NEWS FROM ISRAEL 4-DEC-09

Think-tank warns EU off "Swedish proposal"
by Reuters

JERUSALEM—A proposal before the European Union to endorse the division of Jerusalem would risk closing off half the city to non-Muslims, according to a think tank close to the Israeli govern-ment. The Israel Project said the plan could be backed at a regular meeting of the bloc's 27 foreign ministers on Monday, as part of what it called a bid to "forge a high-profile role" in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Diplomats in Brussels said the EU meeting was likely to discuss the stalled Middle East peace process, but no radical new policy change was in the works. East Jerusalem has been seen for years as prospective capital of a future Palestinian state.
The think tank singled out current EU president Sweden and its foreign minister Carl Bildt, saying he aimed to sideline the EU's more balanced existing policy. Relations between Sweden and Israel have been irritated recently by what was seen in Israel as an anti-Semitic story in the Swed-ish press and Israel's refusal to let a Swedish minister visit Palestinians in the blockaded Gaza Strip.
The Israeli strategists say the EU's current policy calls for a two-state solution which "should take into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the reli-gious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide".
They said that when East Jerusalem fell under Arab control in the 1948 Middle East war, "access typically was denied to all but Muslims, forbidding Christians and Jews from visiting their holiest sites". The think tank said that Israel, by contrast, after its victory in the 1967 Middle East war, "liberated Jerusalem and opened it up to people of all faiths."
The Israel Project said that "the EU proposal also implies recognition of a unilaterally de-clared Palestinian state" that it says the Palestinian Fatah movement intends to announce without waiting for any peace treaty with Israel. It said Israel's foreign ministry had responded to "the Swedish proposal" urging the EU to instead "focus on getting the Palestinians to take steps to dem-onstrate they are interested in pursuing peace".
Agence France Presse reports: In a confidential report obtained by AFP on Thursday, the European Union accused Israel of actively pursuing the annexation of Arab east Jerusalem and un-dermining hopes for peace with Palestinians. The annual report drafted by the EU heads of mis-sions in Jerusalem accused Israel of implementing in 2009 an intricate policy which includes ex-panding Jewish settlements and demolishing Palestinian homes in east Jerusalem.
"Developments in east Jerusalem in 2009 were marked by the continued expansion of Is-raeli settlements and a considerable number of Palestinian house demolitions and eviction orders," said the report, published first by Israel's Haaretz daily.



"Israel is, by practical means, actively pursuing its illegal annexation of east Jerusalem by weakening the Palestinian community in the city, impeding Palestinian urban developments and ultimately separating east Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank."
The future of east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want to make the capital of their promised state, is one of the most sensitive issue in Middle East peace talks, which have been sus-pended for almost a year. The EU report said that the Jewish state's policies in east Jerusalem "are undermining prospects for a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem and incrementally render a sus-tainable two-state solution unfeasible."
The 14-page report dated November 23 said that Israel's policy in east Jerusalem is "an integral part of a broader Israeli strategy." It goes on to accuse the Israeli government and Jerusa-lem municipality of supporting and assisting private right-wing Jewish organisations of strengthen-ing the Jewish hold in and around the Old City.
"The continued settlement expansion plans around the Old City effectively encircles and contains the historic basin and separates the Muslim holy places from the rest of east Jerusalem," the report said.
It said the municipality places severe restrictions on issuing building permits for Palestin-ian houses in east Jerusalem, forcing them to construct without permits. As a result, over 600 Pal-estinian-owned structures have been demolished since the year 2000, it said.
Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a freeze on new permits for house construction in Jewish settlements in the rest of the West Bank, but the decision does not affect east Jerusalem, where some 200,000 Jews live in 12 districts.
Foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor branded the report as "dishonest." "This report is based exclusively on Palestinian versions and figures. It reflects the Palestinian propaganda," he told AFP.
Jerusalem Post reports: Opposition leader Tzipi Livni met French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris on Thursday. The discussion centered on regional issues including negotiations with the Palestinians, and the Iranian nuclear threat.
At the beginning of the meeting, Livni expressed opposition to a draft resolution put for-ward by Sweden that would recognize east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. She told Sarkozy that it was not up to Europe to "take sides" on the matter of Jerusalem, and called on France to speak up against the draft.
Regarding Iran, Livni thanked the French president for his country's stance on the matter. She said that the time has come for fiercer and more meaningful sanctions against Teheran. Livni also said that within Israel, the coalition and the opposition are in agreement on the issue of Iran.
On negotiations with the Palestinians, the opposition leader told Sarkozy that Israel wants to come to an agreement as soon as possible. She said that Israel seeks "two states for two peo-ples," while simultaneously safeguarding its national and security interests.

IDF fears settlers may attack Palestinians in response to freeze
by Anshel Pfeffer, Chaim Levinson, and Barak Ravid, Haaretz

Israel Defense Forces officers in the West Bank have expressed concerned that settlers may esca-late their acts of opposition to the freeze on settlement construction by targeting the Palestinian population.
In recent days, inspectors delivering freeze orders to the settlements have been met with acts of violence, yet the troops from the Judea and Samaria Division and the Central Command—who are responsible for their safety—are nowhere to be found. Instead, the brunt of the security work has been carried out by police and Border Police troops.
At this stage, the IDF is keen to keep a low profile and even the IDF spokesman's office has left the field to their colleagues from the police and the Civil Administration. The army went as far as to downplay a visit by Defense Minister Ehud Barak to the Division Headquarters, during which time he spoke about necessary preparations to enforce the temporary ban on settlement con-struction.
Troops from the regional brigades in the West Bank have intervened in only a few cases involving unruly settlers. A noteworthy instance involved the chief of security of Beit Aryeh, whose salary and vehicle are paid for by the IDF. Once the IDF learned that he had used the vehi-cle to block the path of the construction inspectors, the commander of the regional brigade, with the backing of GOC Central Command, ordered the vehicle to be confiscated.
"Even though we will carry out every order we are given, the current situation suits us," an officer serving in the West Bank told Haaretz. "For many soldiers [confronting settlers] is a diffi-cult subject, and at the end of the day it's not really the task for which we have been prepared."
The division of labor that Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and former GOC Central Com-mand, Gadi Shamni, put in place—by which the police deal with the Israeli citizens in the territo-ries—has created a sense among many soldiers that any future role the army may have in evacuat-ing settlements would be illegitimate. The commander of one of the battalions, familiar with the attitudes among the troops, recently had to tell his soldiers that "our job is to carry out every order we are given, even if it's to clear trash left behind by visitors to the Ben Shemen forest."
Meanwhile, the army's main concern is that some settlers will begin targeting Palestinians as part of their resistance to the freeze. Settler leaders on Friday pledged to take advantage of the weekend lull in the Defense Ministry's active enforcement of the freeze by stepping up construction in their community. Ministry officials have warned, however, that settlers who defy the freeze over the weekend will be stopped. "Inspectors will return on Sunday and halt any construction activity, should there be," said associates of Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Right-wing activists are planning to block major traffic arteries throughout the country next week as part of an escalating protest of the government decision to freeze settlement construction in the West Bank for 10 months. The idea is to disrupt traffic at major junctions, similar to the pro-tests held against the disengagement and evacuation of the Gaza Strip settlements in 2005. It is still unclear whether the idea is finding fertile ground or when such protests will take place.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met on Thursday with a group of more than 20 mem-bers of the Yesha Council, where he stressed that "the law must be respected and cabinet decisions must be carried out." He also blamed the Palestinian Authority for not responding to Israel's deci-sion to freeze settlement construction and for refusing to return to the negotiating table. Netanyahu called PA President Mahmoud Abbas "someone who refuses peace."
The meeting with the settler leaders lasted more than two hours, instead of the original hour that had been planned. Present at the meeting were 22 community leaders, and three from the Yesha Council leadership. Each was given an opportunity to raise complaints against the decision to freeze construction. Much of the anger was directed against Barak.
Netanyahu stressed that he does not intend to rescind his decision on the construction freeze, saying it would be carried out in full. "There is one thing that is out of the question," he said. "You are allowed to demonstrate and protest, but you cannot show disrespect for a decision that was made lawfully. The solution is dialogue. We need to work together during this period and cooperate."
The prime minister asked the settler leaders to hold a meeting with Barak as well, but they refused. Netanyahu tried to explain his reasons for the decision to freeze construction, and directed much of his dissatisfaction with the situation at the Palestinian Authority.
"The decision made by the cabinet is the best for Israel under the complicated diplomatic circumstances Israel is in and in view of the multifaceted challenges facing us," the prime minister said. "We made a difficult decision in order to advance the broader interests of Israel. This move makes it clear to key players around the world that Israel is serious in its intentions to achieve peace, while the Palestinians refuse to enter negotiations for peace. There is a side that wants to [talk] and another that does not. This move has made clear [which side] is refusing peace."
Trying to appease the settlers, Netanyahu asked for their patience and promised to resume construction after the 10-month hiatus was over. He also promised that the implementation of the order banning construction would "be carried out in the least intrusive way possible for the public, and where there are unnecessary difficulties, we shall make them go away."
One of the community leaders, Avi Naim of Beit Aryeh, challenged the prime minister on what many settlers consider a betrayal of his pre-election campaign promises. "You were [at Beit Aryeh] three days before the elections. How were we made illegitimate law breakers overnight? Everything we have done [has been done legally]. Last month I filed charges against eight people who violated building permits. We protested legitimately—the police treated us violently. My seven-year-old called me to ask me whether I'd been arrested," Naim said.
Naim also demanded that the defense minister's assistant on settlement issues, Eitan Broshi, be replaced.
Meanwhile, the settlers have petitioned the High Court of Justice against the order to freeze construction. This is the second petition filed with the court this week. The petitioners claim that GOC Central Command has no right to implement the order on the basis of political criteria without the settlers being given the right to a hearing
HERB KEINON and TOVAH LAZAROFF, Jerusalem Post, report: Settler leaders are gearing up for a major demonstration outside Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's official resi-dence next week, having failed at the fraught meeting on Thursday to persuade him to reconsider the 10-month freeze he is implementing on construction of new homes at West Bank settlements.
Acknowledging that part of the Israeli right was now in open conflict with a right-wing prime minister, Pinchas Wallerstein, the director-general of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said he left the Tel Aviv meeting with the prime minister "feel-ing very sad." Many of the 25 settler leaders in the room had worked to help elect Netanyahu, said Wallerstein, and "now we are fighting against him. It's not an easy feeling."
Late Thursday night settler leaders held an emergency strategy meeting in the Kedumim settlement, to plot additional anti-freeze protest actions. They plan to hold similar meetings in a number of settlements in the next few days.
The atmosphere at the Netanyahu meeting was "hard and tense," said Gush Etzion Re-gional Council head Shaul Goldstein, who said that it was the settlers, rather than Netanyahu, who spoke during the bulk of the meeting.
At one point Netanyahu told them, "We are not your enemy; we are your brethren," relayed council head Dani Dayan. "I told him the burden of proof was on him. The way the order was im-plemented in the last few days was as if we were the enemy," Dayan said. He added that he no longer believed what Netanyahu was telling him.
Other settler leaders also said they were not swayed by Netanyahu's diplomatic arguments in support of the moratorium.
Goldstein said that he walked away with a feeling that the moratorium was here to stay. For that reason he and other regional and local council heads have petitioned the High Court ofJus-tice to stop the freeze. Their attorney, Shay Gabssi, said that the suit claimed that the moratorium exceeded the military commander's authority. He added that the moratorium could not be imposed retroactively and that more warning time had been needed. In addition he said there was no mecha-nism for compensation and that the order was likely to cost contractors and home-owners millions of shekels.
A second petition against the moratorium was filed earlier this week by the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel. The petition claimed that the security cabinet decision needed the govern-ment's full vote before it could be implemented.

Building inspectors turned away
by TOVAH LAZAROFF and YAAKOV LAPPIN, Jerusalem Post

Around noon on Thursday Aharon Karish's phone rang with a warning message that civil admini-stration inspectors were on their way to his settlement.
Karish, who heads Talmon's council, drove immediately to the metal gate at the outskirts of his community, intent on barring their entry. He was joined, Karish said, by dozens of other residents who heard about it and spontaneously gathered there as well. After four days of hearing how civil administration inspectors had pushed their way into settlements across the West Bank as part of the effort to impose a 10-month moratorium on new construction, they knew what to ex-pect.
"People are very angry," said Karish, who added that they were looking for some way to express their frustration.
Civil administration inspectors Thursday visited 23 communities across the West Bank, with few incidents. In some cases they descended on a settlement for the second time this week. It's expected that they will continue to visit settlements on Sunday as well.
In some places they have been met by active resistance, but have entered anyway. In the Kedumim settlement in Samaria on Thursday, settlers claimed that they prevented the inspectors from entering for the third day in a row.
In Talmon, located in the Binyamin region, residents parked a number of cars on the road, just inside the entryway to the settlement. They closed the gate and waited. Around 1:30 p.m. two or three inspectors came, accompanied by dozens of police, who pulled up to the gate in large, white marked vans.
"They said they wanted to come in. We said we understood that and we hoped they under-stood that we could not let them," said Karish. "We felt like we were defending our homes," said Karish, a father of five who has lived in the settlement for the last 12 years.
When Talmon residents refused to open the gate, police simply moved it by hand, Karish said. But the standoff continued for close to an hour before police similarly pushed aside the cars, Karish said.
Some residents tried to talk with the police, others stood and shouted. One woman who screamed at them that they should be embarrassed was arrested, said Karish. Police alleged that she attacked a Special Patrol officer and arrested her. But Karish said that police surrounded her when she screamed and in the confusion believed that she had attacked them. She was later released, he said.
"We are opposed to violence," he said. "We shouted, we cried, and we were in pain," but he said residents did not attack the police or the inspectors. Eventually, he said, police moved the cars so that inspectors could survey the settlement. The inspectors handed out a stop-work order on a 10-unit project which has already been under construction for three months, said Karish.
He added that in his community of 250 religious families, many of whom voted for the Likud party, people feel betrayed. "We were certain that Bibi [Netanyahu] would fulfill his prom-ise" and support building in the settlements, he said.

U.S. fails to gain support for settlement freeze
by Barak Ravid, Haaretz

The United States fell short in its efforts to gain a declaration of international support for Israel's temporary settlement construction freeze. The Americans were hoping that its partners in the Quar-tet—Russia, the European Union and the United Nations—would agree to such a declaration, but Moscow expressed a series of reservations and foiled Washington's effort.
Last Thursday, a day after the security-political cabinet decided to put a moratorium on construction in settlements for a 10 month period, a conference call was held at the highest levels among Quartet members. In addition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Europe's outgoing foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, and Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, were also on line.
Clinton proposed that the Quartet issue a joint statement of support for the Israeli decision to freeze construction. The other participants agreed and decided to let officials from each side formulate the announcement.
Heading the team tasked with formulating the statement was U.S. diplomat, David Hale, deputy to U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell. Hale initiated exchanges with his colleagues in the EU, the UN and Russia, but it quickly became clear that there was no agreement on the content of the statement.
Senior Israeli and American officials say that Russia was responsible for foiling the an-nouncement, by expressing many reservations to the text proposed by the Americans—which was reportedly very short. At the crux of the Russian objections were two points that were very impor-tant to the U.S. administration: the Jewish identity of the State of Israel, and that the future border between Israel and the Palestinians would reflect developments on the ground.
The Americans proposed that the Quartet's announcement be based on the statement issued by Secretary of State Clinton last week, supporting the announcement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the freeze. The proposed version called for the resumption of negotiations without preconditions so that an agreement could be reached which "would fulfill the Palestinian goal of establishing an independent, viable state, based on the 1967 borders, agreed upon exchanges [of territory], and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect the developments [which occurred on the ground] and which fulfill the Israeli security requirements."
The Russians argued that they did not agree with stating that Israel will be a Jewish State, and that the borders will be altered on the basis of "developments" on the ground, namely Israeli annexation of the large settlement blocks. The Russians stressed that such formulation of the Quar-tet's text predetermines the results of the negotiations.
Once efforts to convince the Russians failed, the Americans decided that there was no point in issuing a statement. A senior U.S. administration official told Haaretz that the without a consensus among the members of the Quartet, it would be impossible to issue a statement for the whole group.

Americans more sympathetic to Israel
by Associated Press and Jerusalem Post
Just over half (51 percent) of Americans are more sympathetic toward Israel than to the Palestini-ans, according to a poll released Thursday. Only 12% of respondents said they were sympathetic to the Palestinians, 14% percent supported neither side, and 19 % offered no opinion.
The findings of the poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, come from two surveys. The first poll, of 2,000 adults, was conducted by telephone Oct. 28 to Nov. 8 and had a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. A subsequent poll of 1,003 people conducted from Nov. 12-15 had a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.
Obama delays embassy move to Jerusalem
by Associated Press
President Barack Obama is delaying moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. A 1995 U.S. law recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and ordered that the embassy be re-located there. But the law also permits the president to delay the move for six-month periods, based on national security grounds.
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush invoked the clause during their presidencies. Obama notified Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of his decision on Thursday. He first delayed moving the embassy in June.
The location of the embassy is a sensitive issue in efforts to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Erekat: PA, PLO back prisoner swap
by KHALED ABU TOAMEH, Jerusalem Post
The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) would back an Israeli-Hamas prisoner swap deal for the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, according to chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. Erekat was quoted by Israel Radio Friday as saying that the Palestinian leadership "supports the release of prisoners but believes that they must be allowed to stay in the Palestinian territories because the Palestinians are opposed to the principle of deporta-tion." Erekat also called for Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti to be included in any swap deal.
On Thursday, meanwhile, a senior Hamas official said that progress has been made in se-cret negotiations to reach a prisoner exchange agreement with Israel for Schalit's release. This was the first time in the past week that a top Hamas official had voiced optimism regarding the pros-pects of reaching a deal. Hamas leaders and spokesmen have been instructed not to make any pub-lic statements about the details of the in camera discussions.
Ziad al-Thatha, Deputy Prime Minister of the Hamas government, said there was "good progress" in the negotiations and expressed hope that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Is-raeli jails would soon be reunited with their families. Al-Thatha refused to disclose further informa-tion about the current status of negotiations, which he said were continuing despite "difficulties." He added that representatives of the armed groups holding Schalit were conducting the negotiations with German and Egyptian mediators.
"Our government is supporting these groups," he said. "We all want to see a prisoner ex-change agreement as soon as possible so our prisoners can be freed." Meanwhile, Hamas denied a newspaper report that claimed Schalit had been transferred from the Gaza Strip to Egypt in prepa-ration for a prisoner exchange withIsrael.
"This report is untrue and does not even deserve any attention," said Osama Hamdan, the Hamas representative in Lebanon. Hamdan, who is one of the top Hamas political leaders, said that secret negotiations to reach an agreement on a prisoner swap were continuing. However, he would not say whether progress had been made, citing that Hamas would not make any public statements until a deal is finalized.
The allegation that Schalit was in Egypt appeared in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida at the same time that the German mediator arrived in the Gaza Strip for talks with Hamas leaders on a prisoner exchange. According to the report, Schalit was brought to Egypt a few days ago by Ahmed Ja'abri, the commander of Hamas' armed wing, Izaddin al-Kassam.
Abu Obaidah, spokesman for Izaddin al-Kassam, refused to comment on the Kuwaiti re-port. He said that he was committed to a decision by the Hamas leadership to refrain from discuss-ing the issue of Schalit in public.
However, Abu Mujahed, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, an alliance of various radical armed groups, announced that there was "nothing new" regarding the negotiations to achieve a prisoner exchange agreement with Israel. He attributed the lack of progress to Israel's refusal to "succumb to the demands of Schalit's captors."
Schalit's parents had not received word of progress on the deal to release their son, who has been held captive by Hamas in Gaza since June 2006. During the last week Noam and Aviva Schalit have lobbied cabinet ministers in hopes of swaying them to support a deal. It is expected that the cabinet would approve a proposed deal.
Three obstacles block Schalit deal
by Jerusalem Post
Negotiations to free captured IDF soldier St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit are at their peak and only three ob-stacles prevent them from coming to a close, a senior Hamas official told Al-Hayat in an interview published on Friday.
The UK-based newspaper quoted the official as saying that Israel still refused to release 50 out of 450 prisoners on the list presented by Hamas. He also cited as an obstacle Israel's insistence on expelling from the Palestinian territories 130 of the 400 prisoners already agreed upon.
The refusal to release prisoners who possess Israeli identity cards was the third point hin-dering the talks, said the source.
The source stated that the German mediator was zigzagging between Gaza and Jerusalem on a daily basis, urging the two sides to overcome the three obstacles. He added that the mediator was exploring the possibility of reducing the number of prisoners to be released in a deal.
Al-Quds Al-Arabi, meanwhile, quoted another Hamas source as saying that Israel was "ad-venturous" in its negotiations for a prisoner exchange.
Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported on Friday that Iranian National Security Council head Saeed Jalili met with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to discuss the deal.
Jordan demands Israel stops building outside Holy Sepulchre
by Jerusalem Post
Jordan has demanded that Israel stops building outside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusa-lem's Old City, Israel Radio reported Thursday. Israel's ambassador in Amman, Yaakov Rosen, was summoned for a meeting with the head of Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh's bureau, and was presented with an official protest letter.
Israel Radio quoted an unnamed Jordanian source as saying that Amman believes Israel is breaking international law by building in what he termed "occupied territory."
IDF defuses two roadside bombs
by YAAKOV LAPPIN, Jerusalem Post
The IDF neutralized two roadside bombs planted on a road near the central West Bank settlement of Bet El on Thursday, thwarting a bomb attack aimed at military vehicles that frequently patrol the area. The two explosive devices were planted on a road used mainly by army vehicles and which is relatively free of civilian traffic. The devices weighed five and seven kilograms respectively.
The bombs were detonated in a controlled explosion by an army bomb squad, the IDF said. No injuries were reported.
A third explosive device was uncovered in a home in the Palestinian town of Beit Omar, northwest of Hebron early on Thursday. IDF uniforms which would have been used by terrorists to disguise themselves as soldiers were also recovered in the home. The device was neutralized by an army bomb squad.
"We are seeing the continued motivation of terrorist organizations to carry out attacks," an army source told The Jerusalem Post. "Their ability to carry out the attacks is limited by the effec-tiveness of IDF operations, the completion of the West Bank security fence, and also because of efforts by the Palestinian Authority," the source said. "But the motivation exists, and the situation [of continued attempted bomb attacks] exists. It is not ending, and we will continue our opera-tions," the source said.
Meanwhile, 15 wanted security suspects were arrested in the early hours of Thursday by IDF forces in the West Bank.
A homemade rifle was also seized on Wednesday evening by soldiers at a checkpoint near Gush Etzion. The Palestinian man in possession of the firearm was arrested and taken for question-ing.
A female Israeli driver was lightly wounded overnight Thursday when her car was pelted with stones near Ramallah. She received initial medical treatment at the scene before being trans-ferred to a nearby hospital. Her car sustained damage in the incident.
Palestinians on Thursday night hurled rocks at two Israeli vehicles traveling south east of Kalkilya, and one Israeli car near Hawara, south of Nablus. No casualties were reported in the in-cidents, though cars sustained damage.
Jews back Muslims on minaret ban
by MATTHEW WAGNER and HERB KEINON, Jerusalem Post
Citing religious discrimination, a diverse coalition of Jewish organizations is objecting to Switzer-land's ban of minarets on local mosques. Swiss voters this week approved by a strong majority a referendum outlawing the construction of minarets. The measure, pushed by the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), was supported by 57 percent of the voters.
However, Jewish organizations, realizing that a crackdown on Islam could have repercus-sions for Jews as well, have come to the defense of Muslim worshipers, arguing that the Swiss's move was unjustifiable. Rabbi Pinchas Dunner, executive director of the Conference of European Rabbis, an Orthodox organization, said "a war on religious freedom cannot defeat Islamic extrem-ists. The best weapon against radical Islam is support for moderate elements in the Muslim com-munity and promoting interfaith dialogue."
In contrast, the Anti-Defamation League tied the move to religious discrimination against Jews. "This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intoler-ance," said the ADL in a press release. "A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter, in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population."
Noting that the "Swiss government opposed the minarets initiative during the campaign and underscored its commitment to religious freedom in a statement after the vote," the ADL urged Swiss leaders to "be vigilant" in their "defense of religious freedom, even though the SVP is the largest party in the Swiss Parliament and has two of the seven government ministries."
The American Jewish Committee's David Harris echoed these statements. "The referendum result amounts to an attack on the fundamental values of mutual respect," he said. "While there are certainly understandable concerns in Europe over Islamist extremism, these cannot be legitimately addressed through a blanket assault on Muslim communities and their religious symbols," he added.
Meanwhile, it appeared that Italy might hold an anti-minaret referendum of its own. Roberto Caldeoli, leader of Italy's right-wing Northern League party, said, "Respect for other relig-ions is important, but we must put the brakes on Muslim propaganda, or else we will end up with an Islamic political party."
French Ambassador Christophe Bigot told The Jerusalem Post that "Muslims, like Catho-lics, like Jews, should be allowed to worship the way they wish. So why limit construction of mosques?
"What is important in Europe is to work for moderate Islam, for an Islam that is based on education, openness and freedom. The decision of the Swiss state will be to limit the activities of the worshipers. I don't think this is very helpful. This promotes the idea that we have a problem with Muslims. We don't have problem with Muslims. We have problem with Islamists, and Islamists and Muslims are two radical differences. And this kind of decision blurs the lines."
Asked if France's ban on the burka was not the same, Bigot answered, "A minaret is part of the mosque, and the Muslims go to the mosque if they are religious. A very small percentage of women wear the burka. And here we are talking about a very, very isolated minority among Mus-lims."
Asked if the burka ban was an infringement of religious freedom, Bigot replied that "reli-gious freedom has to be combined with the duties of every citizen, and among the duties of every citizen—this is the French perception—there is kind of a minimum agreement of shared values, and among them is that every woman has the same rights as every man. And, as we know, the burka most times is imposed on women by men. So just from this perspective we don't think burka is appropriate. This is not a free act, it is an imposed situation placed on them."
Asked if the minaret ban could spread to other European countries, Bigot said that "the issue is different in France. The discussion we have is how do you finance the construction of mosques, and how do you create a national Islam. How much are we able to curb the influence of foreign countries on Islam in France. This we think is a valid debate, because we want a French Islam; we don't want an Islam that is importing values form parts of the world completely discon-nected from European values."
Hegumen Filaret (Bulekov), a Moscow Patriarchate representative at the Council of Europe, voiced support for Switzerland's ban. "Accusing Switzerland that it is somehow discrimi-nating against the Islamic minority would be at least lopsided," Filaret told Interfax new service. "The issue of minarets is not an issue of religious freedom, but it is an issue of political presence of people of a certain faith and ethnic background in a country. Taking into account a rapid rate of Islamization, visible signs of Muslims' presence would have, in particular, a political tint," he said.
Russia turns to Israel for help in investigation into train bombing
by Jerusalem Post
Russia asked Israel on Thursday for assistance in securing its public transportation system in the wake of last week's terrorist attack on a train near Moscow, Army Radio reported.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Victor Zubkov, requested that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman allow the committee investigating the attack to visit Israel. It is suspected that last week's attack, in which 26 people were killed, was perpetrated by a Chechen-Muslim terrorist or-ganization.
Goldstone wins Swedish human rights award
by Haaretz
Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist and author of a controversial UN report which accused Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the Israel Defense Forces' military offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter, will receive the Stockholm Human Rights Award, it was announced on Thursday.
"Richard Goldstone has made an outstanding career in the promotion of the rule of law and human rights, first in his home country South Africa and during the last fifteen years in various highly prestigious international fora," the International Legal Assistance Consortium, a Sweden-based umbrella group of non-governmental organizations which oversees the awarding of the prize, said on Thursday.
The UN General Assembly endorsed the report last month and submitted it to the Security Council. The 192-member General Assembly adopted the resolution last month by a vote of 114-18, with others absent or abstaining. The resolution calls on the Security Council to act if either side fails to launch credible investigations within three months.
The report on the Gaza war was drafted by a UN panel chaired by Goldstone, and con-cluded that both Israel and Palestinian militants committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. The harshly worded UN draft resolution, composed by Arab member states, has not been softened despite U.S. and European efforts.
ElBaradei misled the world about Iran
by Yossi Melman, Haaretz
This week, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei ended his controversial and unsuccessful term as director gen-eral of the International Atomic Energy Agency. His last days on the job caused a great deal of consternation, even more than the rest of his 12 years in the bureau overlooking the Danube, at United Nations headquarters in Vienna.
On Sunday, the Iranian government announced it would set up another 10 facilities for en-riching uranium, beyond the existing two at Natanz and Qom. This was Iranian President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad's defiant response to the IAEA board of governors' concern about aspects of Iran's nuclear program that "have military potential," and the agency's call that Tehran stop building at Qom and enriching uranium.
The decision can also be considered a rude gesture to the person who was considered Iran's most important supporter and benefactor in the international community, ElBaradei.
ElBaradei was born 67 years ago in Egypt, and studied law at the universities of Cairo, Geneva and New York. He served in the Egyptian foreign service for about 15 years, and then be-gan a three-decade career with the United Nations, first in New York and later in Vienna. He started off as an inconspicuous lawyer, but after being elected to head the IAEA in 1997, every-thing changed. Three nuclear crises took place during his term, in Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Thanks to the first crisis, he won worldwide fame when the Americans invaded Iraq. ElBaradei and his aides refuted the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had a secret nuclear pro-gram, and maintained that documents detailing Iraq's supposed attempts to acquire uranium from Niger were forged. They were right. Bush made a mistake, was misled or perhaps even lied.
ElBaradei's conduct regarding Iraq's non-existent nuclear weapons brought him a great deal of international prestige. He became a popular speaker in important forums around the world, and in 2005 he and the agency received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to curtail nuclear prolif-eration. The prize, as people who knew him observed, went to his head and made him haughty, arrogant and self-righteous. But that's when things began to go downhill.
"He started to behave as if he knew better than anyone else and could not make a mistake," one of the senior officials in the agency complained. But it was after winning the prize that his ca-reer reached a nadir that stained his earlier achievements. While it could be argued that ElBaradei hardly had any control over North Korea's unstable and defiant nuclear program, the poor man-agement of the crisis with Iran has to be attributed largely to him—the Egyptian diplomat is re-sponsible for his organization's placatory approach toward the Iranian nuclear program.
For almost a decade, starting in 1992, the agency inspectors did not notice that Iran had a secret nuclear program that violated its international commitments. Even when the agency had the information, in 2002 (to a considerable degree thanks to American, British, German and Israeli in-telligence), ElBaradei ignored it and made every possible effort to undermine its reliability.
He intervened repeatedly to distort his inspectors' reports on Iran's nuclear sites, and he made sure that the IAEA's periodic reports about Iran would be camouflaged in diplomatic gibber-ish. Time and again they repeated the phrase that "no proof was found" that Iran's nuclear program had military aspects, even though they were blatantly obvious. ElBaradei was opposed to sanction-ing Iran, not to mention military action, and repeatedly attempted to conduct a dialogue with Te-hran in order to reach a compromise.
It is not clear whether his backing for Iran stemmed from his origin—as some Israeli Atomic Energy Commission officials and others believe; from his legal background and careful phrasing; or from a naive belief in international diplomacy and dialogue at any price, while consis-tently rejecting the military option. Maybe it was all these factors. Whatever the case may be, his conduct toward Iran raised the ire of George W. Bush's administration, which sought to have him replaced.
ElBaradei's relationship with Israel, which he visited twice, was tense. To the chagrin of the international agency, he repeatedly called for a nuclear-free Middle East, which was interpreted as targeting Israel. His animosity toward Israel found special expression after the attack in Septem-ber 2007 on Syria's nuclear facility. He ensured that Israel's name be mentioned in the IAEA re-ports about the Syrian nuclear plan, even though this was not necessary. And he added a paragraph stating that Israel had carried out the attack, even though it had never officially admitted doing so.
Given his conduct toward Iran and his attitude toward Israel, some in Israel even consid-ered trying to defame him by presenting him as an Iranian collaborator.
Toward the end of his term, ElBaradei changed his tone about Iran, creating the impression that he had had awakened from his illusion that Iran could be convinced to compromise. In the past few weeks, he made several resolute declarations, saying that perhaps Iran indeed wanted to nu-clear weapons, as Israeli and American spokesmen had been claiming for years. But this was too little, too late. It will not suffice to clear his reputation in the West, and more importantly, it will have no effect whatsoever on the fact that he misled world opinion about the real nature of the Ira-nian nuclear program.

Focus: The big wink
by Yoel Marcus, Haaretz

On the eve of every battle, David Ben-Gurion would come down with the flu. It's not clear whether it was a real flu, a psychosomatic flu or just a legend that has been handed down through the gen-erations. In any case, it's no small matter when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancels an important trip to Germany at the last minute because of a "slight flu," especially when, according to media reports, this cancellation cost the government half a million shekels.
The next day, as well as on the following days, Bibi actually looked healthy and active. So healthy that he began work on the settlement freeze—declaring proudly that "the decision on the freeze is one-off and temporary. The settlers are our brothers and sisters. It's important to me to make it clear that the freeze is only for 10 months and that on its final day we will resume con-struction."
While Civil Administration inspectors continue handing out freeze and demolition orders in several settlements—at least those that have let them in—many settlers have torn up the official orders in front of the inspectors, while cursing and warning that the situation is liable to deteriorate into a civil war. And as the uprising gradually spreads and Defense Minister Ehud Barak declares that government decisions must be carried out even if force is required, Bibi continues to utter pla-cating words reminiscent of Levi Eshkol's "half-tea, half-coffee."
"The future of the settlement enterprise will be decided only in a final status agreement and on our terms," Netanyahu said, reassuring the extremists. What he is letting people understand by that is that it's important to please the U.S. administration, while at the same time preparing the enema—the reader will forgive me if I tell it like it is.
When serious and extremist politicians like Likud MK Benny Begin voted to freeze con-struction, we cannot assume that means they've since converted to being Peace Now activists. Bibi convened the senior ministers, one or two at a time, and winked at them in some way to indicate that it's all just talk. To put it nicely—he told them he was "torn," but in any case nothing will come of it.
This is also why, from the perspective of veteran observers, his character, behavior and shticks have not changed since his first term. One reason King Hussein of Jordan admired late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was because he could be taken at his word. A recently published po-litical biography of the king by Israeli historian Avi Shlaim describes how Hussein looked on bro-kenhearted as Netanyahu dismantled the cornerstones of the peace process one after the other, low-ered the Palestinian threshold of expectations and worked to weaken the Palestinian Authority and postpone the withdrawal stages that had been decided on in the Oslo Accords.
At the same time, Netanyahu issued instructions to build 2,000 housing units in the Jordan Valley. Within a short time, "he managed to alienate Israel's allies in the world." At the Mayo Clinic in the United States, where King Hussein was hospitalized on his deathbed, the doctors and nurses used to say he'd contracted the "Bibi virus."
But let's say that the 10-month freeze passes, then what? In a short conversation with me, Ephraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad, levels harsh criticism against the U.S. administration. When the Americans demand that Bibi make a gesture to strengthen PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), they apparently fail to understand that Abu Mazen is not capable of being a partner to peace negotiations. The Bush administration once supported Mohammed Dahlan, the former PA security chief in Gaza, as the ideal leader for negotiations with Israel, and look how he evaporated. U.S. President Barack Obama needs a Palestinian leader who is acceptable to all the Palestinians. Not a partner like Abu Mazen—who criticizes Obama, describes Israel as a "destroyer of nations" and does nothing. Anyone who wants to strengthen the PA, says Halevy, must release Marwan Barghouti, who was the leader of Fatah in the West Bank.
Netanyahu made a clever tactical move when he initiated the 10-month construction freeze. Why be the only guilty ones in the eyes of the world, when the Palestinians are once again return-ing to their traditional habit of missing every opportunity? "We will thin out construction in the settlements a little, but after 10 months we will resume building," Netanyahu has reassured the set-tlers. The Palestinians will drag their feet, but what if the Americans present a plan? Bibi is con-vincing the extremist Likud activists that in a final-status agreement the settlement blocs will enjoy a respectable position.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are playing into Likud's hands. They are not returning to the negotiating table, Abu Mazen is busy being mad at Obama instead of seizing the moment. If I were a Palestinian, I wouldn't wait another minute; I would shout to Abu Mazen: begin immediate dip-lomatic negotiations on the basis of two states for two peoples, or go home. By their refusal to do so, they are playing into the hands of the extremists in Israel.
Netanyahu's step may be a tactical one, full of winking, as though he's going for the big thing—but it's not necessarily a strategic move. What is certain is that the political biography that will be written about him when the time comes will be called "The Big Wink."

Strategy: Hezbollah's delusions
by Jonathan Spyer

The latest events in Lebanon offer an image in miniature of larger regional developments. The Ira-nian-backed Shi'ite Islamist movement Hezbollah is pursuing a long-term strategy intended to eventually deliver Lebanon into its hands. In the short term, the greater commitment of the move-ment's cadres and its public is delivering impressive results. But at the core of the strategic thinking of Hezbollah and its patrons lie a series of delusions, which are likely to bring about the defeat of the movement over time. Between that point and the present, however, further strife and conflict are likely.
The pro-Western March 14 movement won an unexpected victory in elections in Lebanon in June. But the subsequent protracted coalition negotiations succeeded in emptying that victory of most of its content. The composition of the new Lebanese government will enable the Hezbollah-led opposition to block any legislation not to its liking. More important, the new government's offi-cial mission statement will include a commitment to maintain Hezbollah's independent, Iran-facilitated military capacity.
Supporters of March 14 had little choice but to concede to the demands of the "losing" side in the election. The violence of May 2008 proved conclusively that they are incapable of resisting the armed might of Hezbollah. Hezbollah may have paid a price in terms of its legitimacy in the eyes of non-Shi'ite Lebanese for demonstrating its power, but it acquired the ability to silence any further dissent on issues it deems of cardinal importance.
But the foundation of the new Lebanese government is ultimately only one small element within a larger process taking place in Lebanon. This is the way the power of Hezbollah and its constituency is growing in all areas of life in the country. The organization recently released a new manifesto. A particularly notable aspect of the document was the call for an end to "sectarianism" in Lebanon and the expression of the desire for rule by an "elected majority." This demand reflects the self-confidence of the movement, rather than a newfound appreciation for democratic princi-ples.
While it is impossible to carry out accurate demographic surveys in Lebanon, Hezbollah certainly believes that the Shi'ites are on the rise demographically, due to their high birthrate and low(er) emigration rate. Senior Israeli officials who are knowledgeable about the country concur with this assessment. They also note the growing strength of Shi'ite officers in the Lebanese Armed Forces, particularly at mid-level. This development, alongside the latest political moves, is slowly blurring the borders between the official Lebanese state and the parallel state maintained by Hez-bollah.
The slow, full-spectrum advance of the Shi'ite Islamist camp in Lebanon resembles devel-opments elsewhere. No one situation is exactly like any other, of course, but it is not hard to detect the common elements in the steady advancement of Islamic politics in Turkey, the rise of Islamist radicals within the Iranian clerical regime, the onward march of Hezbollah and the strides made in recent years by Palestinian Islamism. In all cases, this is not the delusional, apocalyptic Islamism of Al-Qaida and its ilk. The rising Islamic forces in the region do not go in for violence-as-gesture, nor do they envisage the triumph of the rule of righteousness in the immediate future.
The significant differences between these rising forces and the delusional Salafi fringe has led many in the West to believe that "pragmatic," localized Islamism can be accommodated rather than confronted. Such a belief ignores a large part of the picture. Certainly in the case of the re-gime in Iran—in particular in the form it has assumed since the disputed election of last June—and its ally in Lebanon, the political methods may at times be slow and cumulative, but the ends are serious and sincere, and note should be taken.
Hezbollah's new manifesto condemns the United States as the "root of all terror," and a "danger that threatens the whole world." The document also reiterates the call for the destruction of Israel, describing the need to "liberate Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa" as a "religious duty" for all Mus-lims. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that these sentiments are intended for the printed page only. Indeed, recent visitors to Lebanon speak of a high, almost delusional state of morale among circles affiliated with Hezbollah. In the closed world around the movement, it is sincerely believed that the next war between Israel and Hezbollah will be part of a greater conflict in which Israel will be destroyed.
The true balance of power is rather different, of course. And as Hezbollah slowly swallows other elements of the Lebanese system, the conclusion being reached in Israel is that any differen-tiation between the movement and the nest it has taken over is increasingly artificial—and will not be maintained in a future conflict.
The history of the region shows that anti-Western ideological waves can indeed eventually be accommodated and dealt with pragmatically—but this cannot be achieved at the moment of their rise. The examples of pan-Arabism and Palestinian nationalism suggest that only following military defeat and socioeconomic failure are flexibility and pragmatism likely to make an appearance. Po-litical Islam has not yet reached this stage. Current events in Lebanon show its local Shi'ite mani-festation to be in a state of rude health. It is brushing aside local foes, marching through the institu-tions, as tactically agile as it is strategically deluded. Yet its latest manifesto suggests that it re-mains the prisoner of its ideological perceptions. The recent history of the Middle East, meanwhile, indicates that gaps between reality and perception tend to be decided—eventually—in favor of the former.

Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in
International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya.
Progress: Slowly but surely
by Oded Eran, Haaretz

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are witness to an utter cacophony of state-ments and counter-statements, as well as much cheap talk. This is especially true now. In this case, however, talk is not cheap and it can even be dangerous. Most of the threats and dire predictions come from frustration, and frustration should never be a substitute for carefully drafted policy based on cool-headed analysis.
Israel's current government will have trouble at home when it tries to implement its deci-sion to freeze settlement construction for 10 months. It may collapse outright if it attempts even more "painful decisions." The Palestinian Authority is in constitutional disarray, and has been rup-tured by the deep geographic and political split between the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Most Israelis and Palestinians reject the status quo, but neither side is capable of doing more than accepting in principle the 2003 road map and the two-state solution.
Given this situation, the responsible way to handle things is to attach a gradual political action plan to the Palestinian state-building proposal that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad put forth in August.
Partial agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian governments cannot take the place of a final-status agreement, but they can serve as precursors. A major element of this approach should be changing the status of territory in the West Bank. The two sides would agree to expand Area A, where the Palestinians currently have both civil and security authority, by reducing Area B, where Israel maintains non-civil powers. U.S. General Keith Dayton's success in building up the Palestinian security forces over the past four years should provide encouragement for this idea. As the capabilities of the Palestinian internal security forces improve, Israel can review its policy, and the PA should be able to assume more responsibilities in terms of both substance and territory.
Israel can coordinate economic projects with the PA in Area C, where Israel currently maintains all powers—civil and security. Area C constitutes 60 percent of the West Bank, and a gradual, partial transfer to the Palestinians can be conducted without harming Israel's security con-cerns. The two sides can also negotiate other issues, such as the nature of their economic relations, which could include transitioning from the current customs union to a regime closer to a free-trade agreement.
Another measure that pertains to Israeli relations with the United States is the dismantling of unauthorized outposts. Israel relies on U.S. commitments; it, too, should honor its written com-mitments to its strongest ally.
Positive results from this kind of gradual approach may lead to other constructive meas-ures, even in Jerusalem. It is ludicrous to give the Temple Mount and the Shoafat refugee camp equal historical, religious and national significance. Regardless of Palestinian ambitions regarding Jerusalem, Israel should define its own interests there more precisely. This could even lead to alter-ing the route of the security barrier around the city.
This is not a perfect solution, in that it does not end the drawn-out Israeli-Palestinian con-flict. It is, rather, an honest attempt to suggest a way extricate the process from its current impasse. While the proposal does not foreclose discussion of final-status issues, it aims to avoid the pitfalls of all previous attempts to reach a comprehensive agreement at a single summit or in a one-year process. This incremental approach can be synchronized with Fayyad's Palestinian state-building process. It would give the Palestinians a chance to sort out their domestic political differences, and Israel time to prepare mentally, politically and in terms of security for life alongside an independent Palestinian state.
The international community can be involved as well. Rather than float willful and harmful ideas, as Sweden does, the Quartet can give both sides assurances and assistance in monitoring im-plementation and linking it to the road map. Unilateral action by either side will cause serious long-term damage, and the way to avoid it is to return to a steady, agreed-upon course of action that will ultimately lead to two states.
Oded Eran is director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). This article is based
on a document written by him and INSS colleagues Shlomo Brom and Giora Eiland.
It will be presented at the Insitute's third annual conference, December 14-15.

Jerusalem & Babylon: Who should be freed and who should rot
by Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz

Jonathan Pollard is apparently enraged with the Israeli government over the proposed deal to re-lease Gilad Shalit in return for 980 Palestinian prisoners. The former U.S. navy intelligence ana-lyst, currently serving a life sentence in the United States for spying for Israel and perhaps also South Africa, has attacked the impending deal. In a Jerusalem Post op-ed written together with his wife, Esther, he called the proposal "immoral" and "self-serving, opportunistic, political expedi-ency." He also reportedly called it a "hilul Hashem" (desecration of God's name), in a meeting with two ultra right-wing activists last week.
One may have expected a lifer to have some sort of sympathy for Shalit's plight, and a de-gree of joy over his coming release. But it would be hardly fair to blame a man, incarcerated for 24 years, for feeling miffed that the country he believes he served does not seem to be making much of an effort to free him, while it is falling over itself to spring a soldier from captivity after "only" three and a half years.
What is instructive though, is the fact that those making up the most voluble lobby on Pol-lard's behalf are exactly the same ones who are at the forefront of opposition to the Shalit deal. Last week, someone tacked up a spoof death notice, complete with wide black border, in the Jewish neighborhood in Hebron, where it seems almost every car has a "Free Jonathan Pollard" sticker on its bumper.
It announced the death of "Gilad," who had been killed in a bombing, carried out by one of the terrorists released in the Shalit deal. Also last week, the leaders of rightist-Kahanist party, Na-tional Union, held a press conference roundly condemning the prisoner exchange.
The party's Knesset members have all been active in demanding Pollard's release: MK Uri Ariel heads the Knesset lobby for Pollard, MK Aryeh Eldad visited the spy in Butner Prison. So why are they going all out for one "prisoner of Zion" but are prepared to condemn another one to more years of captivity?
There is of course an obvious answer which they would certainly use: To release Pollard, all is needed is a decision by the parole board or a presidential pardon. In return for Shalit, 980 terrorists will walk free and who knows how many Jews (not Israelis, the National Union MKs al-ways refer to "Jews," they are the ones who count) may be killed by as a result.
Pollard himself has said before that he would not be prepared for even one terrorist to be exchanged for him, not that anyone in a position of authority has ever proposed such an exchange.
Not every one who opposes the Shalit deal or believes that Israel should be more assertive in demanding Pollard's release belongs to the religious far-right. There is a serious, security-based, argument against the terms of the pending agreement with Hamas. When compared with sentences served by other American traitors over recent decades, it does seem that Pollard got a raw, dispro-portionate deal.
But this is not the rationale behind the objections of Eldad, Ariel and Co. In both cases, they see the government's action, or inaction, as a sign of weakness, a form of capitulation to for-eign governments and terror organizations. If only we were prepared to be strong and resolute, to demand our brother's immediate release from the evil Obama administration, deal a devastating blow to Hamas, or as Pollard himself helpfully suggested, execute a Hamas prisoner every day, they would both be home in no time.
Every Israeli prime minister over the last 20 years has quietly asked the American presi-dent to pardon Pollard. There is a reason why Israel's leaders do not go any further than this. When you have made the cardinal mistake of amateurishly spying on your only strategic ally in the world—an ally which supplies you with all your much-needed weaponry and billions in financial aid each year—you know you can only push your luck so far.
It is hard to imagine the damage that a government-supported campaign on Pollard's behalf would cause Israel's strategic interests. The man who may be a hero to many Israelis, is to the American defense and intelligence establishments worse than a traitor, he is a symbol of Israeli ingratitude and treachery.
But the hardcore Pollard lobbyists do not see any of this. They are convinced that it is America which should be thanking us for fighting its battles against the Arabs, and if we stand for our principles, they will surely see the error of their ways. And if not, we should free ourselves of the shackles of their patronage. How can we be a proud nation if we allow foreigners to push us around?
And these supporters have the same problem with the Shalit deal. The number of prisoners to be released does not really bother them, it is the fact that there is going to be any sort of deal with Hamas, save one by which they are bombed back to Biblical times. What for most Israelis is an agreement, that for all its many faults may also herald some kind of breakthrough and chance for a diplomatic advance towards negotiations, is to them a fatal precedent.
Pollard and Shalit are simply symbols to be used cynically by those whose vision of Israel is "a nation that dwells alone, and shall not be reckoned among the goyim." They have already em-braced a situation where Israel is regarded by the international community as a pariah state, they rejoice in cutting off ties with the decadent, anti-Semitic outside world. That is the only way they can perpetuate the occupation and their dream of greater Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement last week, through gritted teeth, that the government is temporarily freezing new building in the settlements, and the reluctant support he received from the Likud cabinet ministers, is final proof that the old boundaries between right and left in Israeli politics have disappeared. All that remains are various degrees of acceptance that ending the occu-pation is the only way to stop Israel's rapid descent into total isolation.
But outside the consensus of pragmatism that encompasses a broad majority of the Israeli public, there is still a sizable minority who would welcome pariahdom, even though they try and convince us that their path is also the way to gain respect from the world. We should be clear as to their motives. They have already hijacked the campaign for Jonathan Pollard, (with his mis-guided blessing). They must not be allowed to do the same to the necessary public debate over the prisoner deal.



Israel Information Office in Scotland, 222 Fenwick Road, Glasgow G46 6UE.
E-mail: ezra@isrinfo.demon.co.uk News from Israel: http://www.isrinfo.demon.co.uk