Israel’s current government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has never shied away from engaging its critics abroad, as is evident by the numerous op-eds authored by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. Oren was considered an inspired choice for ambassador to the U.S. in part because he is one of the leading historians on the Middle East and has written perhaps the definitive history of America’s involvement in the Middle East from its founding.
Oren was also teaching at Georgetown before being asked to represent Israel’s government in Washington, and he had previously worked as an IDF spokesman as well. Netanyahu himself speaks in flawless, almost accentless English, having spent so many years in top-flight American schools. It seemed that Netanyahu had recognized Israel’s weakness in communication, and sought to rectify that. Netanyahu himself stresses the history of Israel and of the Jewish people when he talks about the challenges confronting the Jewish state–a feature of his diplomatic style that often annoys the media in part because of their sometimes-staggering ignorance of that very history.
And on that topic, with Israel embroiled in just such a diplomatic controversy over building in Jerusalem, the city’s mayor has joined the effort with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat takes readers on a historical journey through the ages, explaining the Jewish people’s thousands-year-old connection to the city and its existence as a united capital (until Jordan’s occupation of the city from 1948-67). Barkat also makes the important point that Jewish sovereignty over the city has been its only reliable guarantor of religious openness, access, and equality.
Barkat then gets to the practical issues:
By 2030, the city’s population will expand to one million residents from 800,000 today (33% Muslim, 2% Christian and 65% Jewish). Where does the world suggest we put these extra 200,000 residents? The expansion of Jerusalem’s residential areas is essential for the natural growth of all segments of our population. It enables Jewish and Arab families alike to grow and remain in the city. The capital of a sovereign nation cannot be expected to freeze growth rather than provide housing to families of all faiths eager to make their lives there.
As for “E-1,” this land has always been considered the natural site for the expansion of contiguous neighborhoods of metropolitan Jerusalem. “E-1” strengthens Jerusalem. It does not impede peace in our region. The international alarm about planned construction is based solely on the misplaced dreams of the Palestinians and their supporters for a divided Jerusalem.
There are two points worth making here. The first is that in addition to Jewish support for a united capital, the city’s Arab residents who prefer to live in Israel outnumber those who would choose Palestine, making a united Jerusalem also a democratic Jerusalem.
The second point is that Barkat’s seeming incredulity at the sudden support for preventing Israeli sovereignty over E-1 is genuine. As Evelyn wrote earlier, Tzipi Livni is making the same point to foreign diplomats–a point which is within the consensus across the ideological spectrum in Israel. One reason Barkat and others are honestly taken aback by the E-1 controversy is that the Clinton parameters apportioned E-1 to Israel–another point Evelyn made.
So let’s take this to its logical next step. Since the failure of Camp David at the tail end of Clinton’s second term, the chattering classes and the world’s diplomats have accepted, consistently, the following premise: any deal between Israel and the Palestinians over a final-status agreement would be based on the Clinton parameters. So: are the liberal American Jews that Evelyn mentioned, and the foreign diplomats that Livni spoke to, and the members of the press so furious at Netanyahu all finally and forcefully rejecting the Clinton parameters?
That’s the question at the heart of Barkat’s op-ed. As far as I can remember, liberal American Jewish groups have not gone so far as to publicly repudiate that plan, which rejecting Israeli sovereignty over E-1 would do. Are they now rejecting the Clinton parameters?
"Oren was considered an inspired choice for ambassador to the U.S. in part because he is one of the leading historians on the Middle East and has written perhaps the definitive history of America’s involvement in the Middle East from its founding." n nBut that can't be — HilelA and Dub say that he is an embarrassment. n nOf course, what really embarrasses them is that he articulately tells the truth, and that his boss Netanyahu does not worship their avoda zara Barak Obama.
and so he is. nthe man had great respect as an historian (including mine) but no man can serve two masters and he chose to cease serving the truth and took up a post parroting the highly slanted positions of netanyahu's government.
The public should be fully informed of all of the "clinton parameters". The actual details of the clinton plan are not that favorable to Israel. It would be far better if columnists/writers would describe the plan in its entirety before blithely invoking mention of it. n nIt is not enough to simply state that "everyone in the know" supports this plan because, as the average Jew on the street knows, clinton, democrats, europeans, international community will collectively not support anything that is truly beneficial for Israel and its Jewish citizens. n nAll one has to do is review the agreements that the clinton administration forced upon Israel, the installation of Barak as Israel's PM with clinton's "support", removal of security checkpoints and concessions to palestinians urged by clinton against Israel's interest, and "restraint" forced upon Israel by clinton after palestinian bombings and murder of Israeli citizens. n nMaybe this writer, and others who blindly support clinton parameters, should ask bereaved family members of victims of palestinian atrocities during the clinton years if they support the clinton parameters, assuming that the parameters were truthfully disclosed to them.
Parameters, shmarameters. The rule of the game is that any deal Israel makes will always be used to Israel's disadvantage. Israel must comply with all disadvantageous requirements even when the other side routinely violates agreements. There never any penalties or costs to Israel's enemies and Israel must comply even with conditions its enemies foolishly rejected, or ones which were invented, like those over the E1 corridor. n nThe game's objective remains simple: Break up Israel's territory, social cohesion and political system by any means possible and maneuver it into a militarily and diplomatically perilous position. For this objective any means are permissible; lying, misinterpreting, funding hostile NGOs, manipulatig the electoral process, taking of fake offense (a la Biden's theatre over housing units) and endless organized disinformation campaigns through the MSM. The baseline hypothesis is that Israel is an illegitimate, evil colonial nation set up by mistake and its existence is the greatest crime in history and an injury to an otherwise delightful world. All else is diplo-bable and fluff.
See David Horowitz' speech to the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America). Hatred of Jews takes many forms.