Kesher

2003-06-24T16:41:00.000+03:00

ITS A DEATH TRAP, A SUICIDE RAP

We've got to get out while we're young. Thus, I'm off for a few days to Northern Italy to eat pasta, gelato and have a private and personal meeting with the Boss at San Siro Stadium on Saturday night. It is the last show of Springsteen's European tour and an offer for a ticket from young JP from Edgemont could not be passed up. I already discussed potential set lists for a Springsteen concert in Israel -- of course he would open with "The Promised Land". As for Italy, I would expect that Little Steven (who has the two coolest jobs in the world, playing Silvio on the Soprano's and guitarist in the E Street Band) will offer some sort of Italian touch. I'd like to hear Racing in the Streets and the Detroit Medley. Promise to give a detailed report next week.

Thus, for the next few days, the peacemakers and warmongers should and will somehow get along without my musings. Those of you who want or need to reach me can always use email. They have it there. In the meantime, your homework assignment for the rest of the week is 500 words on how YOU can help Abu Maazen take on his road map responsibilities. If you are a European leader, here is a potential hint.

2003-06-23T11:04:00.000+03:00

HIDING IN THE BUSHES

What is in all of this for the Bush administration? Akiva Eldar's column in today's Haaretz whet my appitite on the subject. For the first two years of the term, they made every possible attempt to distance themselves from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the believe that the sides were not ready to find a way out of the circle of violence and that wanting a solution more then the sides was not a recipe for success. They had watched a hands-on President Clinton invest the full authority of the presidency in Camp David and a last minute Clinton Plan that went nowhere and was thought by some to make the situation worse.

That was then. Since the decision to invade Iraq, it has become clear that they could not only deal with Iraq without addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it is clearly not appropriate to link the two there is still a strong connection for building credibility both in the Arab world and in Europe (especially with the British) in putting every effort forward to acting here. Thus, GWB agreed to put the White House behind the somewhat problematic Road Map and the meetings in Sharm and Aqaba two weeks ago.

This is now. They are invested. The Road Map and its steps have become "American". Condy Rice is on the way to the region later this week as Powell finishes up his current trip. The responsibility of getting the sides to act and fulfill its mandates is seen by many to be George's. Is it fair? Of course not. Are the UN and EU doing their part to help? Probably not. That doesn't matter now. Hamas and Arafat have every interest in the world to make it fail. Israel's settlers and their supoprters believe that the road map is a disaster for their interests. It seems to me that almost every scenerio is a loser for the President. For example, if it all fails and Israel feels a need to act strongly in the West Bank and Gaza, what does the US do? How can it condemn Israel for fighting Hamas, who both the President and Powell have correctly called "the enemy of peace"? If it all works and Israel starts to close more outposts and even settlements, many in the American Jewish community (and Christians on the far right) who support the settlers will be vocal and critical. And if it is somewhere in the middle, who do you pressure as you continue to get further sunk into the quicksand of Middle East politics...

And the elections of November '04 get closer. They are less then 18 months away. The American economy is still not great, despite the NASDAQ movement over the past few weeks. The questions regarding Iraq regarding unfound WMD, questionable documents and the growing risks to US forces during occupation of Iraq will only get larger. Iraq is only starting to get hard and will get harder... for a long time. Look at the Jerusalem Post editorial attempt to put a smiley face on the situation. The domestic issues, the ones that most Americans really care about, will be brought into focus if only the Democrats can get their act together and find a somewhat worthwhile candidate. And what if, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack in the US?

In many ways, its too late to run. Bush has sold himself internationally as the guy who stays the course. He is the cowboy (in a positive sense) who doesn't back down from a challenge and fights for what (he believes) is right. But what if the sides don't want a solution. This writer does but sometimes watching the players here it seems that many don't. Yesterday, PM Sharon told the cabinet that settlers can keep building as long as they do it quietly. As I discussed yesterday, I am doubtful whether Abu Maazen can or will do what needs to be done.

On another matter, check out Martin Peretz op-ed in today's LA Times criticizing western supporters of the Palestinian "cause". Smart stuff.

2003-06-22T13:44:00.000+03:00

SMACKING HAMAS

Looks like our team and the Bushies are back on the same page regarding what needs to be done next regarding both the PA and Hamas. On the one hand there seems to be a clear understanding of who the real bad guys are and that Israel can't sit and wait for Abu Maazen to get around to fighting Hamas. This morning's killing of an apparently senior Hamas baddie in Hebron may serve to be a case in point. When it is clear that the person is a terrorist and taking him out is done in a reasonable way. Israel claims that we tried to arrest him first - although the story was certainly not like of the NY police killing of Amadou Diallo (memorialized in the wonderful Springsteen protest song "American Skin (41 Shots)", hear song), although I'm not convinced how hard we tried to arrest him. The real point is that Israel has to carefully choose its time and place to get the bad guys.

The more serious issue is if, how and when the PA will be willing to take on the Hamas. It is so obvious that this is what must come next that even left leaning Haaretz's editors call strongly on the Palestinians to act. Here. I have been dubious about the ability of Abu Maazen to successfully achieve something that Israel couldn't do. Danny Rubinstein argues further (here) that it just won't happen. No matter how "easy" some Israelis (General Amos Gilad said so much on TV the other night) claim it would be, Abu Maazen likely won't be willing to start what could be a civil war in the Palestinian community. This may doom him to failure, in a relatively short time. At the same time, not acting virtually guarantees Israeli actions that will be deemed necessary. Dooming him to failure.

So what to do? Abu Maazen can't (and neednt) do everything right away. He does need to take Israel's offer for resposibility in a limited area (northern Gaza, Bethlehem) and do what needs to be done to bring quiet. Even if it is "only" a ceasefire there the Americans will support him given the demand for ACTION. But he's afraid. I can understand the fear but a leader, a true leader, can't be scared and has to take risks that will serve his people.

Is he that sort of leader? I fear not but hope to be proven wrong.

2003-06-18T13:31:00.000+03:00

HOLDING PATTERN

It sort of seems that we are in a holding pattern over the past couple of days. The main story has been internal Palestinian talks about a ceasefire. Its strange that these inside Palestinian talks are going on, with Egyptian help while everyone seems (although I am sure taht this is not the case) to be sitting around waiting for them to make up their minds. Danny Rubinstein was quite pessimistic the other day and seems to be more positive in today's Haaretz.

On another topic, here (from Haaertz) is a counter-intuitive arugment about last week's hits on Hamas leaders. The point of the article is davka these measures have convinced President Bush that the only strategy is all-out war against the Hamas. What seemed (certainly to Mr. Kesher!) to be a foolhardy risk of Israeli-American lockstep on the goals and directions of the road map was in fact the lesson that GWB needed to hear. It also emphaiszed the difference between Hamas (bad guys) and Abu Maazen (potential good guy). Its an interesting thought but sounds to me like a hail-Mary pass with our future when a strong running game would do the job. We should not be throwing for touchdowns with the Americans but working and cooperating all the time. Our narrative should be promoted with confidence of 55 years of independence and a relationship of trust and confidence with our closest friends.

Interesting other story today. Not a big deal. But it is. Apparently Arik met with the settler leadership and made it clear that the outposts will be closed and that he is committed to the Road Map and a peace process. Newsflash: the settlers were not happy. That can't be a bad thing.

2003-06-16T09:36:00.000+03:00

WALKING THE WALK

Lots of talk about the possibility of passing security control to part of the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians. The goal is to set the bar low -- proving successful activity in a limited area but at the same time causing the stopping of rocket launchings on Israeli towns near the green line. This has been something that has been offered to the PA since the first Abbas-Sharon meeting a few weeks ago. The US media generally leads this morning with upbeat hope that this deal was near. Israel would promise not to act in this area for as long as the PA does. If it works, more area would be passed over. The idea seems to make sense in allowing Abu Maazen not to try to bite off more then it can chew and showing Israel that it is serious. Much of this depends on the Palestinian factions ability to reach a ceasefire. Here is Danny Rubinstein's analysis on that subject. Many Israelis argue against such a ceasefire as impossible and only want to see the Hamas crushed (read: Palestinan civil war). There are other, sometimes, problematic motives in this wish.

Interesting Israeli spin by Ehud Olmert in today's Washington Post. He was on the Sunday talk shows yesterday, too. Olmert, the deputy PM and quite close to Sharon, is quite right that Hamas is the challenge and so forth. At the same time, he rejects any critisism of the timing of Israel's actions last week. He states that The current spin is that the new wave of malicious attacks by Palestinian terrorist groups against Israeli civilians is the direct result of the Israeli government's attempt to assassinate a senior Hamas leader. That is not my criticism. What it did was take away Israel's claim to be acting in full good faith to make peace. I (as did President Bush) questioned whether that attack, then, was the right choice and made us safer. I agree that there is no possibility of compromise with Hamas, just as for the USA there is no discussion of compromise with Al Kaida. The key differences are:
1. We are not the USA; the rules of engagement are different when you are asking for $3 billion each year.
2. The Hamas is right here and not on the other side of the world.
3. The expectations from the Israeli side are significant.
4. There is an attempt to build an alternative leadership, Abu Maazen who needs to be strengthened.

Sadly, no Jersey sports sweep as the Nets went down at the Alamo. That Queens baseball team remains banned as it is still five games under .500 and 14 games out of first. Nothing like spending $110 million on last place. Almost as bad investment as the settlements...

2003-06-15T17:13:00.000+03:00

THE UN-BROKER

OK, OK, I've picked on us enough. It is time to get out of the funk of frustration (although, everything that I've been saying for the past week is summarized by the NYTimes' Tom Friedman today. He is correct that the only thing that will move the sides is being forced to make peace. I only disagree with his last two words: That is the outcome we are heading toward, though, unless the only reality principle left, the United States of America, really intervenes — with its influence, its wisdom and, if necessary, its troops.

There has been some significant talk in the past days about throwing international forces at the problem. Kofi Annan said so much in an interview over the weekend to Israeli Channel 2 and Haaretz. The thrust is that the sides can't do it themselves (I agree) and that if a foreign force were here they could keep the sides apart.

This is wrong. Don't believe me (although I decided to write this over the weekend before I read this after seeing the Kofi interview), Haaretz's editors say so. Firstly, it did not work in the 1960's when the UN sent a force to Sinai (following the 1956 War) to separate between Israel and Egypt. The idea was that UNEF ould be in the middle and discourage violence accross the border. In the early 60's, Palestinian "fedayeen" terrorists crossed the border at night. Finally, in May of 1967, just before the Six Day War, Nasser kicked the UN out so that he could go to war with Israel. Then SecGen Burmese U Thant called the boys back without a peep honoring the sovereign rights of Egypt. In the UN, after the war, Abba Eban described the scenerio as being like having an umbrella that got taken away just before it rained.

Additionally, there is a new book, Linda Polman's We Did Nothing: Why the Truth Doesn't Always Come Out When the UN Goes In which argues (at least in the book review I read in last week's Economist) that sending UN troops to "keep a peace" (note: there is no peace to keep here; a major flaw in the peace-keeping concept) that is not real is often doomed to failure.

Furthermore, what are they meant to stop? A Hamas suicide bomber dressed up like an ultra-orthodox Jew? How? What skills do they have that we don't? To stop the IDF from hunting down terrorists who hide out among civilians? Perhaps, cynically, to make them learn how tough it is to fight terror...

Interestingly, also in today's Haaretz, Gilead Sher, Barak's chief negotiator argues for an American lead "stabilizing international force" to run the PA. Friedman, months ago argued for NATO to act similarly, almost a British Mandate-like system. It is thoughtful and enticing that someone could come in and force order on chaos. I don't think it will work. I think that the sides must make hard choices and WANT them to work. Maybe they (we) are not ready but throwing forced solutions doesn't seem to me to be the answer. The world has to make us WANT peace. How? I'm not sure.

Ah, yes, another "expert" says what won't work. What good is that? Well, what do you want, reading commentary on the Double-you, Double-you, Double-you. Go do something productive. By the way, happy father's day, Ed.

2003-06-12T15:03:00.000+03:00

QUIET DESPERATION

As angry as I get when we do things that I think are dumb. [See yesterday's blog for exhibit A], I find that outrages like yesterday's suicide bombing of the 14 bus leave me without much to say. I have a very difficult time watching the news which is always the same and listening to the radio the next day (like right now) as the names of the victims are relaeased one by one and the times of the funerals are announced. Other then that the usual talking heads are all over Israeli TV, CNN, BBC and FOX saying nothing because there is not much to say. If you aren't depressed enough, read Danny Ben Simon in today's Haaretz, about Jerusalem's pain.

I don't believe that the bombing was a "result" of the Israeli idiocy of Sunday. It all happened too fast. But, at the risk of sounding cynical and continuing to beat the horse from yesterday, had we not "done" Rantisi we could have said "we're trying and the Palestinians can't/won't control the Hamas. We lose that chance when we act in a wild manner. The key, even if you don't believe that the plan can work is to give it every chance and avoid being the side that could be blamed if/when it fails.

The hardest part though, and one I perhaps take too lightly because it isn't my responsibility is caring for security. When someone has that burden on their shoulders, maybe the scales are weighed differently. But maybe not. How does killing Rantisi make us safer in the current circumstances? In the interest of balance: here is the Jerusalem Post's argument. I don't get it though. First, there is a double standard, we cannot do everything that the US does. Its not fair but that's the way it is. Second, how do Rantisi's words (and perhaps actions) reach such an extreme level for us to risk relations with the US and giving the Hamas an excuse (I know, they don't need an excuse) to kill more civilians. See Zev Schiff's take on the American response. The NY Times notes attempts to influence Wahington via Congress. Are we so afraid of the implications of the road map that we want to kill it now and live with the situation that has existed for the past 32 months? Is that better? For who? I'm not sure I want to know the real answer to those questions.

On that last point, Boaz Ganor, a generally thoughtful anti-terrorism expert frets about the end game interests of the Palestinians. See here. I don't agree that the goal is to get the Palestinians to "sing" about Israel being here. They just need to get a fair deal (and do their side). The thought that nothing is possible and we are doomed to this neverending loop of violence is unbearable and CANNOT be true.

2003-06-11T14:16:00.000+03:00

JACK-ASS ASSINATION

I have to admit that I don't get it. Of course, I'm in good company. The Americans, much of the Israeli media and anyone else with an ounce of common sense can't figure it out either. The story out of the Middle East yesterday was the subject of my blog, the knocking down of the first outposts. Pictures around the world were meant to show Israel taking the first step to comply. The cell phones of Abu Maazen and Muhamed Dahlan were supposed to start ringing from all sorts of world leaders reminding them that they were expected to take action. Needless to say, that didn't happen. The news lead everywhere was only the botched attempt on Rantisi.

So what happened? Before I start, lets be clear. I don't want to have lunch with Rantisi. He has always been the baddest of bad news. His skewed world and neighborhood view would certainly not be missed if he was somehow... you know. Way back to the time of Rabin (who included him in the 405 Hamasniks expulled to Lebanon in 1993) he's been trouble. Even if he was the one calling the shots (which is what we are claiming) for terrorist acts, why him? why now? And if we wanted to send a message to Hamas that we are still going to get them no matter what, why make demands on Abu Maazen? Doesn't his make Abbas even weaker?

Here are some (all generally depressing) options:
1. Sharon was scared by the attacks on the soldiers on Sunday combined with the reception at the Likud meeting and wanted to show himself to be the hardest on terror.
2. The army saw a chance and acted on its own without consulting the PM. Thus military state scenerio is too scary to fathom.
3. Our guys are continuing to underestimate the investment the Americans have made in the road map. The argument is: Hamas=AL Kaidea. They'll understand.

I'm not sure what now except that the Hamas incentive for retribution is certainly higher then it was at this time yesterday. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

2003-06-10T09:38:00.000+03:00

KNOCKING DOWN ALL THE DUCKS

Congratulations to the New Jersey Devils on winning Lord Stanley's Cup this morning. Nets now need to win 3 of 4 to turn it into a Turnpike Twin Killing. My boy Sim-the-Lawyer spent last night watching the game live at his law firm. Any of the partners walking around at 5AM might have been impressed with the hard working associate until they heard him scream "THE CUP IS MINE". I am told that he may need to look for work... As for my bud Chuck from SoCal, the Ducks had a great run and should have the parade that you planned. Jean-Sebastien Giguere , the deserving Conn Smythe Trophy winner should still do a commercial saying "I'm taking a walk up the street to Disneyland".

2003-06-10T09:20:00.000+03:00

KNOCK 'EM DOWN

The first illegal outposts were taken down last night by the IDF. That is an excellent start, especially in that it was done unilaterally without any connection to Palestinian action or inaction regarding terrorism. The point here is that the outposts are bad news in their own right and should not be seen in the context of the fight on terror. Progress on this subject should not be related to a "prize" for fighting terrorism or should it be stopped as a punishment or threat for Palestinian non-compliance. Israel is a state that claims (and pretty much is) guided by the rule of law. These outposts were outside the law, are damaging to the security of Israel, its national interest and the express position of the Government and thus needed to be removed. According to a map in this morning's Haaretz, there are about 100 such outposts. The fights with the settlers is a time bomb waiting to happen. It will be fascinating to see how the government chooses to move forward. See Nadav Shragai's analysis.

Lots of other interesting things in today's Haaretz. Yoel Marcus discusses Sharon's credibility with various constituencies following Aqaba and the Likud meeting on Sunday night. He calls Sharon's stand at the Likud meeting a chance for him to helped him escape the narrow right-wing party vise and ascend to Ben-Gurionesque heights.

Akiva Eldar reports some of the words and impressions inside the meeting in Aqaba last week. The upshot, which should be of concern here is that GWB is moving closer to the Palestinian positions and the much promoted chemistry between Sharon and Bush may be significantly less then is spun. Then again, it may just be a gossipy sort of leak that means nothing.

Back to the larger question of "can all this work", Barry Rubin, writes a terrific analysis of the chances for success of the road map in today's Jerusalem Post. While Rubin points out many of the arguments why it will be difficult for this effort to succeed, and is right to note that the lack of the Palestinian public (and that of much of the Arab world) to reconcile with the mere existence of the State of Israel is a scary reality, he correctly asks the key question for June 2003: Does mean that the roadmap effort is a mistake or a bad thing? No. An academic or journalist can easily say that something will fail, but a politician or a diplomat must try nonetheless precisely because it is the best option available.

2003-06-09T13:46:00.000+03:00

ARIK IS A LEFTIST

Amazing scene last night at a Likud Party meeting. Sharon was greeted with a chorus of boos and whistles that would only be matched if GWB spoke at a NAACP meeting. Actually, the NAACP would have been more respectful. I commented to Mrs. Kesher during the speech that it almost makes one like Sharon.

In fact, the scene was not bad for Sharon, tactically. He comes across as strong and unmovable pushing for peace against the will of many of the people in his own political camp. Could you imagine an American pol acting totally against the views of his party? I'm sure that if it was ten years ago and Arik was 65 and could see himself running for reelection, he wouldn't do this. Furthermore, he knows from public opinion surveys that the general public is behing the basic ideas of closing illegal outposts, a settlement freeze and a Palestinian state.

Lots of talk over the weekend about what really went on inside Aqaba. How the speeches were so strongly vetted by the Americans and most of the tough questions (Jerusalem, refugees) were totally ignored. It was a positive scene and left lots of people hopeful but it was only words and carefully sanitized words, at that. The Jews and Arabs are so used to a zero sum game view of things that it will be nearly impossible to keep this momentum for the long haul. I don't think the Americans understand the enormity of what is necessary to move the sides forward.

For example, look at the terror attacks which took place yesterday at the Erez Junction and Hebron. Everyone in the media, correctly I think, sees the attacks as an attempt to further weaken Abu Maazen. See Safire in today's NY Times. Inciting an Israeli response would cause Abu Maazen to lose any credibility as a Palestinian leader instead of an Israeli-American puppet. But if Israel doesn't respond, the terror and the terror attacks continue, the process loses credibility with Israelis. If Abu Maazen does what Israelis and Americans want (i.e. attack the extremists), a Palestinian civil war only makes things worse. Further, why should Abu Maazen be able to achieve something (Stopping the violence) that Sharon could not?

In a week or a month, will the Bushies still be in the mood to keep the pressure on? Yesterday, Powell and Rice went on the Sunday talk shows (see Fox News, for example) and emphasized what the Palestinians must do and how the Israelis must stay committed. But for how long will the Americans do this until GWB throws up his hands and says: "I tried" and turns to work on the economy and getting reelected?

This continuing frustration reminds me of a Springsteen song from his "Tunnel of Love" album called "One Step Up". The relavent verse goes:
We've given each other some hard lessons lately
But we ain't learnin'
We're the same sad story that's a fact
One step up and two steps back

2003-06-04T11:16:00.000+03:00

MIDDLE EAST SUMMITS FOR $500, ALEX

Busy day so just a few minutes to note that today seems to have great potential. The strong (and accidentally public, due to a screw up by Egyptian TV) words of President Bush yesterday in Sharm have surprised and pushed the various sides to make sure that they are on the preverbial peace train... or more importantly the America train. Moving and hopeful "letter" to the Palestinians by Yoel Marcus in today's Haaretz. He notes that whether Sharon wants these things to happen or not, if the Palestinians "do the right thing" he won't have a choice. The Israeli public is ready to accept things such as a Palestinian state, closing some settlements and more. It has to, more than anything, believe in the Palestinians. Obviously, after the past three (fifty?) years, many don't. Strong statements and actions can go a very long way to changing that perception. The NYTimes editorial puts the emphasis on building up Abu Maazen. He is important and the risk of his failure is real. At the same time, he (as GWB said) has to stand, speak and act clearly and strongly. He can't be afraid of Arafat or Hamas or the Arab "street".

Maybe today will be the start. Inshallah.

2003-06-03T09:50:00.000+03:00

HE'S SHARMING

Two big days of Middle East diplomacy and intregue today and tomorrow. GWB (not the bridge but the Prez) and a motley group of Arab leaders are scuba diving in Egypt today as we get ready for the bif meeting in Aqaba tomorrow. As for Aqaba I am confident that Arik will say the right things. Talk is cheap. Lots of worrying in Israel over whether the Americans or the Palestinians will recognize the "Jewish" character of Israel. I think that this is wasted energy in fear of some potential claim of the right of return. It would be better to show confidence on the matter and emphasize that it will not happen.

Terrific article in today's Washington Post about GWB and the nuts and bolts of Mideast peace. Here. Basically, he's not interested and thinks that the endless details are not important. According to the Post some aides are shocked at this naive attitude. My question: if they have been Bush aides for two and a half years how can this shock them? He is generally not a Clintoneque hands-on guy.

One other interesting point is that Bush sees the settlement building by Israel as a waste of money as he sees the settlements becoming Palestnians housing projects. We'll see but I'm dubious about such simplified "visions". The Post quotes one admin official as saying: "He does not have the knowledge or the patience to learn this issue enough to have an end destination in mind".

I am upbeat about the coming days but the key question will be the staying power of the Americans and the Palestinians when things go wrong. And they will.

2003-06-02T11:01:00.000+03:00

ARTICLE 51 - SELF DEFENSE

Article 51 of the UN Charter states that States have a right to act in self defense against an armed attack. That has been a basic argument of Israel for its actions throughout its history and specifically over the past 32 months. While it is straight forward and should be obvious, it is not always accepted by the international community. The Palestinian legalists try to mention a right to opposed (incuding via violent action) occupation to defend its actions against soldiers and settlers. However, consensus legal opinion is that the right of opposition does not include a right to violent action - certainly against any civilians, including settlers. I've argued before that these legal polemics are not especially relavant to the real issue which is direct non-violent negotiations.

Speaking of self-defense look at this terrific item that was apparently distributed by the HIllel at the University of California at San Diego. A little laughing at the situation never hurt. Here is another funny link that may answer the question about where Saddam is lately. Could he really be in Bnei Brak?

It seems that the issues of illegal outposts will be part of the PM's speech on Wednesday. See article. That is certainly a good thing, I have been arguing for closing of illegal outposts for awhile. At the same time, there is some fiction involved. Were many of them created (or allowed to stay) as a red herring to allow the "legal" settlements to continue to build and grow? Note that I used the quote marks for "legal". That is a neat PR trick to differentiate between the real issue (the main settlements) and a bunch of hilltop outposts which are not the main story. It will also somehow try to legitimize the main settlements. My view of an ultimate solution is that the largest settlements would remain in a land swap keeping about 70-80% of the settlers in their homes. At the same time, a key aspect of the process is a perception of good faith. Playing three card monte between illegal outposts and regular settlements is bad news.

Interestingly, I spoke with (at a softball game last night) a settler aquaintance who said jokingly - "we need to get rid of him", meaning the PM. When I made a scared face (thinking he was making a terrible joke about past Israeli history), he quickly said - "not that way, through politics". The fact that he understood my scared look without explaination is even scarier. I don't think that this is a risk but the settlers are certainly in shock from the perceived huge change in Sharon's views. I don't thing he's changed but one can hope...

Also last night I met with a group here as part of the Birthright program. Its a cool program and fun to see American college kids here. Many of the kids were quite vocal about their lack of hope about the situation here. A number of kids spoke up about needs for drastic solutions if the road map doesn't work. Others were more realistic and hopeful but were generally shouted down by the "right". Just like home... Haaretz had an article a few days ago about a recent survey which found disturbingly low numbers about ties to Israel of young American Jews. Another reason (as if one was needed) to end the violence and work for peace and security.

2003-06-01T12:29:00.000+03:00

MY-MY-MY-MY SHARON(A)

The buzz on the meetings in Sharm and Aqaba continue to be positive. Sharon asked his government members (at this morning's cabinet meeting) to avoid making provocative (read: hard line) comments in the coming days. There have been a series of articles in the media that are questioning if Arik may really have had a change of heart and/or the statements he made last week somehow fit into his personality and history. David K. Shipler in this morning's NYTimes Week in Review is fascinating, hinting a real optimism that Sharon might be ready and willing to make the hard choices necessary. Israeli author David Grossman writes in the LA Times about the "Flicker of Hope" that exists. Grossman, a Shalom Achshav activist notes that many of the central difficulties to come will come from the Palestinian side (lack of will or ability to REALLY fight terror). He wrote: "It is no exaggeration to say that almost everything now depends on the success Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, and Mohammed Dahlan, his security chief, have in exerting control over radical Islamic organizations." Because of all the dangers, the current optimism is "premature and excessive". At the same time, he commends Sharon (so far) and wants to believe that possibility for success exists.

So do we have a new Sharon? Probably not. At the sme time, as I have been suggesting, Israel is making sure that it is not the side to cause failure of the road map. It will not take the fall for another plan not working out. It is the right tactic. Furthermore, the genie of "occupation" is out of the Likud bag, the sides have taken one more step towards burying a demon (Palestinian state) and the need for verification of Palestinian combatting terror and violence is the consensus view internationally. While I was wrong in saying that there is no road back from Oslo (there clearly was), I think that the statements and cabinet vote from last week created a new line in the sand vis a vis the Palestinians that will remain... even if the road map doesn't.

2003-05-30T10:03:00.000+03:00

ANOTHER SMALL STEP

Initial media reports (Haaretz) on last night's meeting between PM's are quite positive. In this morning's Yidiot Ahronot, Abu Maazen is quoted saying that he said ten years ago that the one who would make peace here would be Sharon. I don't believe the quote but the message is that the two are trying to build a repore and a relationship that could allow the talks to move forward.

Apparently the meeting lasted three hours and included dinner. Sharon offered a range of gestures both security and humanitarian related and emphasized the need for the Palestinians to make their move in terms of security. Some prisoners will be freed, the IDF will pull out of the major cities and significantly pull back in Gaza. Debka file is a bit less optimistic and questions whether Abu Maazen will be willing or able to fight the terror organizations. Facinating article in this morning's New York Times by Ethan Bronner retelling the story of the attack on the Altelana ship in 1948. The message for Palestinians is clear. If they want their national movement to reach the next level, they will have to break the militias and terrorist groups. Here's a sobering thought though. What is the back-up plan to Abu Maazen? If something goes wrong or if he has a heart attack (or worse) tomorrow, what is plan B? I don't think that there is one.

Apparently having read (not really) this page yesterday, the Americans are sending senior advisors from the White House and State to TELL the Israelis and Palestinians what they need to say in Aquaba next Wednesday. It is clear that GWB doen't want to take any chances and will drag the two sides along to make this first stage work. As I've said before, I think that is a good thing. There has been much discussion lately of the old maxim of "the Americans can't want this more then the sides" is not true right now. See Tom Friedman from Wednesday. See Saul Singer in the Jerusalem Post. The need for the Americans is so great that they have to make the sides act. Similarly, the need of the parties for American approval is unprecedented. Mybe so great that that interest outweighs (!!) peace process positions. GWB gave an interview to an Arab TV network last night emphasizing similar points about his vision and how he keeps his promises. The key part, for him, is showing the Arab world that all of this is not about oil, settlements and destroying Islam.

Again the Israeli stock market went up, the Shekel is strong against the dollar (at its highest point since late 2000), under 4.4 to the dollar. The talks and the budget passing has developed an optimism that is clearly an overreaction but a yardstick to measure both feelings and another reminder of how connected the issues of the economy and peace talks are. The hyper-pro Bibi editorial in the Jerusalem Post pretty much misses that point. Not that that should surprise readers of that dying and useless paper. [Disclosure: the Post employs Mrs. Kesher and thus helps feed the mini Keshers so we still love it].

While that banned baseball team will not be discussed, it is important to note that one of the conditions of returning them to the discussion on these pages seems near. See article on espn.com. The seond condition is a bit far as they are still five games under .500. Another loss for the Ducks last night as Marty Brodeur shut them out again in Jersey. Chuck! Have the parade anyway!

2003-05-29T09:11:00.000+03:00

CLIMBING TO THE SUMMIT

The (steps in the) Road Map have been approved by the government, the revised budget passed in Knesset late last night and all attention can be given to the planning for a super-week of diplomacy starting tonight. A second meeting between PM's will take place today to be followed by the Bush summits in Sharm el-Shieikh (with Arab leaders) and Akaba with (Sharon and Abu Maazen) on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. All of this is dependant on the situation remaining calm, of course. The goal is likely to be the starting of the activity on the road map. That is taking the first steps demanded by the document -- statements by the two leaders. After the problems Sharon got earlier this week and described in my previous musing, will he be able to say, as detailed in the roadmap:
"Israel affirms its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush. Israel calls for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians."
Problem words include "independent", "sovereign", "everywhere". The first two detail the nature of a Palestinian state. While Sharon has said this before, it is unclear how forthcoming he will want to be. Everywhere - does that mean Israel can't act against Palestinians who are planning terror attacks? In the end, Sharon will likely say the words, if only to cause Abu Maazen to say the words demanded from him:
"The Palestinians reiterate Israel's right to exist in peace and security and call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity, terrorism and all acts of violence agaisnt Israel anywhere. All official Palestinians institutions will end incitement against Israel."
Such a strong statement would be a large step towards the key strategic goal of ending the violence of the past 32 months. It would also serve to lead the two sides into actions (and not just words) regarding the road map. Will Sharon offer some sort of gesture at the summit such as ordering a closing of the illegal outposts? Will Abu Maazen take control of specific areas and act against the terror groups? Haaretz says that will certainly be offered, probably tonight.
Conventional wisdom (although it is often an oxymoron coming from many of the sources) is that the Palestinians cannot possibly achieve the benchmarks demanded of them. See Uri Dan in today's Jerusalem Post. A fear could be that despite non-action (or partial action) the Quartet -- especially the Euros and the UN -- will push to move on. See yesterday's J-m Post editorial. Israeli Ministers continue to attack the dangers in the plan.

A keen reader of these lines, a Mr. Rubin of Tel Aviv voiced his unhappiness about the ad nauseum discussions about unimportant issues such as Sharon, occupation and raod maps when his favorite hockey team, the New Jersey Devils are three wins away from the Stanley Cup. At the same time, my favorite Duck, Chuck, from SoCal reports that he did not make the trip to the swamp for games one and two as he was given the responsibility of planning a parade for the Anaheim team when they win the Cup. He noted that he may fly over for games five and seven. He did not include the word "if" in his email. Interesting. While Mr. Kesher sticks with his prediction of Devils in six, he is cheering for the Ducks. Mr. Kesher reminds his readers that he called for a Devils-Ducks final as early as late April. Perhaps a loyal reader will search the archives for the exact date.
We passed 1500 hits (not per day, we have no porn here, yet) yesterday although a majority of them are about six people and you know who you are. I appreciate you willingness to waste a bit of your day with me.

2003-05-27T15:17:00.000+03:00

HE SAID WHAT?!

At an amazing meeting of the Likud Knesset membership yesterday, the Prime Minister of Israel said the word "occupation" FOUR times. Among other things he basically said that it is bad for Israel to continue to occupy 2 million Palestinians. ">See article. Of course, the official position of Israel since 1967 has been that the West Bank and Gaza are disputed territories but are not occupied according to international law. The arguments are based on old legalistic arguments regarding the status of the territories before the Six Day War and basically claimed that the Geneva Conventions should not be applicable. Over the years, the argument convinced no one in the international community. A better argument, which is still, I believe the position of Israel, that the permanent status of the territories must be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Of course, that point does not change the current status of the territories.

So, he said that. He also said a number of other things that were so reasonable and so forthcoming that I fell off my sofa watching the news last night. What does it mean? Firstly, the passing of the vote in the Cabinet on Sunday (even with all of the whining and hedging) was not only words. It is now the official position of Israel. It has passed the rubicon in regard to a number of key issues. While I don't need to tell you that I have many doubts about Sharon, the fact is (and it must be recognized by Israel's left) that he is standing up to the challenge of peace... at least this week.

Will the Palestinians be able to fill out the details of the first stage of the road map. Concensus here is that it is nearly impossible. Add too, the Israeli government's commentary to the road map that was published in this morning's Haaertz. The exacting view of the demands on the Palestinians are nearly impossible. Here are Akiva Eldar's criticisms. I am not sure that Israel is wrong to make the demand that "there will be no progress to the second phase without the fulfillment of all above-mentioned conditions relating to the war against terror". Of course, the road map itself says the same thing.

I think that it is possible. Can you tell that I am more optimistic today? The investment of the Americans is getting greater each day. The key Arab states seem to be on board. The world expected Sharon to reject and take the fall (OK,OK maybe I did, too). That hasn't happened. The Palestinians are nervous as if they were tricked into accepting the road map and are now stuck having to carry it out. The scheduled meeting tomorrow between Sharon adn Abu Maazen was just cancelled - it will happen on Thursday or Friday and Sharon will likely offer the Palestinians security control in a significant portion of the Gaza Strip. He'll say - do what needs to be done there and you'll get more.

Who else is nervous? The settlers. They were trusting Sharon to save them from peace talks. They are already acting to demonize him. Its almost enough to turn one into a Sharon supporter. Almost.

2003-05-25T12:07:00.000+03:00

NO HANGING CHADS IN THIS VOTE

The news of the weekend was the agreement of PM Sharon to bring the road map to a vote in the Cabinet tonight. Assessments here this morning are that it will pass by a small margin. The domino effect of such a vote witll be interesting ranging from showing what American pressure can achieve, what effect this will have on Sharon's center-right coalition, to the "reality" of Israeli acceptance of a number of concepts in the road map such settlement freeze, closing of illegal outposts, a Palestinian state with provisional borders by the end of 2004, and stopping certain aggressive security measures. If you still haven't read the road map - get with the program. Here it is.

At the same time, this, like a tennis match will return the ball to the Palestinian side and demand immediate statements and actions on issues such as ending terror, arresting terrorists, closing infrastrucures, ending incitement, confiscation of illegal arms and more. Can or will Abu Maazen do these things?

There is talk about a summit next week in Sharm el-Sheikh with GWB. Is that a good thing? Perhaps it would draw the necessary statements from the principals but what will convince the Israeli public is actions. The danger of additional terror in the coming days would also be enormous.

It isn't the Eurovision song contest (won by a group of Turkish women of seemingly ill repute last night, see photo) or even American Idol but somehow the world keeps watching. They are watching but are they understanding or care to understand? Probably not.

How about New Jersey?! You thought it was only Sopranos and Springsteen... When was the last time that two teams playing in the same arena made the NHL and NBA finals in the same season? It was the Knicks and Rangers in 1994 when the Broadway Blues won the Cup and the Knicks lost to Houston when John Starks had that awful game seven. At also happened in 1992 when the Bulls won their second championship and the Hawks lost to the Penguins. Pretty useless info, eh.

2003-05-22T09:31:00.000+03:00

PRESSURE POINT

According to this morning's Israeli media, the US Government is putting pressure on Israel to say "yes" to the road map and to close the illegal outposts in the West Bank. See Aluf Benn's report in today's Haaretz here. This is a clear change in the American message over the past few days. You remember that during the Powell visit, the emphasis was on steps and not on the road map. It is now clear that our lack of clarity on the subject of the road map is seen to be problematic. It is scary how quickly the spin about terror attacks pass - already on Wednesday (yesterday) the talk is how to get things going again.

You may remember that last week (on May 13) I wrote about a leak about media advice Israel is getting ffrom the USA. Akiva Eldar in today's Haaretz quotes from the documents given to Israeli officials. The message of the document is clear that after the American success in Iraq (although that may change in time), there is a desire in the USA for balance and progress towards success here. The thought is that if Saddam can be defeated in three weeks, a solution to peace between Israelis and Palestinians must also be achievable, too. Of course, this is an overly simplistic view of the world in general and the situation here. At the same time, it means that Israel has to be aware of the perceptions in Washington and accross America.

Of course, I am not sure that this is a bad thing. Sharon may even WANT the Americans to tell him to do things that may be difficult to push through domestically, such as arguing with the settlers about closing illegal outposts and freezing settlement expansion. And even if he doesn't, its still good. I read an interesting quote from then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres from the summer of 1995, in connection with negotiations on the Interim Agreement within the Oslo accords. While the world is in many ways a different place then it was eight years ago, some things remain the same. The quote is taken from Uri Savir's book, The Process:

"I'm fed up with your fear of what the settlers will say. What gall! You want 150,000 Hebronites to remain under our control because of 400 Jews? There's a limit to arrogance and a limit to timidity. I'm telling you that we can break Arafat if that's what you want. But we'll be left with Hamas, an intifada and terror. We've made a decision to strive for a political settlement. Today we must decide who's in charge of this country: the government or a handful of settlers. And to you generals, I say: you too must weigh this matter from the standpoint of security. Enough of this dread of how the settlers will react!"

2003-05-19T15:27:00.000+03:00

A REAL SETBACK?

As I wrote yesterday, the events of the past few days which even included a foiled Hamas attempt to hijack a passenger bus and kidnap soldiers have set us back to the situation where we were a year ago. The government cancelled all of the CBM's (confidence building measures) announced during the Powell visit and all of the proposals raised during the Abbas-Sharon meeting. According to the media, the Prime Minister fought off calls from the right to exile Arafat.

The feeling today is that the road map has crashed even before it started. I don't believe that is true. Giving up so quickly is not likely and time will move the sides back towards the only path imaginable - dialogue. It will not come so fast and the impression one gets here is that we are in the midst of (yet another) terrorism wave. But it will come.

Yesterday night I took part in a meeting dealing with issues relating to Jews from the Arab world. There is so much talk about Palestinian refugees and an alleged "right of return", there has been talk about finding a way to re-raise the issue of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who left a variety of countries in the Arab world over the years. In stark contrast to the Palestinian refugees who have suffered in squalor, the majority of the Jews were absorbed - not as refugees but - as immigrants in Israel. Three examples include Israel's President, Foreign Minister and Defense Minister. The idea is not to claim that the Palestinian refugees have no rights or legitimacy: they do. The goal, however, is to say that there are many who have suffered and that all of these issues must be taken into consideration when "solving" the Israel-Arab conflict.

One topical issue was the Jews of Iraq. What was once a great community, numbering over 100,000 after WW2 is now just a few old people. It is clear that in the coming months that some sort of Truth Commission or War Crimes Trials will take place in Iraq. Wouldn't it be cool if some of the vanguard of those speaking out about the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hand of Saddam were Jews? According to experts there is more evidence of a legal sort about Jews then about some others. Thus, they may be in a position to speak out and tell their story. It could bring to the forefront of public conciousness the suffering of Jews in Arab countries.

Chuck's Ducks are in; Rafi's vision (at least vs. the Kings) worked; We are still boycotting that team from Queens and it seems that Vijay Singh is scared of Anna Sorenstam and pulled out of the PGA (mens') golf tourney that she is playing in this week. This will be a fun story this week. I hope she kicks some butt.

2003-05-18T15:18:00.000+03:00

COMPLICATED WEEKEND

What is one to make of current events? I am glad that Sharon and Abbas met least night here. Danny Rubinstein in Haaretz thought it was useless. I think he's wrong and progress or even its perception can have a dynamic. Sharon didn't cancel the meeting despite a suicide terrorist attack killing a settler couple in Hebron a few hours earlier. There was no inside media coverage of the talks yet. No Israeli or Palestinian briefings arguing about the meeting.

Then again, this morning we woke up to the news of the suicide bombing on the 6 bus near the French Hill intersection killing seven, mostly senior citizens. Apparently, a separate suicide bomber killed himself at a check point near Jerusalem (no Israelis were hurt). Sharon cancelled his trip to Washington and who knows what is coming next.

Add to that the attacks in Casablanca and Riyadh and there seems like a real terror buldge in the last week. While the Palestinian terror might be seen to be different - that is only because the rules seem to be different here. The fact is that we were all hoping that Afghanistan and Iraq had changed the rules. They haven't.

The fact is when these things happen, it is hard to argue with the Prime Minister and the military leaders who say that there is nothing to talk about until the terror stops. The Palestinians seem like they have not found away to clearly mark for all of their people that terror is not an acceptable tool. It is unclear that who will step up and disassociate themselves from the continued violence. Abu Maazen says the right words; Sari Nusseibah is a serious guy. However, Palestinian TV still is cheering jihad on. The schools are still teaching about a world without Israel and last week's marking of "Nakbah" Day, the anniversary of the disaster of the creation of Israel, highlighted by an Arafat speech to continue fighting and fighting and fighting. It seems to me sometimes that maybe they are not as ready as I might want them to be. This is certainly not only about occupation.

Look, I haven't become a Likudnik today. The Israeli rejectionist side is still wrong. Flat out wrong. We have to always have our hand out. At the same time, the demands being made from the Palestinians are not sooooo great. They have to decide that terrorism is evil.

I just finished reading Margaret MacMillian's book "Paris: 1919, Six Months that Changed the World" about the Paris peace conference. The part about Arab nationalism and diplomacy seems straight out of current events. The next book, Michael Oren's Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, is also great. I just started it but just read about Ben Gurion becoming nervous about Arab manouvering (and terrorism) of the early 60's. So (among other things) he bought some heavy water. Nevertheless, he told the Americans that he'd meet Nasser, any place at any time. That's the right message.

By the way, the strike ended early this morning. It is unclear what was agreed upon and what it means. I'm back at work and that's good. At least something is good in Israel today.

2003-05-14T13:54:00.000+03:00

PESSIMISM

Some of you were a bit taken aback by the tone of yesterday's missives. Sorry about that. It will pass.

It's odd, in a way. We have now had 30 months or so of violence, murder and general mayhem and I have to say that I was not flustered during much of the period. Don' take this the wrong way - it was scary and confusing, I took risks into consideration (for example, in February 2002 I stopped riding the bus and bought a second car) and was generally frustrated. At the same time I kept telling myself and nearly anyone who would listen: when the chance comes, Israel won't miss it. Israel has never, really, blinked when real opportunities for imporving the situation existed. Arik Sharon won't either. When the chance comes, Sharon will stand up and be counted. And if he doesn't, Israelis will show him the door.

Well, here we are in mid-May 2003. This is the test, I think. What will happen next week in Washington? Will GWB say words like: "you've got to close those outposts, now"; "all settlement activity must be frozen"? What will Arik do? There is no opposition to Sharon in Israel. The Labor and Meretz parties are both leaderless and have no real message. Thus, I don't think that (other then vis a vis the Americans) Sharon feels any domestic pull to compromise. What would he gain? He could lose the security of his still new coalition. Why risk it? If he doesn't say those words (or other such things) what message will Arik internalize?

So is the call of America and the international community enough? I'm doubtful. At the same time, what makes all of this so difficult is that there is a light here, now. It won't stay for long. The next terrorist attack; the next targeting of a Hamas leader; the developments around the arrests of a number of Arab Israeli leaders yesterday; the Americans getting bogged down in Iraq. This moment will pass. There will certainly be other moments but ...

Here is a very thoughtful comment from Yossi Klein Halevi regarding settlement compromise iin today's Jerusalem Post.

By the way, I'm still on strike. That is the fourth day this week and sixth in the last month. Should bed an interesting salary at the end of the month. If you want to, you could always email me $1,000,000 via paypal. That would work.

2003-05-13T14:53:00.000+03:00

THEY SAY IT, TOO

If you are following the big American written media (NYT, WP and LAT - for example) all have spun the Powell visit that it is Sharon that is the problem regarding the Road Map and moving forward. For a recap, see Slate's "today's paper" from yesterday and from today. That is a bad sign. A visiting American media advisor told government oficials similar things the other day. See leak from yesterday's Haaertz. Someone very close to me who was at the briefing reports that the words were sharp and message clear: no one in America has patience with nuance here. Its time to find some closure.

Here we are where much is perception and not necessarily reality. Things may change in Iraq. Much of the attention will shift to the bombing in Riyadh last night killing some twenty people but unless we get with the program, we will get the blame for any failure. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in Washington next week when Arik visits the White House. My pal Azriel thinks I shouldn't hold my breath on the question of putting the pressure on the PM by GWB. However, failure of the roadmap and continued violence here casts a shadow on American interests in Iraq. I hope.

2003-05-13T11:42:00.000+03:00

PERETZ STRIKES OUT THE SIDE

Still on strike and while I am positive that the Minister of Finance and those working with him are not looking out for my interests, I have serious questions about the union. Their messages to the public are unclear and made with a lack of conviction. There are good reasons to be on strike in theory - massive cuts in salary in the lower and middle class, threats of unilateral removal of pension rights and a growing gap between haves and have nots are all bad news. At the same time there are those in the pubic sector (Senior municipal employees, airport officials, electric company, and bank of israel are four examples) who are making obscene salaries for no good reason. Many of my friends beleve that the union is really fighting for them and not for me. They have more (in absolute numbers) to lose because they are earning so much more.

The wost part about all of this is that all of this is another example of the "we'll take care of ourselves" syndrom which is all too pervasive in Israel these days. I think it gets its legitimacy from national politics where yesterday a Knesset committee refused (article here. Yossi Verter wrote nicely in Ha'aretz but I can't transfer the link. Check it out.) to lift the immunity of one of its members accused of election bribery. A number of the members of the committee did not vote because they would potentially find themselves in the same position in the short term. Others voted against lifting immunity literally to challenge the rule of law and the peceived power of the attorney general. Thus, if the public sees our elected officials being (literally) above the law and taking care of their own, what lessons are learned. At Mr. Kesher's place of work, over 80% of the emploees worked yesterday, despite their being a strike. I didn't cross the picket line (Ma Kesher tells me that my late Gandfather would have been proud) and feel like a bit of a sucker.

You all know that old story about the wedding in the shtetl where the guests were all asked to bring a bottle of vodka to the party to put in a common vat. One guest, looking to save a few zlotys decided to bring a bottle of water - saying that no one would notice the diference. In the end, of course, the vat was filled only with water.

What do you think? Does the PM read this blog? Probably not. Actually, I hope not and that he would spend his time doing more productive things then surfing the net. Yesterday, I wrote about settlements and illegal outposts and the message that they send here and internationally. Of course, I suggested that Israel take steps to come closer to the needs of our people and the calls of the world to close illegal outposts and start thinking about what settlements should, in the long run, be closed. This morning's Jerusalem Post has an interview with the PM in which he is pretty clear about the issue. It was a clear backtrack from statements about potentially closing settlements. Does he not think the international community reads the absurdly one sided Post? No. He know they do. Last month, before Powell comes, he speaks of hope and compromise. Today...

The reason I am so upset about all of this is that I really believe that there is a chance now to change things a little. Don't we want to do that? Don't we want tourism to improve? Don't we want international investment to return? Having guards walking all over the university and in front of every coffee shop lowers unemployment but adds ZERO productivity to the economy.

The really sad thing is that this could be a great place to live and raise a family. It doesn't feel like it these days.