Israel

The Teachers Union of Ireland voted last week to commence a full boycott of Israel. At its Annual Congress on Thursday 4th April 2013, the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) became the first academic union in Europe to endorse the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel. The motion, which refers to Israel as an “apartheid state”, calls for “all members to cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes” was passed by a unanimous vote during today’s morning session. Now, in the exchange of "scientists, students, and academic personalities" between Ireland and Israel it is perhaps not so difficult to guess who benefits. Israel is a world leader is science and high-tech, and any exchange must be entirely one-sided. So what the teachers have done is to cut themselves off from knowledge and advancement. Far worse, of course, they have deliberately tried to cut their students off. The head of the Teachers Union, Jim Roche, added this comment: Mr. Roche pointed to the desperate situation of Palestinian education under occupation saying that: “Palestinians are struggling for the right to education under extremely difficult conditions. They are eager for it, as shown by the large numbers of students in third level education inside and outside the occupied Palestinian territories. Education has always been a target of the Israeli occupation...." A few facts. When Israel took over the West Bank in 1967 literacy was about 88 percent; now it is about 93 percent, according to the CIA Factbook. In Jordan, just across the river and with a large Palestinian population, it is almost exactly the same--which suggests that Israeli "targeting" of education isn’t working too well, or more likely that Mr. Roche is simply motivated by ignorance and hatred of Israel. It is also the case that according to UNICEF, the youth literacy rate in Jordan is 99 percent and in Gaza and the West Bank it is exactly the same, 99 percent. This is despite the fact that per capita income in Jordan is twice as high as it is in the West Bank and Gaza, suggesting again that Israeli "targeting" of education is a nonsensical accusation. One could pile statistic upon statistic, but that would be a vain effort when it comes to minds like those of the members of  the Teachers Union of Ireland, who voted unanimously on the boycott; not one soul had the wit or independence of mind to object or to question. One can only pity the poor Irish student who might think for himself or for herself, might wish to spend a term in Israel at a place like the Technion, and might not share in the biases of the teachers. The message from teachers to students is pretty clearly "shut up." And meanwhile, of course, no mention (much less boycott) by the Irish teachers of China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba or anyplace else where students are "struggling for the right to education under extremely difficult conditions" that include repressive governments, no academic freedom, political tests for admission to higher education--and in the Saudi case greatly restricted opportunities for girls. What a lesson to their students: ignorance, bias, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and anti-Semitism wrapped in self-righteousness.

Last Saturday (March 30) Israel took a large step toward energy independence, as natural gas from the smaller of its newly discovered Mediterranean gas fields began to flow. By the end of this decade Israel will not only be supplying its own needs fully, but exporting natural gas to the world market. It will be able to supply itself for at least 50 years and perhaps three times as long--reducing its energy costs, improving its environment, making the cost of production lower, and increasing prosperity and state revenues. This natural gas supply more than replaces what Israel used to receive from Egypt, but Egypt has become an unreliable supplier for Israel (and for Jordan as well). Of course another country has in recent years begun to move from energy dependence to independence, from importer to exporter--our own. And these facts about both Israel and the United States will have lasting and significant geopolitical ramifications. Israel had already become an economic success story, the "start-up nation," and its success will be reinforced--while around it are political and economic failures like Egypt and Syria, and energy-needy Jordan. The natural supplier of energy for Jordan and any eventual Palestinian state is Israel, a fact that would change the nature of their relationships. In a region where instability is spreading, a stable, increasingly wealthy, powerful Israel will grow in value as an American ally. Our own relationships with Gulf oil producers like Saudi Arabia were built not on political or cultural affinity but on our dependence on their oil exports. We did not pay attention to what Saudi kings said because we thought they were wise men, but solely because their country was the world’s leading oil exporter. It is true that there is one global price for oil and it matters to us, and true that we have many allies still dependent on Gulf oil. But when we are no longer dependent, the relationship changes; it becomes less intimate, and Saudi influence in Washington must decline over the years.  We will also have to rethink the way we deploy our military over the coming decades, for the need to protect oil supplies has been more important over the last 50 years than it will be in the next 50. Much that happens in the Middle East appears far more consequential than it really is, creating headlines but no real change. The American and Israeli discoveries of vast amounts of natural gas that will allow both countries to become energy exporters is a different sort of event: more dramatic than it may at first appear, and far more significant in reshaping relationships in that region.

President Obama spoke at a press conference in Ramallah today and then gave a major speech in Jerusalem. I’ve analyzed what the President said in Ramallah in National Review, and discussed his Jerusalem speech in The Weekly Standard. Briefly, he abandoned his previous position on settlements, now calling them unhelpful rather than illegitimate and urging the PLO to go back to the table without a settlement freeze as a precondition. He used tough language on Iran but was vague about Syria. He was very sympathetic and supportive of Israel, but placed most of the burden on the Israelis to make peace--despite Palestinian rejection of previous Israeli peace offers and the unstable situation in the Arab world. Whether he really thinks there will be movement on the negotiations is unclear, but I did note that he said his new Secretary of State would spend a lot of time and energy on this subject; he did not say he would do so himself. Perhaps that answers the question.  

President Obama heads off to the Middle East just days after the new Israeli government’s formation. I was interviewed today by CFR.org on what the makeup of Israel’s new government will mean for the peace process, Iran, and domestic Israeli politics. You can watch the video embedded below, read excerpts from it here, or view it on YouTube here.  http://youtu.be/nI5edOktKzY Meanwhile, yesterday, I previewed President Obama’s visit to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan in an interview with Bernard Gwertzman. I’ve posted the transcript of that interview below: President Barack Obama’s first trip to Israel as president aims to reassure Israelis that he is a friend, says CFR Senior Fellow Robert M. Danin. "The visit is a restoration visit, it’s a restoring of bilateral relations between the United States and Israel, and between the United States and the Palestinian Authority," says Danin, speaking from Israel. Still, he says, there are very low expectations from the Palestinian side about the visit, which will also include Jordan. Danin notes that the new Israeli government that was formed on the eve of Obama’s visit is such a broad coalition that there are major pitfalls for Prime Minister Netanyahu, especially on the Palestinian issue. President Obama makes his first trip to Israel as president, arriving on Wednesday. He will meet a new Israeli government with many new faces, but one with Benjamin Netanyahu still serving as prime minister. Is it an important trip or more of a good will mission? The president wanted to come to Israel early in his presidency and early in the new prime ministership of Benjamin Netanyahu before there would be a sense that he needed to produce an outcome from the visit. Early on in his term and the term of the new Israeli government he could come to really recalibrate the bilateral relationship, and that’s really what this visit is about. It’s an opportunity to re-orient the relationship after a very rocky first term for the president. He’s coming to help convince the Israeli people that he actually is a friend of Israel. That said, there are issues to discuss with the Israeli government, and there are three key issues that he wants to talk about with the Israelis. First and foremost is Iran; second are the developments in Syria; and third are the traditional issues of peace with the Palestinians. Let’s talk about Iran. Netanyahu is not very happy with the results of recent nuclear talks in Kazakhstan, although others seemed more upbeat about the talks because they’re going to meet again on April 5. What is your sense on the two sides’ view on Iran? The public message from the president is: "People of Israel, I understand the threat; I am on top of this, don’t worry, trust me." The private message to the Israeli government is: "Don’t jam me, give me time, I’m pursuing both very rigorous sanctions and other means towards pressuring the Iranians and I’m exploring whether or not there’s a deal to be had." And on Syria, there’s not much difference, is there? No. Syria is actually one where there are a lot of analytical and operational convergences. There are some operational concerns about Syria’s weapons of mass destruction, and the effect that Syria’s civil war is having on the rest of the region. The Israelis are primarily worried about Syria’s WMDs falling into the wrong hands, as well as the refugee issue and the humanitarian crisis now that more than a million refugees have been created by the bloodshed and civil war. Given that Israel is Syria’s neighbor and there has already been some spillover from Syria onto its neighbors, there’s a lot to talk about it with the United States, even if there aren’t great policy differences. Indeed, the Israelis share many of the Obama administration’s concerns about radical elements within the Syrian opposition and what will happen to Syria in the post-Assad era. Let’s talk now a bit more about Palestinian peace talks, which got nowhere in the first term of Obama’s presidency. There’s now a new government taking over in Israel. Do you get the sense in Israel that there is a desire for more flexibility? When it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, the United States has significantly downplayed this issue and lowered expectations, so that nobody is expecting the president to come here with a plan or even any sort of initiative to move forward. He’s going to likely stress the importance of this issue in his public remarks, but in private discussions I don’t think he’s going to present a plan although he may outline some aspirations for his second term and some steps that he’d like to see both sides take in the short term to try to improve the environment and get back to negotiations. But the visit is a restoration visit; it’s a restoring of bilateral relations between the United States and Israel, and between the United States and the Palestinian Authority. One thing that’s very interesting is that the president is going to visit the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Israel Museum, and that’s a very symbolic and a very important move. One of the criticisms leveled against the president is that in his previous speeches, he always rooted his discussions about Israel in terms of the Holocaust, and Israel as the haven for the Jewish people as a result of the Holocaust. Israelis took issue with this, because they felt that it shortchanged the real, more fundamental reason for Israel, which is the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. And by visiting the Dead Sea scrolls, which is the most tangible physical manifestation of the ancient Jewish presence in the land of Israel, he’s shifting the narrative and acknowledging that in fact Israel was about the Jewish people’s connection to this area, and not just as a safe haven from persecution in the twentieth century. Is there any indication from the American side that they have now altered their views of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which in the first term led to constant fights with the Israelis? Settlements have been an issue between the United States and every Israeli government, and the American position has treated the settlements as everything from illegal to unhelpful. And the degree to which Israel and the United States have agreed to disagree on this has varied, but there’s always been a core disagreement about the issue of settlement activity. What is the mood of the Palestinian leadership under Mahmoud Abbas? There’s no excitement really about the president’s visit. Again, this is the product of the United States successfully lowering expectations, so I’d characterize the Palestinian public mood—and I did visit the West Bank and meet with Palestinian leaders and people—as largely apathetic about the visit at the popular level. At the governmental level there’s always a hope that the visit will invigorate a renewed effort. And he’s going to Jordan also. Is the Jordan trip an important visit? For Jordan this visit is very important. I’ve spoken to Jordanian officials about it and it comes on the heels of Jordan just having finished a new election and the king unfurling a whole series of reform measures. In many ways the visit is meant to pay tribute to Jordan for having undertaken these reform efforts, as well as recognizing the economic pressures that Jordan faces—the fact that Jordan is on the frontline with Syria and facing a real serious challenge as a result of the influx of thousands of refugees. And finally, to reassure the Jordanians that the United States is still very attentive to the peace process, which is something the Jordanians are very concerned about because they are always fearful that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians will somehow spill over and affect their own stability. Let’s talk about the new Israeli government, because besides Netanyahu, it’s led by two younger public faces that most Americans don’t know anything about. One is Yahir Lapid and the other is Naftali Bennett. We are seeing a fascinating story unfold. The Israeli elections were held on January 22, and in the intervening two months there’s been an effort to put together a coalition government. And what happened was that the two parties—Yesh Atid, led by Yair Lapid, and HaBait Yehudi, the Jewish Home, led by Naftali Bennett—formed an alliance after the election against Netanyahu. In putting themselves together they exerted a great deal of pressure on Netanyahu and were successful in extracting major concessions in terms of the government formation. What’s so interesting about it is that these two parties represent an alliance between secular middle class Israel and what I call the national religious Israelis. Yair Lapid is the liberal, and Naftali Bennett represents the national religious camp, the people who are religious and right wing but who are very much part of the Israeli mainstream—distinct from the ultra-Orthodox, who do not participate in Israeli national life; they do not go to the Army, and many of them do not work. They really live outside of the Israeli mainstream and yet reap many of the benefits of being part of Israel. So what you have now is a government that does not have the ultra-Orthodox in it for the first time in over ten years. You have this alliance that was formed between a center-left secular party under Lapid and a right-wing nationalist religious but modern Orthodox party of the right against Netanyahu. What that means is that you have a government that has formed an alliance about the need to address some of Israel’s social problems, the biggest agenda item being to equalize responsibility for national service and national participation. The effort is to try to pass legislation that will require the ultra-Orthodox to do national service in the army or elsewhere, and to really bear their share of the burden. This is kind of a victory for middle Israel, if you will. What’s interesting is that when it comes to foreign policy you have inside the coalition a huge range of opinions. So whereas the previous Israeli government had been solidly right-wing, this is a government that is much more diverse It means that you have the Likud Party that Netanyahu heads, which has become more hawkish and right-wing, but also Lapid, who insisted that one of his requirements to come into the coalition was the reinvigoration of the peace process with the Palestinians. You also have the party headed by Tzipi Livni, who ran on a platform of a two-state solution with the Palestinians. So there’s going to be a real tension inside the government between Netanyahu’s own party, which is allied with Bennett on this issue and will be very hostile to any concessions with the Palestinians, and then Lapid and Livni on the other hand, really wanting a peace process. Is Netanyahu stronger or weaker? I’d say that overall, Prime Minister Netanyahu has emerged from these elections politically weaker than he had been prior to the election. The outcome of the elections was a blow to him and his party, and the fact that he’s had to make all of these concessions in forming the coalition has weakened him further. The expectation in Israel is that this government is not going to be durable. It’s going to have sixty-eight seats—you require sixty to have a majority, so sixty-eight is not that strong a majority. It means that any one party can pretty much bring down the government.  

The President leaves for Israel tomorrow. Here are eight suggestions for what he should say when there. No doubt his speechwriters could improve on the language, but these are thoughts it would be very useful for him to express. Such statements would have a serious impact in Israel and in the entire Middle East. Of course, it would be even better if these thoughts really reflected the President’s views and policies. Appreciating Israel: This is not my first trip to Israel nor is it my last. I look forward to the day when, as a former President, I can come here with my children to show them the land of the Bible—and show them the miracles that have been created here by your hands since 1948. Getting the History Right: The ties of the Jewish people to this land go back thousands of years, and on Monday millions of Jews in Israel and out will repeat at Passover seders what their forbears said while living in exile century after century: “Next Year in Jerusalem.” Understanding and Standing by Israel: I understand that, of all the nations of the earth, only Israel faces threats to its very existence and still faces neighbors who refuse to recognize its existence. That is why my administration has maintained with Israel the closest intelligence and military cooperation ever. And only one nation faces an unending barrage of one-sided, unfair attacks in the United Nations system month after month. As long as I am president, we will consider standing by Israel to fight off military and diplomatic attacks not as a burden but as an honor. Noting the Neighborhood: The United States will use its all influence to maintain the peace treaties you have with Jordan and Egypt. And we will work together closely with you to prevent the carnage in Syria, and the assembly of terrorists gathering there, from flowing over your border or from destabilizing Lebanon or Jordan. Crediting Israel: I know that Israelis long for peace, and have made effort after effort to achieve it—most recently in the offers your leaders made to the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008. I regret that those offers were rejected and I understand that Israel does not share the blame for this. Resuming Pragmatic Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations: Nothing should be allowed to prevent Israeli and Palestinian negotiators from resuming their work. Even if a comprehensive peace is not possible during my period as president, progress is: an improvement in the way Israelis and Palestinians share this land between the Jordan River and the Sea, and work together to provide prosperity and security for both populations. Warning Iran: Let me say to the rulers of Iran what I have said in Washington, and now repeat from Jerusalem: while I am president you will never get a nuclear weapon. All the sacrifices you are making will be in vain, because the United States will prevent you from reaching that goal. What lies ahead for Iran may be an agreement, or other, much worse alternatives—but not possession of a nuclear weapon. Remaining in the Fight Against Terrorism: The United States is withdrawing forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are not withdrawing from the ideological and the military battle against Islamic extremists and terrorists. In this you and we are the closest of allies and will remain so. Our enemy is not a religion, but extremists who would use violence to impose their rule and their religious views on others. Together we will remain in this struggle, for as many years as it takes. The President should read the George W. Bush speech to the Knesset in 2008; that is the competition he is up against. But I believe these eight points would take him very far toward persuading many Israelis that he wants bilateral relations to be vastly better in his second term than they were in his first.  

President Obama travels to Israel to deliver a message of reassurance on the alliance, but will be meeting a new government divided on the Palestinian peace process, says CFR’s Robert Danin.