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.

Israelis back out of negotiations to release captured IDF soldier

Haaretz.com "PRC: Israel backs out of Shalit release deal at the last minute" by:Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service 3/17/07 Government officials in Jerusalem denied reports saying that Israel backed out of negotiations with the PRC (Popular Resistance Committees) for the release of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for imprisoned Palestinian officials. According to Israel Radio, Abu Mujahed, a PRC spokesman in the Gaza Strip, said Israel backed out of negotiations at the last minute. Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was captured last June in the Gaza Strip, was a major point of contention during the war with Lebanon over the summer. The prisoner exchange Israel reportedly backed out of was set to include all the leaders of Palestinian factions jailed in Israel, including renowned Hamas and Fatah leaders. Mujahed said the PRC is waiting for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval, but that if Israel rejects the offer, "we would then return to the starting point." The exchange includes plans to free prisoners, some of whom are serving life sentences, which was a major point of dispute in negotiations. The Palestinian negotiators refused to compromise on their position, and, according to Mujahed, Israel refused to negotiate as well, calling on Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, whose return was being negotiated, to pressure Israel into agreeing to the negotiations. He also assured Noam Shalit that his sons' captors are treating him humanely.
This is definitely a complicated issue for Israelis, seeing as their need for security and their desire to have Shalit freed are butting heads. At the time of Shalit's capture, I recall watching a TV interview with his father, who said he'd rather see the Israel defend herself as a nation than see them give up Palestinian militants for his son. In this light, I support Israel backing out of these negotiations, especially knowing that Shalit is in no immediate danger. While the circumstances are horrible, the negotiations were completely unfair, with Palestinians demanding the release of multiple high security and significant prisoners in exchange for only Shalit.

New PA Unity Government leaves loose ends in rleation to

March 15, 2007
Haaretz
"Abbas, Haniyeh finalize PA unity government deal despite fresh clashes"
by:Haaretz Service and News Agencies
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/837793.html

At the same time the PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh agreed on the composition of the new unified government, nine people (including two children) were wounded in an outbreak of factional violence in the Gaza strip. Still however, according to Haniyeh, "Today is an occasion to celebrate."
But who is celebrating? Definitely not Israelis or Americans whose peace talks in the past weeks failed to be productive because of the build up to this moment.
The full lineup of the new unity government cabinet will be made public Thursday, and submitted for parliament approval Saturday.
The fighting that emerged at the same time the unity government was formed began, according to a Fatah commander, after Hamas men had abducted a gunman during a shootout. Four Hamas men and one Fatah man were taken hostage, according to the general.
Under the new government, Hamas will will have nine cabinet posts, and Fatah will get six (Yet another intricacy the US, Israel and probably the EU will have problems with, seeing as they all three have deemed Hamas, who will be holding the majority stake in the new government, a terrorist organization.). The new government will hold a special session on Saturday morning to discuss the political platform of the newly formed government and hold a vote of confidence.
Israel, who previously got along with Fatah government officials to a significant degree, has sworn to boycott the unity government, including the non-Hamas officers, unless the government officially recognizes Israel, renounces violence and accepts interim peace deals.
The agreement of the unity government, "contains a vague promise to "respect' previous Israeli-Palestinian pacts. It does not commit the incoming government to abide by those pacts, nor recognize Israel and renounce violence," the article says. A failure to recognize Israel, end violence and engage in peace plans would put the newly formed government out of sorts with the US, EU, UN, Russia and Israel, among others.
The factional fighting put Abbas and Haniyeh under pressure to cut the deal quickly. Hamas blamed Fatah-loyal security forces for a killing in Gaza City, but Fatah denied any responsibility, this being only one of several attacks between members of Palestinian factions in the West Bank/Gaza region.

In my opinion, the new PA unity government is not a good thing for Israel. First off, the new PA government is mainly controlled by Hamas, the group Israel had been fighting to get out of power, and who was replaced by a more (supposedly) cooperative Fatah government. Regardless of the fact that Fatah was supposed to be a more favorable party in the face of Israelis, Hamas still had informal control of Gaza and the West Bank. With Hamas having nine of 15 spots in the new government, they are basically regaining control. It is obvious from the violence that has emerged between Hamas and Fatah party members and that continues to go on between them that the two parties are not united in ideologies, aside from their dislike (outright hatred and denial on the Hamas side) for Israel and its very existence. The government is either going to be short-lived due to the inability of the parties to get along and make unified decisions, or a takeout by Israel because of continued violence. I don't see this government bringing any sort of additional peace to the troubled region, or otherwise improving the situation for Palestinians or Israelis.

Israel airs dirty laundry as courts look for end to stench

"The Economist"

"Bad smells and fresh air - Israel"
March 10, 2007

There has been a ridiculous amount of talk about the corruption of Israeli government officials in the news over the past number of weeks. Everyone from the president, to the prime minister, to the police chief, to the minister of justice has come under fire for allegations ranging from rape to money laundering to falsification of testimony. It is, no doubt, because of this, that Israel has been slipping in the annual perceptions index kept up by Transparency International, "a Berlin-based anti-corruption watchdog." Back in the 70s, then PM Yitzhak Rabin resigned just because of allegations that his wife had some money in (then-illegal) overseas bank accounts. Today an accusation like that would barely make the news, the article says. It goes on to question, "is the putrefaction really worsening or are more people just noticing the smell?" A little bit of both seems to be the verdict. One opinion is that as Israel has become "less ideological, idealist and egalitarian than its pioneering early days, politics has become more of a personal career and politicians abuse their positions more often." But at the same time that the army and the presidency have come into this new and scrupulous light, the coutrs and state comptroller have gained strength and the public is "no longer willing to excuse leaders for improper behavior."--personal or political. More Israeli women are reporting sexual harassment in the workplace, and issues are being given more publicity than ever before. The corruption, however, needs to be fought so as not to lower the country's moral standards. Recommendations from a former supreme court justice include giving the parliament's ethics committee the power to fine legislators who step out of line, or bar them from certain jobs and chairmanships. There would definitely be more constraints put on them than in other countries, but that could also be seen as a check to make sure they don't have too much power.

So Israel definitely has some dirty laundry-- but who doesn't. And then again, things like the Lewinsky scandal draw a lot of interest. I think at this point, since SO many officials have been brought up for corruption, and so much attention has been paid, something definitely needs to be done. The suggestion that constraints be placed on politicians is a good one, provided that it is actually enforced and executed in a reasonable way. It is within the reasonable expectations of the people to have a representative government that is moral and upstanding, and it is the duty of the courts to ensure that. While I do feel, as I have said in other posts, that this entire thing has become trivialized to a point of nausea, there is some definite action that needs to be taken here. A system needs to be set into motion that will sanction these actions, and prevent future acts of this type from recurring within the Knesset.

Israeli Economy Booms Despite Setbacks

"Israel's economy leaps upward despite unrest; Growth in 2006 at 5.1 percent"
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Abraham Rabinovich

Feb 26 2007

2006 marked the third straight year of economic growth above 5 percent for Israel, even despite conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian militants. The cost of the war was only reported to be 0.3 percent of the Israeli GDP, and not the previously estimated 1 percent, making the growth rate for 2006 5.1 percent. According to the article, "The three consecutive years of strong growth have been accompanied by high levels of foreign investment that has been relatively unaffected by violence in the Palestinian territories and intermittent attacks on Israelis." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared in a speech in December, only four months after the war with Lebanon, that Israel's economy had never been healthier and that the small nation's exports exceeded their imports by billions of dollars for the first time.

"This is the first year in the history of the state in which exports exceed imports by billions of dollars," he said.
Additionally, The Economist has ranked Israel among the five fastest-growing emerging markets in the world, up 12 places from 48th largest economy in the early '80s to 36th largest from 2001-05, during which period it survived two Palestinian intifadas and two wars with lebanon, the Gulf war and numerous attacks from Iraqi missiles.

Palestinians intifadas and two wars in Lebanon in addition to being on the fringe of the 1991 Gulf War, in which it was hit by dozens of Iraqi missiles. S&P updated Israel's credit rating this month from "stable" to "positive", reflecting the "improved resilience of Israel's public finances and economy to geopolitical shocks after a three-year period of fiscal consolidation and strong economic growth."
On the negative side of things, the Histadrut, the Israeli labor federation, has called for a broad general strike this week which will likely effect government offices, and even public transportation, airports and schools. The strike is a result of the government's failure to pay thousands of municipal employees because of issues with the transfer of funds between the national government and municipalities.
Israel's GDP is significantly reduced by the vast amount of money it spends on its military forces, but a good amount of Israel's money comes from foreign investment--with the country attracting a total of $20 billion last year alone, most of which goes into the technology field, in which Israel has always excelled, with many of Israel's technological advancements being spinnoffs and innovations from the military division. The Tel Aviv stock market, the article says, has gone up about 25 percent since the war, even with the threat of more fighting with Hezbollah, Syria and possibly Iran. The economy's buoyancy can be explained by "free-market policies, budgetary restraint, tax cuts, privitization and the opening of the market to the free movement of goods, services and capital. Inflation is near zero, and reserves stand at $28 billion."

Nehemia Shtrasler, economics editor of the Ha'aretz newspaper, said the economy's buoyancy is explained by free-market policies, including budgetary restraint, tax cuts, privatization and the opening of the market to the free movement of goods, services and capital. Inflation is near zero, and reserves stand at $28 billion.

I think that Israel's economic growth just further proves the resiliency and strength of the country. The Israeli economy's growth over the past 5 years has been far greater than that of any western country, and especially that of any other country in the middle east. Their ability to sustain such a significant and well-trained and equipped army in addition to bearing the weight of a war and numerous attacks, and all the while still being able to grow economically shows the country's strength even more. A huge amount of this growth can be attributed to foreign investment and the tourism industry. Still though, Israel's strong economy proves its stability and gives weight to their side in the argument over their right to existence.