Short Critical Summary: As Winter Ends, Temperatures Rise for Israel

The major theme that came through in my newspaper articles was that of rising temperatures and tensions for Israel. Twelve of my articles elude to such, as they summarize and highlight the major issues Israel is facing today. Numerous high-ranking officials in Israel's government have come under accusation and investigation for various misconducts, and many have subsequently resigned, been removed or suspended, contributing to the dark cloud that is covering the Israeli parliament. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval rating is at an all-time low of 3% (I don't even think George W. has seen an approval rating that low yet) and many are calling for him to be replaced. The Palestinian Fatah party, whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, was setting the table with American and Israeli officials for serious talk and action toward a peace plan, has formed a new "unity" or "coalition" government comprised of mostly Hamas (a known terrorist organization) leaders, and Israel has boycotted the new governemnt. This unity government also refuses to recognize Israel's right to existence and refuses to denounce violence and terrorism. Additionally, the commission report on the investigation of this past summer's conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah is set to be released in mid-April and the results will less than likely be pleasing. All of these elements are going to converge, putting Israel in sticky situation, as tensions continue to rise. At the beginning of the semester, when I began following this issue in my blog, the major elements of this theory had to do with the corruption issues within the government, and then progressed to talking about the new Palestinian government and its platform, as well as the Israeli boycott of it and then it progressed to talking about the commission report and its probable findings. I think that these three major elements will converge and cause difficulties for Israel. I think that Israel will find itself in a position where it has to make quick and effective decisions and will have to act. This is why i think it would be a bad idea for the Israeli people to replace Olmert right now. The transition time necessary for a new Prime Minister to be elected and a new party (which is probable as Olmert's Kadima party doesn't have really anything to offer by way of a candidate). The time it takes for a new Prime Minister and cabinet to adjust to office would open a huge and dangerous opportunity for terrorism and more. Enemies of Israel would see the weakness in the transition and strike. This is an especially scary thought with the new Palestinian government being headed by Hamas leaders. The commenting and blogging process has been very beneficial in my understanding and following of this issue. The comments I received forced me to further think about and analyze the situation so as to better understand it from all sides. Reading other peoples' blogs on the same (and even different) topics has helped me to have a broader understanding of global issues and reading other peoples' opinions on them has helped me to better form and understand my own.

France 24--24 hour international news

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=070322182612.2vkmlbzt&cat=null

"Israel's Peres opposed to starting Lebanon war"

Israeli deputy prime minister Shimon Peres said that he opposed starting the conflict that took place in Lebanon this summer. This statement was made in a hearing investigation into last summer's war with Lebanon. "If it had been up to me," Peres said, "I would not have gone to war. If it had been up to me, I would not have made a list of objectives for this war... We were attacked and we had to defend ourselves. That's all." The testimony, given by Peres on November 7 were made public by the investigating commission, which is expected to release its findings in mid April. Along with Peres, some 70 poiticians and military leaders (including PM Olmert, defense minister Amir Peretz and former chief os staff Dan Halutz--who resigned after this summer's battle) appeared before the commission as well. The commission to investigate the Lebanon war was born out of pressure from "thousands of military reservists who demanded a full-scale inquiry into the conflict," the article says. The war went from July 12 through August 14, ended by a UN brokered ceasefire. It was launched by Israel against Shiite Hezbollah militants in Lebanon after the capture of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12. The conflict has come to be known as "The Second Lebanon War", the first being in 1982 when Israel launched an operation codenames "Peace in Galilee".

Being that the issue in question is so far back, it is hard to place judgement on Peres now for this statement. Had Peres publicized this view last summer while the war was going on or right after, he would have received a lot more attention than he is now, when the commission report is about to come out. Still though, Peres, while holding a great amount of prestige in the Israeli parliament, is not the one who gets to decide whether or not the country goes to war. Saying he didn't support the military action in Lebanon 8 months after the fact really doesn't matter anymore. His opinion doesn't change what happened, and is not wholly unpopular either.

Olmert interrupted in speech, Soldiers still in Palestinian captivity, Peace talks with Arabs later this month

Haaretz.com
"Man interrupts PM speech; slams efforts to release IDF abductees"
March 22, 2007
by: Eli Ashkenazi

During a speech in Tel Aviv Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was interrupted by an audience member asking about his efforts to secure the release of three IDF soldiers captured by Palestinian forces this past summer. The soldiers in question are Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. The interrupter was Danny Valla, a member of Kibbutz Yotvata. In response, Olmert said, "A day doesn't go by without me making efforts to resolve this painful issue. It takes time. There's no instant solution in this case. I regret that I cannot elaborate on this topic." The speech that was interrupted was at a conference of the Kibbutz Movement. In regards to peace efforts, Olmert said that Israel would be happy to make peace with Syria, expressing hope that conditions will come to facilitate negotiations. He said that Israel is willing to make "sweeping, painful and tough concessions" to create a setting for dialogue with its enemies. The current peace plan Saudi Arabia is posing, which may be a starting point for Israeli-Syrian conversation calls for "full diplomatic relations between the entire Arab world and Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem," the article says. When this plan was first proposed in 2002, Israel rejected it outright and became more even oppositional when the Arab League also demanded that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to their former homes in Israel, but now, with negotiations reaching a stopgap, Israel has begun to show slight interest in the plan. Arab leaders are excited to revisit the proposal at a summit in Riyadh later this month. Part of this push to revisit the 2002 Saudi plan comes from moderate Arab governments who are worried about the rising tensions in the region and sees progress between Israelis and Palestinians as a way to lessen tensions in the region and lessen the growing influence of Iran. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that Israel has no intentions of accepting the Arab peace plan as it currently stands, but will work to revise it--particularly the part allowing displaced Palestinians from the 1948 Independence War to return to their homes inside Israel, while Arabs hold strong to their land-for-peace ideology.

I believe that as long as Israeli-Arab negotiations do not result in an increase in violence, or a greater and more galvinized band of Arab nations against Israel, they will be good for all countries involved. I do not think that an actual workable peace plan will be reached, as the Arab countries coming to the table are pretty firm on a plan that is not acceptable to Israel. Still, however, the opportunity to open conversation and express a desire for peace with these countries is a step in the right direction, just it is important that steps be taken very carefully and strategically, especially at this early stage in the game.

New Palestinian Government boycotted by Israel, US taking baby steps

The New York Times
"U.S. and Israel Differ on Contact With Palestinians
by:Isabel Kershner
March 19, 2007

The Israeli cabinet has voted to boycott the new Palestinian government, but the US consulate in Jerusalem "refused to rule out contacts with some moderate Palestinians who are now serving as ministers," the article says. The US position does not reflect a change in policy, but does add weight to the notion that the new government may have "openings" in the West for the resumption of international aid, which would hurt Israeli efforts to maintain the boycott. Britain also has not completely shut their ears to the new government. France has already invited its foreign minister in for a visit, and Norway has officially recognized it and is in the process of lifting sanctions and reinstating aid to Palestinians. The unity government is still mainly Hamas run, but has a few Fatah figures involved, as well as a few independents in the cabinet. In a vote on Sunday, the Israeli cabinet voted to boycott the new government, saying it "objected to any dealings with the new unity government because Hamas is a part of it," the article says. The American position on the issue is not to change policies of not dealing with terrorist organizations, Hamas included. Still though, the US has also said it will not rule out contact with certain individuals in the new government. There was, though, initial disappointment from American officials when they first found out about the new government's platform. It had been the hope of Israel and the West that the new governemnt would reconize Israel and its right to exist, and renounce the violence that has come from Palestinian militant groups. Instead, howerver, the unity government only agreed to obey the constraints of previous areements, and did not endorse the two-state solution that was previously being worked out between Israel and the Palestinian Fatah party. In an interview Sunday, Olmert said, ''The platform of the new government includes very problematic elements that cannot be acceptable to Israel or the international community.'' Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian president under the former Fatah government and a "partner for dialogue" for both Israel and the US is not a member of the new government, so Olmert has said taht Israel will now limit their talks with him to humanitarian issues.

As I have said in previous blogs, I support the decisions of Israel and the US to boycott and tread delicately with this new Palestinian government. Still though, I think its weird that the US is dealing with only members of the government and not the government as a whole. This could complicate things, although the reasoning behind it is understandable. The US can't refuse to negotiate with them on the basis of not dealing with terrorists, because they are not specifically Hamas, but they cannot actually deal with them directly, because the majority of the government's leaders are members of the Hamas party. The US would be looked down upon for boycotting the government outright, but at the same time, is Israel's strongest ally and is engaged in a huge war against terrorism, so they must tread carefully when even coming close to dealing with Hamas, who they and others have deemed a terrorist organization.

Israel boycotts "new" Palestinian government -- Hamas in disguise?

The Mercury

"Israel sticks to boycott"
AP

March 19, 2007

The Israeli cabinet has overwhelmingly approved PM Ehud Olmert's call to boycott the new Palestinian unity government. The vote was 19-2 in favor of the boycott. Olmert has totally ruled out peace talks with the Palestinians, limiting contact to humanitarian issues until the new unity government renounces violence and officially recognizes Israel. Norway immediately recognized the new Palestinian government, and is lifting economic sanctions against Palestinians. Britain and the UN have also "signaled flexibility but the US reacted coolly to the prospect," the article says. The government's platform is more moderate than the previous Hamas overnment, but still falls short of Olmert's international demands (as mentioned above).

"We can't maintain contact with the government or its ministers when you consider this is a government that does not accept the conditions of the international community and sees terror as a legitimate goal," Olmert said.

I agree with Olmert and the Israeli cabinet's decision to boycott the Palestinian unity government. Even if the new government is more moderate than the former Hamas government, they are still majority led by the Hamas party, a terrorist organization, and still refuse to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to existence. At least the Fatah party was trying to make it look like they were up for negotiations. The new unity government seems like a big ploy to put Hamas back in power, and Hamas cannot and should not be trusted. They are terrorists, end of story. No matter what they say, no matter what they call themselves, no matter what they do to try to make the rest of the world think they are legitimate, their outright refusal to commit to ending violence, and their refusal to recognize Israel are glaring red flags of warning.

The Dead Sea is drying up... what do we do now?

The Economist
"Better red than dead? Israel"
March 17, 2007

The dead sea, which is famous for being the lowest geographical point on the globe, so salty no life exists below its waters; people who swim in it simply float, and people from all over the world flock there to bathe in its therapeutic minerals faces a problem. Every year the surface level drops by about a meter. It is evaporating away. Fresh water from the Jordan River is transferred into the dead sea to replenish its supply, but that is not sufficient. "Studies suggest that the world's lowest body of water won't vanish altogether, but will stabilize at about 100m lower than it is now," the article says. That could lead to environmental disaster, as well as disaster for the tourism industry associated with it. A plan, originally brought to the table by Shimon Peres, proposes the building of a 200 kilometer long conduit to bring water from the Red Sea (at Israel's southern tip) to help stabilize and replenish the Dead Sea. Some of the water flowing through the conduit will be used to supply fresh water to Jordanians, Israelis and Palestinians as well. Peres is pushing the project, which could cost up to up to $5 billion, as part of his vision of peace through economic development. Environmentalists are wary, however, saying that "sea brine added to the hyper-salty, denser Dead Sea will float on the surface mixing in only over years or decades. If so, what draws the tourists in will be lost, and algal blooms could turn the water from blue to reddish-brown," according to the article. The water from the Red Sea would have to climb 125 meters before running downhill into the Dead Sea. It would have to be desalinated and then climb another 1.4 kilometers to reach Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli cities to provide fresh water to the three aforementioned peoples. The cost of all the pumping could possibly outweigh the energy gains of the downhill run. More studies are being conducted to try to answer these questions.

There are definite pros and cons to this situation, but at this point it is difficult to side with a course of action because there is not enough scientific information to prove either side's case. The idea, in theory, is good, especially if it can bring clean water to towns in the West Bank and Gaza, who have a constant problem getting it, but it may be too idealistic. I would most likely be against the plan if it compromised the integrity of the Dead Sea. As long as the sea will stabilize at some eventuality, and never dry up completely, it might just be best to leave it as is. All in all, however, this is definitely NOT the biggest issue on Israel's plate.

Saudi Arabia once again reaching out to America to reset '67 Israel borders

Haaretz.com "Bush talks with Saudi, Egyptian leaders about Mideast peace" By Reuters On Friday, George W. Bush thanked King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for taking part in the recent conference on Iraq. According to the White House, the three also discussed Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Bush talked to Abdullah about, "the effort to advance toward a Palestinian state and also peace between Israelis and Palestinians," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. Bush also spoke with Mubarak about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming trip to the Middle East. Egypt, Jordain and Saudi Arabia said this week that they will "seek a new push on an Arab peace plan with Israel at an Arab League summit later this month in Riyadh," the article says. The US and its allies are looking to push a Saudi initiative picked up in 2002, seeking for Israel to normalize relations with the Arab world in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the borders that existed before the Six Day War in 1967.

Once again, any negotiations prefaced on Israel retreating to the 1967 borders are totally unrealistic and pointless. That would require Israel to cede a HUGE amount of land to Arab control-- land they fought for and won, land they have inhabited and made useful, land that has contributed to agriculture and the economy, and probably most importantly, land that provides a physical, geographical shield, protecting Israel from its spiteful neighbors. Furthermore, the '67 borders take Jerusalem out of Israeli control-- something you'll be hard pressed to find an Israeli, Zionist or Jew to agree to. Giving this land into Arab control would only further galvanize the Arab world in their quest to remove Israel from the map. Israel has earned the right to the land it holds claim to, and while a Palestinian state could be a solution to the conflict, it should not be according to the 1967 borders. They didn't work then, and they definitely won't work now.