned its support of the letter on the wording “an unbalanced resolution.” Hence, the door is left open for a balanced US-sponsored Security Council resolution in the future.  Obama’s considerations in making a November declaration are based on his wishes to leave a Middle East policy legacy to his successor, thus avoiding a policy vacuum until the next administration takes over. Such a declaration will also set the record straight in relation to his own Middle East policy efforts.  According to the US diplomat in Tel Aviv, the White House and the State Department are weighing which policy measure to take, out of three possibilities.  The first is a presidential speech outlining a framework for a two-state solution along the lines of Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework. The second possibility is a presidential speech outlining a more regional approach, linking the coordination on the fight against the Islamic State together with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to a two-state solution process. A third possibility would be a US-sponsored Security Council resolution based on the US-proposed framework of spring 2015.  In any case, the US policy framework for a presidential speech will most probably consist of the following elements: a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps and stringent security arrangements within a two-state solution with Israeli military presence along the Jordan River and mutual recognition between the two states, including the recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. It will not include the right of return for Palestinian refugees, but a just and agreed solution to the Palestinian refugees, mainly through international compensation and the financing of the resettlement of refuges within the Palestinian state. Another important element would be regional cooperation and normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

4

 The senior US diplomat told Al-Monitor that the preferred option right now is for the president to outline a regional plan, with the Arab Peace Initiative and anti-regional terror as a basis.  Obviously, the nature of Obama’s actions will depend on the outcome of the elections. In the case of a Clinton victory, he will consult her and opt for a more cautious approach. The opposite is true for a Trump victory.  But while the Obama administration keeps looking into the possibility of a presidential declaration, no joy has been registered on the Palestinian side. On the contrary. Less than a month ago, the Palestinian delegation to the UN General Assembly returned to Ramallah with great anger and criticism at the American positions that were expressed to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas by Kerry at their Sept. 19 meeting in New York. The Palestinian leadership, although aware of the schism between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, believes that the Obama administration is fully on Israel’s side.  According to Abbas’ entourage, the Palestinian president objects to an Obama declaration, as he fears that most of its outline would be close to the Israeli positions. Abbas is especially concerned about possible American demands on Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state and American positions on the Palestinian refugees’ issues. He wants something more binding at the UN Security Council with a reasonable timeline to Palestinian statehood based on the 1967 lines.  And so the Palestinian Authority objects to any Obama presidential speech, while Israel objects to any planned Obama move in the UN Security Council. Netanyahu made this clear to the US president in their Sept. 21 meeting in New York. A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that Netanyahu will encourage pressure from Congress and the Jewish lobby in order to prevent a Security Council resolution, either by the or the French, on Palestinian state permanent status or the settlements. Contrary to a resolution, “a speech is just a speech,” he said.  But it’s still very possible that both sides will miss Obama. He is a fervent supporter of a fair two-state solution for both strategic and moral considerations. Strategically, he believes that this is the key for Israel to maintain its democratic character and its long-term security; morally, because he is opposed to the occupation of another people. Uri Savir has spent his professional life working on the strategies of peacemaking in Israel. In 1996, he established the Peres Center for Peace and is currently the center's honorary president.

Summary: According to the US diplomat in Tel Aviv, the White House and the State Department are weighing which policy measure to take, out of three possibilities. The first is a presidential speech outlining a framework for a two-state solution along the lines of Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework. The second possibility is a presidential speech outlining a more regional approach, linking the coordination on the fight against the Islamic State together with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to a two-state solution process. A third possibility would be a US-sponsored Security Council resolution based on the US-proposed framework of spring 2015.

5

New York Times – October 17, 2016 Israel Knows That Putin Is the Middle East's New Sheriff By Shmuel Rosner  JERUSALEM — In 2001, shortly after he was elected prime minister of Israel, traveled to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at the Kremlin.  According to Danny Ayalon, who was an adviser to the Israeli prime minister at the time, Mr. Putin, as is the habit of world leaders, urged Mr. Sharon to hand over territory in the West Bank to the Palestinians. Mr. Sharon, as is the habit of Israeli leaders, got tired of it. Israel, he said, is a tiny place, and for it to give away territory can be dangerous. On the other hand, he said, Russia is such a large country. So it might want to consider giving back the Kurile Islands, which Russia claimed from at the end of World War II. “Russia never cedes territory,” Mr. Putin supposedly retorted. “How else do you think it has gotten so big?”  Two years after that meeting, Mr. Sharon, who grew up speaking Russian, called Mr. Putin “a true friend of Israel.” His unmatched humor made it possible for him to say such things with straight face.  Mr. Putin has a similar ability to hide his true feelings. For evidence, see how he was able to string along the Obama administration over a plan for a cease-fire in Syria. For more evidence, see Russia’s recent announcement that the Kremlin plans to initiate a summit meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, in Moscow.  Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t speak Russian, yet he still seems to have found a common language with Mr. Putin, one he speaks even more fluently than Mr. Sharon. That should not be a surprise. Necessity breeds friendship. In Israel’s case, the Kremlin became a necessity for two very much related reasons: Russia’s growing presence in Middle East affairs and the simultaneous American withdrawal from the region. To put it bluntly, Israel trusts Russia’s intention to become a key player in the region more than it trusts the United States’ intention to stop that from happening.  Israel has long been a pawn in the great superpower game, and so we Israelis have occasionally suspected that the Russians have a sturdier backbone than the Americans. When it comes to foreign affairs, Russians often seem less sentimental and always seem more brutal. These aren’t necessarily virtues, but they are traits that other countries must keep in mind.  Nonetheless, not that long ago, Israel rarely questioned the United States’ basic commitment to contain Russia’s influence in the Middle East. The strategic arrangement was simple: Israel deals with the small dogs of the neighborhood, and the United States makes sure that no big dogs interfere to tip the balance against Israel.  Mr. Putin began challenging this arrangement years ago. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. In 2014, it invaded Crimea. And it got away with both. For Israel, this was not a sure sign that things were changing. Israel could still hope that the United States was letting Mr. Putin toy

6

around only with those countries that had the misfortune of residing too close to Russia’s borders.  Then, in the summer of 2015, Russia sent its armed forces to Syria. And while President Obama was still contemplating his response, Mr. Netanyahu boarded a flight to Moscow to meet with the Middle East’s new sheriff. The two leaders may have disagreed in their meeting, but Mr. Netanyahu was clearly recognizing that he had to deal with the Russians. In daringly supporting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Mr. Putin had sent a strong signal about Russia’s intentions. And with Russian warplanes flying not far from its northern border, Israel couldn’t ignore it.  For the Russian president, intervening in Syria and inviting talks between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas are ways to demonstrate Russia’s stature and annoy the United States. What better sign is there of Russia’s import when even longtime American allies, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel, consult with Mr. Putin? Secretary of State John Kerry tried to convene the Israeli and Palestinian leaders but failed. Mr. Putin can succeed, because he is the leader whose invitation Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu will find much harder to decline.  But that doesn’t mean that the proposal for Russia-backed peace talks is sincere.  Mr. Putin may pretend that he wants to advance peace in the Middle East, but as we have seen in recent months, an unstable region works better for him. He may pretend to want a diplomatic settlement to Syria’s civil war or to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but his allies in Syria — and Hezbollah — will do everything in their power to prevent any peaceful arrangement in Syria except for total victory for the Assad government and, likewise, to prevent any peaceful arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians.  Thus, Palestinian leaders are hardly enthusiastic about Mr. Putin’s initiative. They understand that Russia’s president has little interest in the plight of a people who lack political rights. Mr. Putin has little interest in a people who are irrelevant to making Russia more powerful. Yet they know that they still might have to play along. In the ladder of Middle East concerns, the Palestinians currently occupy the bottom rung.  Mr. Netanyahu is hardly more excited about a meeting with Mr. Abbas in Moscow. His motivations are no less calculated. It is less the Palestinians that he wants to engage by having talks, and more the Russians — and with them the Egyptians and the Saudis, who are also getting closer to Russia and to Israel, and are also wary of and disillusioned with the Obama administration.  All of this means that the next American administration will face a unique challenge in the Middle East. Rather than having to maintain American influence, Washington will have to regain it. For the next president, the challenge might be even more daunting: to make the region both more trusting and more fearful of her or him than it is of Mr. Putin. Shmuel Rosner is the political editor at The Jewish Journal, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, and a contributing opinion writer.

7

Summary: Nonetheless, not that long ago, Israel rarely questioned the United States’ basic commitment to contain Russia’s influence in the Middle East. The strategic arrangement was simple: Israel deals with the small dogs of the neighborhood, and the United States makes sure that no big dogs interfere to tip the balance against Israel. Mr. Putin began challenging this arrangement years ago. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. In 2014, it invaded Crimea. And it got away with both. For Israel, this was not a sure sign that things were changing. Israel could still hope that the United States was letting Mr. Putin toy around only with those countries that had the misfortune of residing too close to Russia’s borders. Then, in the summer of 2015, Russia sent its armed forces to Syria. And while President Obama was still contemplating his response, Mr. Netanyahu boarded a flight to Moscow to meet with the Middle East’s new sheriff.

8