Israel and the Middle East News Update

Friday, October 21

Headlines:

 US, Egypt to Palestinians: Don’t Push UN Resolution Before Elections  US imposes Sanctions on Operatives, Financiers  Abbas Wants Fatah, PLO Leadership Elections Next Month  Poll: '46% of Palestinians Support a Jordan –Palestinian Confederation  Protestors in Amona: They’ll Need to Drag us From our Homes  Democrats Recruit Joe Lieberman to Target Florida Jews  Email Show Clinton keen to Patch Things Up with Netanyahu

Commentary:

 Yedioth Ahronoth: “ It’s Not Netanyahu, It’s You”  By Haim Ramon, former Minister in the Israeli Government  Al Monitor: “Why Human Rights NGOs are Losing Support of Israeli Public”  By Shlomi Eldar, columnist at Al Monitor

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 21, 2016 Ha’aretz US, Egypt to Pal’: Don’t Push UN Res. Before Elections Both Egypt and the United States have warned the Palestinian leadership not to advance any moves at the UN Security Council until after the U.S. presidential election next month, a senior Palestinian official told Ha’aretz on Thursday. Egypt currently holds a rotating seat on the Security Council and the U.S. is a permanent member. The messages were sent both directly and indirectly to the PA, through Western and Arab intermediaries. The messages stressed that until the U.S. election is over, Washington will veto any resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, including a denunciation of the settlements. See also “PALESTINIANS URGE UN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AGAINST SETTLEMENTS (AP)

Ynet News US imposes Sanctions on Hezbollah Operatives, Financiers The US government on Thursday sanctioned a Hezbollah commander and a number of other operatives and financiers linked to the militant group who it said were working to destabilize the Middle East. The US State Department, added Hezbollah commander Haytham Ali Tabatabai to its Specially Designated Global Terrorist list, which "imposes sanctions on foreign persons determined to have committed, or pose a serious risk of committing acts of terrorism." Tabatabai has commanded Hezbollah special forces, operated in Syria and is now believed to be in Yemen. His actions in Syria and Yemen "are part of a larger Hezbollah effort in destabilizing regional activities." See also, “US, Saudi Arabia blacklist Hezbollah members, financiers” (Times of )

Times of Israel Abbas Wants Fatah, PLO Leadership Elections Next Month Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is pushing for leadership elections in his Fatah movement and the PLO before the end of the year, as part of what senior officials say is largely an elaborate attempt to block the return of an exiled rival backed by several Arab states. Abbas’s decision to hold such elections is a response to growing Arab pressure to take back Mohammad Dahlan, a former top aide and millionaire businessman who in exile forged close ties with leaders of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and other countries in the region. See also, “SEEKING TO BLOCK RIVAL, ABBAS CALLS FOR FATAH, PLO ELECTIONS” (AP)

Jerusalem Post Poll: '46% of Pal. Support a Jordan –Pal. Confederation More Palestinians prefer the establishment of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation than a traditional two-state or one-state solution, a new public opinion poll has found. An-Najah National University in Nablus surveyed 1362 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 46% of Palestinians surveyed said they would support the establishment of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation on the basis of two states with strong institutional relations. In contrast, 36% of Palestinians said they would support the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. Only 22% of Palestinians support the creation of a state on 1967 borders with some land swaps.

2

Ynet News Protestors in Amona: They’ll Need to Drag us From Here Thousands of people attended a protest in the outpost of Amona on Thursday, calling on Prime Minister to resist the High Court’s decision to evacuate the settlement in two months’ time; the protest was attended by MKs from the Likud and Bayit Yehudi. A similar protest will also take place in the outpost of Ofra. “We’re going to fight for our home here, and they’re going to have to drag us from our homes,” said Avihai boaron, headquarters chairperson of the Fight for Amona. “If we find ourselves dealing with an evacuation, it won’t go over quietly. The protest rally took place as politicians from the right attempt to have the High Court postpone the evacuation. See also, “Far-right Minister Threatens to Topple Netanyahu Over Contested Settler Outpost” (Ha’aretz)

The Jewish Insider Democrats Recruit Joe Lieberman to Target Florida Jews The former senator spoke to Jewish seniors at Palm Beach Century Village and held a roundtable with rabbis and Jewish community leaders in Palm Beach, according to the Clinton campaign. He also spoke at a shul in Broward County. Jewish voters represent 3 to 6 percent of the electorate in Florida. Clinton is ahead by 3.8 percentage points in Florida. Jewish Insider has learned that Lieberman will be featured in a new highly targeted campaign kicking off this weekend by the “Jews for Progress” super PAC, aimed at Jewish voters who are still undecided or persuadable. According to a source with close knowledge of the upcoming activities, in the coming days, JFP will call more than 100,000 unique Jewish households in Florida and launch an online, email and social media campaign in an effort to replicate a successful campaign in 2012 in putting Florida in the Democratic column with the help of Jewish voters. See also “Clinton more reliable for Israel than Trump – and Obama, Lieberman says” (Jerusalem Post)

Times of Israel Email Show Clinton keen to Patch Things with Netanyahu Hillary Clinton’s plan to meet Israel’s prime minister in her first month as president is listed high in an internal campaign memo outlining the priorities of her first 100 days — a sign of how important it is to repair bilateral tensions. he campaign’s determination to distance itself from President Barack Obama’s difficult relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu is seeded throughout emails stolen from her campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account and dumped in recent weeks by WikiLeaks. (Podesta is one of the officials CC’d on the first 100 days memo.) The leaked emails offer a glimpse of the sausage-making of a presidential candidate’s policies when it comes to Israel, the Iran deal and the boycott Israel movement — sometimes spicy, sometimes bland and sometimes hard to swallow.

3

Yedioth Ahronoth– October 21, 2016 It’s Not Netanyahu, It’s You By Haim Ramon

 After Binyamin Netanyahu became prime minister for the second time, in March 2009, he and the late , who was president at the time, had a political love affair. After urging Netanyahu to resume peace negotiations, Peres became convinced that there was a good chance that the prime minister would lead Israel to an arrangement. Following the Bar Ilan speech that Netanyahu gave in June 2009, in which he declared his ostensible commitment to the two-state solution, and following [Peres’s] conversations with Netanyahu and his wife Sara, Peres believed that Netanyahu had changed his spots and would act differently from his first term as prime minister.  At that time, I met with Peres regularly. “Bibi realizes that the reality compels him to make history. What happened to Begin and Sharon is happening to him,” he told me over and over. He insisted that Netanyahu had undergone a turnabout: From a person who was not willing to make any territorial concessions, he had become a pragmatic leader who sought to end the conflict with the Palestinians and was willing to take the main step necessary for this, meaning—to give up the 1967 territories, subject to a land swap that would leave the settlement blocs in Israel’s hands. Knowing Netanyahu’s firm ideological commitment to the vision of the greater Israel, I was convinced that Peres’s forecast would be disproved. I knew that Netanyahu was not changing his ideology in order to survive, but was rather making an effort to survive in order to implement his ideology.  I said repeatedly to Peres: “Bibi won’t sign any arrangement with the Palestinians. He is fooling you. He is fundamentally opposed to the two-state solution and will not give up a single inch of the 1967 territories.” […]  The arguments between us reached very high tones at times, but to no avail. Peres became Netanyahu’s advocate in Israel and throughout the world. Peres explained on every possible platform that Netanyahu was working sincerely to reach a peace arrangement with the Palestinians. In one meeting, Peres revealed that Netanyahu had permitted him to conduct secret negotiations with Abu Mazen. I stuck to my guns: “That won’t happen, there won’t be an agreement,” but Peres believed that it was not him but me who was clinging to a mistaken preconception of Netanyahu.  One hot summer day, Peres’s hopes were crushed. On July 28, 2011 he was supposed to sign a diplomatic declaration of principles with Abu Mazen in Amman. Peres’s driver had already started the car in order to leave for the Jordanian capital, but then, at the 11 th hour, Peres received a phone call from Netanyahu instructing him to remain in the President’s Residence, on the pretext that the time was not yet ripe to sign an agreement. Once again the same old Netanyahu was revealed, who shuns any chance of reaching an arrangement.  It should be said to Peres’s credit that since that day, his illusions regarding Netanyahu vanished for once and for all. It should be said to his detriment that in spite of this, he refrained from criticizing Netanyahu publicly—not only during his term as president but also afterwards. In the two years after he stopped serving as president, Peres leveled sharp

4

criticism at Netanyahu in private meetings, but in public he maintained his silence. He refrained from revealing his opinion that that Netanyahu was leading Israel to destruction, hastening its end as a Jewish and democratic state and isolating it from the family of nations. This does not, of course, contradict my high esteem for the man and his work. Didn’t learn from Peres’s experience  Peres’s bitter experience with Netanyahu should have been seared into the consciousness of other leaders from the Zionist left wing and the center, and should have taught them that Netanyahu is an integral part of the extreme right wing. But this did not happen. To this day, the center-left leaders continue to delude themselves and the public that if they cooperate with Netanyahu, it will be possible to reach a peace arrangement with the Palestinians.  This is what did after his colossal failure in the 2009 elections. He gave Netanyahu legitimacy, provided him with a moderate image and explained the fact that he joined the coalition by saying that he and Netanyahu would lead a peace process together. He continued to cling to Netanyahu even after it was clear that the diplomatic stalemate was ongoing, and that the number of settlers outside the settlement blocs had grown by several dozen percent. […]  Next in line was Yair Lapid, who after the 2013 election decided in favor of a government headed by Netanyahu. Lapid, who is an avowed supporter of the two-state solution, also created an “alliance of brothers” with Naftali Bennett and handed over to the Jewish Home all the key positions in the government pertaining to settlements. This way, Lapid fortified the future of the settlements, the goal of which is to prevent a two-state solution. Today too, within the opposition, Lapid refrains from attacking Netanyahu for his adherence to the diplomatic status quo, and does not present a plan for saving the Jewish and democratic state, which Netanyahu is busy destroying.  , as leader of Hatnua, also joined the coalition headed by Netanyahu in 2013, and contributed her share to preserving the groundless preconception that Netanyahu is a partner to a peace process. She deluded herself that there was a point to giving Netanyahu another chance, and conducted peace negotiations in his name, which ended in nothing, of course. This was, among other reasons, because Netanyahu refused—as he has done since then—to give consent in principle to any territorial concession.  Buji Herzog, the opposition leader, now works incessantly to join the government, on the grounds that Netanyahu wishes to lead diplomatic initiatives that are contingent upon having Herzog join the government. How ridiculous. The behavior of Herzog and Lapid completely crushes the political opposition to Netanyahu. The role of the opposition is to show his real face: The face of a leader who is opposed to establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside a Jewish and democratic Israel. But in the face of Netanyahu, who is leading Israel to bi-national apartheid, Herzog and Lapid offer a great vacuum.  Netanyahu is the standard bearer of the bi-national camp that wishes to create a greater Israel in which there will be more Palestinians than Jews between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. For example, he recently said at the Herzliya Conference that he would not give up a single inch of the West Bank territories. This is his real position. But unlike others in the bi-national camp, such as Bennett, Netanyahu creates a smokescreen around his 5

positions so as not to lose the support of the public, a majority of which favors a two-state solution. Arranging chairs on the Titanic  As long as the senior members of the Zionist left and center refrain from confronting Netanyahu and cooperate with him, they are abusing their role as leaders of the Jewish state camp. This camp is opposed to turning Israel into a bi-national apartheid state and wants a Jewish state. However, Netanyahu’s collaborators in the center-left are not working to mobilize public opinion to discuss this fateful issue and are contributing to pushing urgent foreign policy issues to the margins of the public discourse. The campaigns run by Lapid and Herzog in the latest election campaign, which focused on social-economic questions, illustrate this well.  Barak and Livni: Yes, you are at fault, for cooperating with Netanyahu’s diplomatic illusions. Lapid and Herzog: Yes, you continue to sin. You prefer to spend your time arranging the chairs on the Titanic instead of fighting for the helm of the State of Israel’s ship, which is about to crash on the iceberg of bi-nationalism.  Our wish for the new year should be that Israel will have a party and leaders that work to save Jewish Israel. Haim Ramon is a former Minister in the Israeli Government

SUMMARY: It should be said to Peres’s credit that since that day, his illusions regarding Netanyahu vanished for once and for all. It should be said to his detriment that in spite of this, he refrained from criticizing Netanyahu publicly—not only during his term as president but also afterwards. In the two years after he stopped serving as president, Peres leveled sharp criticism at Netanyahu in private meetings, but in public he maintained his silence. He refrained from revealing his opinion that that Netanyahu was leading Israel to destruction, hastening its end as a Jewish and democratic state and isolating it from the family of nations. This does not, of course, contradict my high esteem for the man and his work. Peres’s bitter experience with Netanyahu should have been seared into the consciousness of other leaders from the Zionist left wing and the center, and should have taught them that Netanyahu is an integral part of the extreme right wing. But this did not happen. To this day, the center-left leaders continue to delude themselves and the public that if they cooperate with Netanyahu, it will be possible to reach a peace arrangement with the Palestinians.

6

Al Monitor– October 20, 2016 Why Human Rights NGOs are Losing Support of Israeli Public By Shlomi Eldar

 The speech delivered by B’Tselem executive director Hagai El-Ad at the UN Security Council Oct. 14 generated a political storm last week in Israel. While the angry responses did not surprise anyone, bad timing contributed to the public furor: The speech was delivered only 24 hours after UNESCO passed a resolution that denies the connection of the Jewish people to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall in Jerusalem.  Between the lines, in his reactions to the speech, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compared the B’Tselem activists to traitors and threw all the Israeli human rights organizations to the dogs. But beyond Netanyahu’s anger and his irresponsible attacks against B’Tselem, El-Ad’s speech raised all the main issues that concern Israeli society regarding these organizations. Is it legitimate for Israeli sources to express criticism of the occupation and the enlarging of settlements in an international forum? Have the organizations’ key activists crossed redlines in their human rights activities and entered the domain of governmental political activity? And finally, are the organizations investing their efforts on the global front because they have lost all hope of generating change in Israeli public opinion?  Following the attack on him, El-Ad explained in a Haaretz article that “the world’s intervention against the occupation is legitimate, like any issue connected to human rights. This is all the more true with regard to an issue like our control over another nation: This is not an internal Israeli issue. It is clearly an international one.”  Most of the human rights activists agree with this position. They believe that the continuation of the 50-year-old occupation, with no end in sight, is not a purely political-governmental issue, but clearly an issue of the violation of human rights. To their critics they respond that even Netanyahu, who likes to belittle the UN, stands up year after year to deliver a speech at the General Assembly meeting. In addition, all the right-wing movements have international departments and send their representatives to Jewish communities throughout the world in order to present their worldviews and the importance of Jewish settlement in all parts of the land of Israel (term used by the right wing for Israel and the West Bank). How can this be permitted to the prime minister and right-wing activists, yet forbidden to left-wing organizations?  The Peace Now movement was also invited to the discussion in the Security Council on the Israeli occupation, but the movement heads decided not to participate. Peace Now director Avi Buskila told Al-Monitor that they turned down the invitation because they felt that the damage caused by their appearance at the discussion would outweigh any possible advantages. He said, “My theory is that we need to operate within Israeli society. We did not participate because we didn’t want an Israeli representative at the discussion out of the concern that we will alienate the [Israeli] public, and will be difficult for them to listen to us afterwards. Now our

7

goal is a discourse within Israeli society, most of which does not support annexation of the territories. I am not partner to the presumption that the Israeli public has lost its ability to wield influence; the contrary is true. Most do not support annexation of the territories.”  The organization that absorbs the worst attacks in Israel, mainly due to its activities on the global stage, is Breaking the Silence, which collects testimonies of Israel Defense Forces soldiers who served in the West Bank. Avner Gvaryahu, in charge of the overseas activities of the organization, told Al-Monitor that Breaking the Silence has definitely not given up on trying to influence Israeli public opinion. He said that in this last year, almost all of Breaking the Silence’s planned events in Israel were accompanied by the pressure to cancel. Sometimes, security officers were hired to protect the participants. “If we thought we have no chance of convincing the Israeli public about ending the occupation, we wouldn’t be trudging from event to event and fighting for our rights to be heard everywhere that people want to hear us,” Gvaryahu said. He added that despite the attacks on them and the attempt to categorize them as traitors, the recent year was a record year in their educational work.  According to Gvaryahu, “Since the occupation is not only an internal Israeli issue, we also operate on the global arena as well. I myself spoke at the UN two years ago. Does that mean that I am a traitor? Certainly not. It is a legitimate platform, and the Security Council is a relevant group. It is important that information reach them, too.” Gvaryahu held a series of lectures and meetings this past year on American campuses, with the goal of showing that large sections of the Israeli public oppose the occupation policy. “It is clear to us that the decision to end the occupation will be taken in Jerusalem and not on the campuses, but it doesn’t happen because of the blind support provided by American Jewish communities to Israel, sometimes due to lack of knowledge as to what is taking place in the territories. That is why it is up to us to bring the data to them.”  Whether the Security Council is an appropriate place for a discussion on the issue is certainly a controversial topic, even among human rights organizations. One thing is clear: The activities of these organizations on the international stage is clear proof to the world that the entire Israeli public does not support the continuation of the occupation, and this voice must be heard. The Peace Now director said that while the public understands that the vision of the two-state solution must be realized, there are barriers to that vision due to legitimate fears that must not be belittled. “I grew up in the Galilee [a northern Israeli region near the Lebanese border], and when my mother said she was afraid of the katyusha [rockets], she really was afraid. We must invest most of our resources in dismantling this fear and explain that an agreement or diplomatic process is inevitable. Yes, a price will be paid. What will be the price? The dismantling of the settlements. But there will also be benefits.”  However, despite these words, it is clear that the Israeli public is not only concerned about the security-related issues connected to a political agreement, but also the one-sided, unbalanced UN resolutions that are sometimes even outrageous.  In the Security Council, El-Ad claimed that he came as a worried Israeli. He was probably aware that he took a huge wager — that his organization might lose another segment of Israeli public opinion as a result. But let us remember another incident: the dissemination of the B’Tselem video in March that documented the shooting of a neutralized terrorist by soldier 8

Elor Azaria in Hebron. Thus, the organization has indeed demonstrated to Israelis and the world the reality of the occupation much more clearly than any speech delivered by an Israeli representative on the same platform in New York. Shlomi Eldar is a columnist for Al-Monitor’s Israel Pulse.

SUMMARY: The Peace Now movement was also invited to the discussion in the Security Council on the Israeli occupation, but the movement heads decided not to participate. “Peace Now” director Avi Buskila told Al-Monitor that they turned down the invitation because they felt that the damage caused by their appearance at the discussion would outweigh any possible advantages. He said, “My theory is that we need to operate within Israeli society. We did not participate because we didn’t want an Israeli representative at the discussion out of the concern that we will alienate the [Israeli] public, and will be difficult for them to listen to us afterwards. Now our goal is a discourse within Israeli society, most of which does not support annexation of the territories. I am not partner to the presumption that the Israeli public has lost its ability to wield influence; the contrary is true. Most do not support annexation of the territories.”

9