Yossi Beilin, still undermining Israel after all these years

It’s been more than a decade since Yossi Beilin retired from Israeli politics, yet he continues to use his stature as a former government official to sometimes take positions that blacken Israel’s good name.

 This past summer, he appeared alongside Israel-haters Hanan Ashrawi and James Zogby in a panel discussion organized and hosted by the U.N.’s Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

The Anti-Defamation League describes that committee as “the single most prolific source of material bearing the official imprimatur of the U.N. which maligns and debases the Jewish State. … The meetings and conferences organized by [the committee] are replete with anti-Israel statements such as false claims that Israel is an ‘apartheid state’ and blatantly anti-Semitic comparisons to the Nazis.” How sad that Beilin would choose to grant legitimacy to the committee by appearing at its forum.

Former Israeli minister Yossi Beilin attends a Constitution, Law and Justice,
 Committee meeting at the Knesset on July 9, 2017.
 Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90.

Beilin is best known for his role in Israeli diplomatic and political affairs. As deputy foreign minister in 1993, he was one of the architects of the Oslo Accords. He claimed that he had brought peace in our time, but PLO chief Yasser Arafat used the accords to create a de facto mini-state, smuggle in tons of weapons and launch wave after wave of suicide bombings.

 In 1997, Beilin established a movement within the Knesset to lobby for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Three years later, Israel pulled out. Hezbollah took over the vacated area and began stockpiling tens of thousands of missiles, terrorizing northern Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers—eventually provoking the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Today, Hezbollah has more than 150,000 missiles stationed along the Israel-Lebanon border.

 Beilin competed for the leadership of the Labor Party, was defeated, and then defected to the far-left Meretz Party. In 2004, he became chairman of Meretz, promising to lead the party to greater glory. At the time, it had six seats in the Knesset. In the next election, under Beilin’s leadership, it dropped to five. When it became clear that he would be defeated in the next race for the party’s chairmanship, Beilin withdrew his candidacy and retired from politics.

Over the past decade-and-a-half, he has taken some positions that have surprised and alarmed many friends of Israel.

 One involved former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. In late 2006, Carter shocked and outraged the American Jewish community by authoring a book titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. Abraham Foxman, then the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, charged that Carter was “engaging in anti-Semitism” by promoting the apartheid libel. Fourteen board members of the Jimmy Carter Center in Atlanta resigned in protest over the book. Even the ultra-liberal Central Conference of American Rabbis announced that it was canceling its forthcoming visit to the Carter Center. It seemed as if the entire Jewish world was—with justification—furious at the former world leader.

 But not Beilin. Writing in The Forward, he heaped praise on Carter as “one of the world’s most accomplished statesmen” and “a public figure of enormous moral clout.” Then, while not directly endorsing the apartheid charge, Beilin in effect justified it by claiming that Carter’s accusation was no different from what “has been said by Israelis themselves.”

 It’s true that there have been a few Israeli extremists, including some of Beilin’s Meretz colleagues, who have accused Israel of apartheid. But the overwhelming majority of Israelis reject that charge as an outrageous falsehood.

An incident earlier this year suggests that Beilin has no real quarrel with the “apartheid” libel. A small group of current and former Meretz leaders, including Beilin, staged a “protest tour” of the Jordan Valley in June. The group’s spokesman absurdly declared to reporters that if Israeli law is extended to the 30 percent of Judea and Samaria where Jewish communities are located, it would create “an apartheid map” reminiscent of South Africa.

Not only did Beilin not dispute the apartheid accusation, but he piled on, telling the reporters that the Israeli government secretly plans to carry out “more annexation” beyond the 30 percent, even though there is no evidence of that.

 A prominent Jewish columnist writing recently in The Forward surprisingly included Beilin on a list of six notable “Jewish thought-leaders” who are “fostering identity-building” among young Jews. Including Beilin on that list was a serious error. His actions and statements are more likely to erode, not foster, Jewish and Zionist pride and identity. Whether by pushing for territorial concessions to Arafat and the terrorist group Hezbollah, taking part in that anti-Israel U.N. forum or siding with promoters of the apartheid slur, Yossi Beilin has proven that he is not a thought-leader at all, but rather, an utterly thoughtless leader.

 Recent events demonstrate that while he and his ilk remain mired in the tired old clichés of yesterday, more thoughtful leaders in the Middle East are beginning to recognize that there are new options for finding ways to a better tomorrow.

* * * 

Well, that's what I have to say.

Stephen M. Flatow

To read more of my columns go to JNS.ORG.

Guess when the last new "settlement" was built

From John Kerry’s speech and similar remarks made by other Obama administration officials in recent years, you would think Israel has been building new settlements day and night.
Yet the fact is that no Israeli government has established a single new settlement in more than twenty years.

When Labor opposition leader Yitzhak Rabin was campaigning for prime minister in 1992, he strongly criticized the Likud government for establishing new Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Rabin argued that if Israel would stop creating settlements, the Palestinians would make peace and the world would stop being so hostile toward the Jewish state.

Rabin’s thesis was based on hope and speculation, not historical experience. But he won that election, so he had the opportunity to test his thesis. And he did. Reviewing Rabin’s first several years in power, The New York Times noted on January 20, 1995 that Rabin entered office “promising to rein in the aggressive settlement-building of his predecessor” and he proceeded to implement a policy in which “no new settlements are authorized.”

When Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister for the first time, in 1996, he continued that policy: no new settlements were established. Of course, construction within existing settlements continued. As Yitzhak Rabin had said in his famous last speech to the Knesset, on October 5, 1995: “We committed ourselves…not to hinder building for natural growth.”

How could Rabin have done otherwise? People had children, children needed schools, and when they grew up into young adults, they needed apartments. That’s called life. Nobody could expect the Israeli government – whether Likud or Labor – to choke off people’s lives.

Both Likud and Labor did, of course, continue to develop new neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The notion that parts of Israel’s capital are “settlements” is an absurdity that is rejected among Israelis from right to left.

There are some scattered little “outposts” in Judea-Samaria, but the government has not sanctioned them. Some of those outposts, in fact, have been torn down by the government. A few that were built on the land of existing settlements have been permitted to remain. Others are in legal limbo. But only a tiny number of Israelis reside in the outposts; the idea that they constitute obstacles to peace is laughable.

Not only has the government not authorized any new settlements since 1992, but Prime Minister Netanyahu, whom Kerry smeared as an “extremist,” even froze all construction in existing settlements for 10 months, because the Obama administration insisted that would bring the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table. The Obama theory was quickly exposed as a fantasy.

That’s not all. Israel has already torn down existing authorized settlements. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dismantled 21 Jewish settlements in the Gaza region and expelled their thousands of residents. Israel was hit by tens of thousands of rockets in return.

So there you have it. No new settlements in 24 years. An unprecedented 10-month freeze on construction in existing settlements. Twenty-one settlements torn down. Only a tiny handful of Israelis living in shacks in some inconsequential hilltop outposts.

According to the anti-settlement crowd, Israel by now should have peace with the Palestinians and should be loved by the world.

Instead, we see exactly the opposite.

The Palestinians are even more violent today. The world hates Israel even more. And the Obama administration is obsessed with picking fights with Israel – over, of all things, the settlements.
How can this paradox be explained?

The answer may have more to do with psychology than anything else. The psychology of bullies, to be precise.

We live in a world full of countries that are bullies. They occupy other people’s land (see: Russia). They sponsor terrorism against people of other faiths (see: Iran). They explode if an American president-elect takes a phone call from a rival (see: China). They swallow each other alive (see: countless warring African countries).

They respect countries that are strong and self-confident. They despise and take advantage of countries that seem timid or hesitant. When they see weakness, they smell blood. Israel’s constant concessions – from halting new settlements to releasing imprisoned terrorists to stopping wars in Lebanon and Gaza short of victory – have been seen as signs of weakness. Israel is seen as stumbling, ineffectual, unworthy of respect, perhaps on the verge of collapse. Israel is seen as a country that everyone naturally gangs up on, because everyone assumes the Israelis will make yet more concessions.

That’s what brings us to today’s peculiar reality, in which Israel makes repeated concessions on settlements, and Obama, Kerry, and the UN become even more obsessed with settlements. Fortunately, there appears to be light at the end of this miserable tunnel, as Israel’s leaders join hands with America’s new leadership to forge a better future for both countries.

This post first appeared in the Jewish Press and may be read and commented on here.

France's push for an international peace conference would be a disaster for Israel

Yitzhak Rabin would have opposed it, too.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected France’s call for an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But before anyone concludes that only “right-wingers” oppose such a conference, it’s worth recalling that one of the most outspoken critics of the conference idea was Yitzhak Rabin.

The year was 1985, and Rabin was Israel’s minister of defense. Arab leaders had been pushing for the convening of an international peace conference. Rabin and other Israeli leaders were insisting on direct Arab-Israeli negotiations.

The Reagan administration had always supported Israel’s position. But in the spring of 1985, there were media reports that Secretary of State George Shultz was starting to warm up to the idea of an international conference. A worried Rabin flew to the United States for top-level discussions.

Upon his arrival in the U.S., Rabin “made it clear he was concerned about Washington’s apparent weakening on the question of an international conference on the Middle East,” according to AIPAC’s weekly newsletter, Near East Report.
“If they are ready to make peace, let’s negotiate [directly],” Rabin was quoted as saying. “If someone wants to undermine any hope of peace, an international conference and bringing in the Syrians is the best way.”

Rabin said that in his meetings with U.S. officials, “I heard about the ‘international umbrella.’ ” That was a phrase that some administration officials had begun using to try to sugarcoat the bitter pill. The idea was that if the conference took place under the “umbrella” of international auspices, it would somehow increase the chances of achieving peace.

Rabin disagreed. “Whenever anyone mentions umbrella, it reminds me of Chamberlain and Munich,” he declared.

Rabin’s statements were pretty remarkable, when you think about it. He had formerly served as Israel’s ambassador in Washington, so he was keenly sensitive to the need not to anger U.S. officials. Yet he publicly leaked the fact that they were using that deceptive “international umbrella” term. Not only did he leak it, he openly criticized it, right there in Washington.

And he didn’t just criticize it, he used the analogy of Chamberlain selling out to Hitler at Munich. For Rabin to stand in Washington and blast the U.S. administration, even invoking a Nazi analogy, was nothing less than astonishing. It really showed what a terrible threat an international conference (or “umbrella”) poses to Israel.

Such a conference, if held today, would consist of a dozen or more Arab and European countries ganging up on Israel and demanding unilateral concessions to the Palestinians. And given reports that the Obama administration wants to see “progress” on this front before the president leaves office, one must assume the U.S. would side with the Arabs and Europeans.

The purpose of the conference would not be to achieve a genuine peace. How do we know? Because the sponsor, France, already declared earlier this year that if the conference failed to produce a Palestinian state, the French would unilaterally recognize one. That’s the goal – not peace, but a Palestinian state, as quickly as possible, no matter the risks to Israel. Which is why the Palestinian Authority’s inciter-in-chief, Mahmoud Abbas, is energetically supporting the conference idea.

During the past year, France has suffered the worst terrorist attacks in the world since 9/11. One would think the French would understand the folly of appeasing Islamic terrorists and oppose creating what would be an overwhelmingly Muslim Palestinian terrorist state. Yet just the opposite has happened.

Why? Because the French are afraid. They are afraid of angering the Muslim world, afraid of more Muslim terrorism. The French believe that since they are defending themselves against ISIS – French planes are bombing Muslim terrorists in Syria and the French police have been shutting down pro-terror mosques – they have to prove they champion Muslim causes. Supporting Palestinian statehood is France’s way of trying to appease the Muslim world.


The international conference proposal is just another way of throwing Israel under the bus. No wonder Israelis – Likud or Labor, right or left – aren’t too excited about that prospect.

A version of this post appears in the Jewish Press.

Saying goodbye, then and now, to a victim of terror

20 years is a long time, and the attitude of the Israeli government in one small respect has changed since Alisa was murdered in 1995.  Some thoughts about the murder of Ezra Schwartz from the Times of Israel.

What a difference 20 years can make. It was late Tuesday evening, April 11, 1995. 36 hours earlier I had arrived in Israel to be by the side of my daughter Alisa who had been mortally injured in a bus bombing. Now I was being ushered by Israeli protocol people into the VIP lounge at Ben Gurion Airport to await my El Al flight that would return me with Alisa’s body to the States. I sat on a couch at one end of the room, next to a military chaplain who didn’t speak a word of English. On the opposite side were members of the press who asked a few questions. Frankly, I don’t remember what those questions were, or what I said in reply.

Read the full post here. 

 

What is Fatah celebrating today?

Caroline Glick asks What is Fatah celebrating today?  The answer is not a pleasant one.

Today [January 2, 2013] Fatah members in Dehaisheh, outside Bethlehem celebrated the terror group's special day by parading around in paramilitary uniforms, khafiiyehs and ski caps while brandishing rifles, axes, mock-up rockets and other terror paraphernalia.

But what so far has gone unnoticed by the media here -- and of course the media worldwide - is that today is not the anniversary of anything. It is not Fatah's 48th birthday. Arafat established Fatah in either 1957 or 1959 in Kuwait.

On the night of December 31, 1964-January 1, 1965, Fatah conducted its first terrorist attack against Israel. So today's 48th birthday celebrations are not honoring Fatah's birth, but Fatah's first terrorist attack, which took place 48 years ago, yesterday. Incidentally, and rather poetically, the attack was a failed attempt to bomb Israel's national water carrier, (that is, to poison Israel's wells...).

So much for the alleged moderation of Abu Mazen and his cohorts. Yitzhak Rabin was right, Abu Mazen is a terrorist and will always be one.  If only Shimon Peres would see it, the Middle East would be a different place.

Well, that's what I have to say.

Stephen M. Flatow

Frida Ghitis - "Middle East peace requires courage"

Frida Ghitis writing in the Miami Herald - "Middle East peace requires courage"

One of the most extraordinary moments in recent Middle East history came in 1993, when the world discovered that Israeli and Palestinian teams had held secret peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, formerly sworn enemies, came together on the White House lawn, formalizing their commitment to peace. The decision, and that memorably awkward hand-shake, prodded along by President Bill Clinton, required uncommon courage. They called it the Peace of the Brave. [Ed. - Yes, they did and it gave rise to a new vocabulary, such as, a Sacrifice for the Peace, to describe the murders of innocent civilians such as Alisa Flatow.]

The term deserves dusting off because it highlights one of the key requirements for peace, and one whose absence could prove the undoing of the new effort unfolding under U.S. sponsorship. Bravery, courage, are indispensable because no matter how comforting the idea of peace, reaching an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is a frighteningly dangerous process.

To reach a deal, the leaders -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas -- must make compromises that will break the hearts of millions of their followers. They will have to accept terms that will anger some enough that they will kill. And they will have to sign on to borders that could make their land -- especially in Israel's case -- vulnerable to unthinkable risks.

The euphoric events of 1993 gave way to disappointment, but they also helped draw the blueprint guiding the new quest for peace.

No one claims the new effort suffers from unrealistic expectations. Skepticism about its chances for success prevails. I call it skepticism and not pessimism, because many who claim peace is impossible in fact hope for failure. By their standards, they are optimistic.

When the leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah say the process will fail they remind us of their plan. Their solution is the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a fundamentalist Muslim regime; an alternative, backed by weapons, militias and money, that looms over the peace talks like a thick dark shadow, but also provides some of the impetus to persevere.

Ironically, the negotiating sides already agree on the solution's rough outlines. With the possible exception of the future of Jerusalem, everyone knows what is required for peace.

Even more frustrating is that the subject of closest agreement has become the most contentious. Partly because of missteps by the Obama administration, the issue of settlements has moved front and center and could provide a timid Mahmoud Abbas a way out of the talks. Abbas says without a settlement freeze he will pull out. Netanyahu says that, like all other differences, this should be resolved "through direct continuous talks.''

Already in the Clinton days that problem was essentially solved. Settlements take up about 4 percent of the disputed land. Most settlers live on a few large blocs, which in an agreement would be swapped for equal amounts of land within Israel proper.

To be sure, tough disagreements remain. But a basic obstacle to peace today is that Abbas, the Palestinian representative, appears to lack the power, the legitimacy and, yes, the courage, to close a deal.

Abbas, who rules only over the West Bank, asked for permission not just from Palestinians but from the Arab League, to start negotiations. When talks started in Washington, Hamas, which controls Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians, signaled its rejection by murdering more Israelis. The London-based Arab newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi editorialized that Abbas "negotiates without being granted the authorization to do so by his people.''

Adding irony to this sad situation, majorities of Palestinians and Israelis desperately want a peace deal. Contrary to what an ill-informed article in Time recently argued, Israelis are eager for peace. For years a vast majority of Israelis has expressed strong support for a two-state solution. A recent War and Peace Index poll found 80 percent support negotiations, easily outnumbering opponents of compromise.

A majority of Palestinians also back negotiations. But in the Arab world, public opinion carries less weight. Writing in the influential Arab daily Ashar al-Awsat, Mamoun Fandy wrote, ``The Palestinian division is not simply an internal one, as some may think, but is first an Arab division, and secondly a regional one.'' Even if Abbas achieved an agreement, he argued, he would find much of the Arab world pressuring Palestinians to reject it.

That's why Abbas announced shortly after leaving Washington that, "I can't allow myself to make even one concession.'' If he meant that, the new peace process is already over. Clearly, these are not the words from a man with the courage to make the peace of the brave. But then, Arafat ultimately lost his nerve. Maybe Abbas can find his.

Read the column on-line.

I know that Netanyahu has made previous decisions that did not rest well with sectors of his political support, but he made them anyway. Abbas, considered a terrorist by Yitzhak Rabin, does not, in my opinion, have either the willingness or the guts to make similar decisions. Will we back to base one again? The next days and weeks will tell.

What do you think?

Will Palestinian cult of death destroy hope of peace?

As many others were in the early 1990s, I was optimistic that peace would come to Israelis and Palestinians with the signing of the Oslo Accords. I was woken from my reverie by the attack in which Alisa was murdered. It took several years more for mainstream folks to understand the implications of what the late Israeli Prime Minister personally told my wife and I,

"Yassir Arafat was a terrorist, is a terrorist, will always be a terrorist, and is surrounded by terrorists."

With the so-called "direct negotiations" about to take place between the two sides, the recently made threats by Jibril Rajoub and Ahmed Qurei to renew attacks against Israeli civilians, must thoroughly dampen, if not eliminate, any optimism that this new round of negotiations will have the desired result.

We previously wrote about the naming of a square in a Palestinian city after a mass murderer. They've just done that again. This worship of murderers is sick and I can think of no other society that does it so well. How do you reconcile yourself with people who glorify those who killed your children?

It says on the Jerusalem Post editorial page,

The Israeli government, with mainstream support, has signalled that it will consider the painful concessions necessary for a viable accord – provided that the PA, for the first time, both internalizes Israel’s sovereign legitimacy and emphasizes that legitimacy to its own people, creating the climate for mutual compromise and long-term reconciliation.

If only the Palestinian leadership will meet them half-way.

That's what I think.