Jerusalem Part II

By Eli E. Hertz

 

2nd part of 2

 

Internationalization of Jerusalem

Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht underscored in his investigation of the legal issues

surrounding the status of Jerusalem and the Holy Places that the notion of

internationalizing Jerusalem was not part of the original international mandate:

"Nothing was said in the Mandate about the internationalization of Jerusalem. Indeed

Jerusalem as such is not mentioned, – though the Holy Places are. And this in itself is a

fact of relevance now. For it shows that in 1922 there was no inclination to identify the

question of the Holy Places with that of the internationalization of Jerusalem."(27)

Arab leaders, including Palestinians, have sought to justify their right to Jerusalem by

distorting the meaning of United Nations resolutions that apply to the city. UN

Resolution 181, for example, adopted by the General Assembly in 1947, recommended

turning Jerusalem and its environs into an international city, or corpus separatum.

However, Arab spokesmen conveniently ignore the fact that Resolution 181 was a nonbinding recommendation.

 

Professor Julius Stone, one of the 20th century's best-known authorities in

Jurisprudence and international law,(28) notes that Resolution 181 "lacked binding force"

from the outset, since it required acceptance by all parties concerned:

"While the State of Israel did for her part express willingness to accept it, the other states

concerned both rejected it and took up arms unlawfully against it."

 

Judge Lauterpacht wrote in 1968 about the new conditions that had arisen since 1948

with regard to the original thoughts of internationalization of Jerusalem:

 

"-The Arab States rejected the Partition Plan and the proposal for the internationalization

of Jerusalem.

"-The Arab States physically opposed the implementation of the General Assembly

Resolution. They sought by force of arms to expel the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem

and to achieve sole occupation of the City.

"-In the event, Jordan obtained control only of the Eastern part of the City, including the

Walled City.

"-While Jordan permitted reasonably free access to Christian Holy Places, it denied the

Jews any access to the Jewish Holy Places.(29) This was a fundamental departure from the

tradition of freedom of religious worship in the Holy Land, which had evolved over

centuries. It was also a clear violation of the undertaking given by Jordan in the Armistice

Agreement concluded with Israel on 3rd April, 1949. Article VIII of this Agreement called for the establishment of a Special Committee of Israeli and Jordanian representatives to formulate agreed plans on certain matters "which, in any case, shall include the following, on which agreement in principle already exists... free access to the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the Cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

"-The U.N. displayed no concern over the discrimination thus practiced against persons

of the Jewish faith.

"-The U.N. accepted as tolerable the unsupervised control of the Old City of Jerusalem by Jordanian forces - notwithstanding the fact that the presence of Jordanian forces west of the Jordan River was entirely lacking in any legal justification.

"-During the period 1948-1952 the General Assembly gradually came to accept that the

plan for the territorial internationalization of Jerusalem had been quite overtaken by

events. From 1952 to the present time virtually nothing more has been heard of the idea

in the General Assembly.

 

"-On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Day War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."(30)

 

Today, more than 55 years later, Israel has reunited Jerusalem and provided unrestricted

freedom of religion. Access of all faiths to the Holy Places in the unified City of Peace is

assured. Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpracht confirm this:

 

"Moslems have enjoyed, under Israeli control, the very freedom which Jews were denied

during Jordanian occupation."(31)

 

Lastly, it should be noted: If UN Resolution 181 was valid today (which it is not), then so

is the provision in Part III-D that stipulates that after 10 years, the city's international

status could be subject to a referendum of all Jerusalemites regarding a change in the

status of the city – a decision that today, as in the past, would have been made by the

city's decisive Jewish majority.

 

The UN and Jerusalem

Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have limited influence on the future

of Jerusalem.

 

Judge Sir Lauterpacht explained in 1968:

"The General Assembly has no power of disposition over Jerusalem and no right to lay

down regulations for the Holy Places. The Security Council, of course, retains its powers

under Chapter VII of the Charter in relation to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace

and acts of aggression, but these powers do not extend to the adoption of any general

position regarding the future of Jerusalem and the Holy Places."

 

Originally, internationalization of Jerusalem was part of a much broader proposal that

the Arab states rejected – both at the UN and 'on the ground,' by:

"a rejection underlined by armed invasion of Palestine by the forces of Egypt, Iraq,

Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia … aimed at destroying Israel."

The outcome of consistent Arab aggression was best described by Professor, Judge

Schwebel:

"As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab

neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the

territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem."(32) [italics by author]

Arab leaders point to UN Resolution 242 as a basis for their claim to Jerusalem.

Resolution 242 was adopted after the 1967 War, when Israel captured territory from

Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, after they attacked Israel. However, the resolution never

mentions Jerusalem, nor does UN Resolution 242 call for a full withdrawal from

territory captured but merely a withdrawal to "secure and recognized boundaries" that

are to be negotiated by the parties concerned. Arab Palestinians were not a party to the

resolution.

 

Arthur Goldberg, the former U.S. Ambassador to the UN (in 1967) who helped draft the

resolution, testified in regard to the omission of Jerusalem from Resolution 242:

"I never described Jerusalem as occupied territory. Resolution 242 in no way refers to

Jerusalem and this omission was deliberate."

 

In conclusion of the role the UN and international law may play in determining the

future of Jerusalem, one may again quote Judge Lauterpacht:

"(i) Israel's governmental measures in relation to Jerusalem - both New and Old - are

lawful and valid.

 

"(ii) The future regulation of the Holy Places is a matter to be determined quite separately

from the political administration of Jerusalem. Territorial internationalization of

Jerusalem is dead - but the possibility of functional internationalization is not. The latter

means, in effect, the recognition of the universal interest in the Holy Places situated in

Jerusalem and the adoption of links between Israel and the world community to give

formal expression to that interest."

 

Palestinian Terror in the City of Peace

Palestinian Arabs have concentrated many of their terrorist attacks on Jews in

Jerusalem, hoping to win the city by an onslaught of suicide bombers who will make life

in the City of Peace unbearable. But this is not a new tactic. Arab strategy to turn

Jerusalem into a battleground began in 1920.

Unfortunately, Arab leaders often turn to violence to gain what they were unable to

achieve at the negotiating table. When talks broke down at Camp David in 2000,

Palestinian Arab leaders unleashed the al-Aqsa Intifada, which has amounted to a fullblown guerrilla war against Israel.

 

It began the day before Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, when Arab mobs hurled

rocks from the Temple Mount onto Jewish worshipers praying at the Western Wall

below. That rock attack turned into a steady campaign of terrorist attacks. As the

priming powder for the Intifada, Palestinian leaders incited Palestinians and Muslims

throughout the world with fables that falsely suggested that Jews began an assault on al-

Aqsa when Ariel Sharon made a half-hour visit to the Temple Mount during tourist

hours.(33) The truth is that Palestinians' plans for warfare had begun immediately after

Arafat walked out of the Camp David talks.

Why do Palestinians focus terrorist attacks on the City of Peace? Because Palestinians

despite their rhetoric fully understand Jerusalem's symbolic and spiritual significance to

Jews.

 

Suicide attacks - on public buses and cafes, malls, and other crowded sites in the heart of

the city - since the 1993 Oslo Accords are designed to make life hell for Jewish

Jerusalemites. Atrocities like the February and March 1996 bombings of two #18 buses

that killed 26 people and the August 2001 bombing of a Sbarro pizzeria (34) that killed 15

(including five members of one family), are part of an ongoing 120-year-old battle for

Jerusalem that Arabs have waged in opposition to Zionism.

 

In April 1920, a three-day rampage by religiously incited anti-Zionist Arab mobs left six

dead and 200 injured in the Jewish Quarter. The attackers gutted synagogues and

yeshivot and ransacked homes. Arabs planted time bombs in public places as far back as

February 1947, when they blasted Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem's main thoroughfare,

leaving 50 dead. This was all done before the establishment of the State of Israel. In the

1950s, Jordanians periodically shot at Jewish neighborhoods from the walls of the Old

City. And after the city was united in 1967, Arabs renewed their battle for the city by

planting bombs in cinemas and supermarkets. The first terrorist attack in that renewed

battle came with the 1968 bombing of Jerusalem's Machane Yehuda, the open market,

that left 12 dead. The plain facts about Palestinians' behavior clearly demonstrates that

they have forfeited any claims – historical, religious or political – to the City of Peace.

 

IN A NUTSHELL

Jerusalem's Jewish connection dates back more than 3,000 years. Even after Jews lost control of the city in 70 CE, a Jewish spiritual and physical bond with Jerusalem remained unbroken, despite 2,000 years of dispersion.

 

Although Islamic dynasties controlled Jerusalem for some 1,300 years, they never once made it the capital of an Arab state. Even Jordan, which controlled part of the city for 19 years, until 1967, refrained from making it its capital. Furthermore, Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran, Islam's most holy book.

 

Given the central role Jerusalem plays throughout Jewish history; given Arabs dismal record toward the rights of Jews and Christians in a sensitive, sacred city like Jerusalem; and coupled with the Arabs' horrific record of bringing carnage to the City of Peace; Israel has a legal, historical and moral right to control Jerusalem as its undivided capital. Jerusalem must remain a unified capital under Israel's exclusive sovereignty in order to protect the interests of the Jewish people and as the only guarantee that the interests of all other faiths will be protected.

 

Eli E. Hertz

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

1 "Jerusalem: A Tale of One City" The New Republic, Nov. 14, 1994. (11362) Sir Martin Gilbert is an Honorary

Fellow of Merton College Oxford and the biographer of Winston Churchill. He is the author of the "Jerusalem:

Illustrated History Atlas" (Vallentine Mitchell) and "Jerusalem: Rebirth of the City" (Viking-Penguin).

http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/wall-ruling_/11362.htm. (11362)

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4 Psalm 137:5 "If I forget you, Jerusalem , let my right hand"

5See Ken Spiro, "Jerusalem: Jewish and Moslem Claims to the Holy City," at:

http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/Jerusalem_Jewish_and_Moslem_Claims_to_the_Holy_City.asp. (11341)

6"The eighty thousand Jews in Palestine, fully one-half are living within the walls, or in the twenty-three colonies

just outside the walls, of Jerusalem. This number – forty thousand Jews in Jerusalem - is not an estimate carelessly

made. …" Edwin S. Wallace, Former U.S. Consul "The Jews in Jerusalem" Cosmopolitan magazine (1898; original

pages of article are in possession of the author).

7"JERUSALEM - Whose City?" at:

http://christianactionforisrael.org/whosecity.html. (10744)

8"Dome of the Rock" at:

http://www.sacredsites.com/1st30/domeof.html. (11342)

9See Ken Spiro, "Jerusalem: Jewish and Moslem Claims to the Holy City," at:

http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/Jerusalem_Jewish_and_Moslem_Claims_to_the_Holy_City.asp. (11341)

10Daniel Pipes, "If I Forget Thee: Does Jerusalem Really Matter to Islam," New Republic, April 28, 1997, at:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/281. (10746)

11See Ken Spiro, "Jerusalem: Jewish and Moslem Claims to the Holy City," at:

http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/Jerusalem_Jewish_and_Moslem_Claims_to_the_Holy_City.asp. (11341)

12Daniel Pipes, "If I Forget Thee: Does Jerusalem Really Matter to Islam," New Republic, April 28, 1997, at:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/281. (10746)

13Ibid.

14See Ken Spiro, "Jerusalem: Jewish and Moslem Claims to the Holy City," at:

http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/Jerusalem_Jewish_and_Moslem_Claims_to_the_Holy_City.asp. (11341)

15Dore Gold, "Jerusalem in International Diplomacy," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, at

http://www.jcpa.org/jcprg10.htm. (10747)

16"Jerusalem: A Tale of One City," The New Republic, Nov. 14, 1994. (11362) Martin Gilbert is an Honorary Fellow

of Merton College Oxford and the biographer of Winston Churchill. He is the author of the "Jerusalem: Illustrated

History Atlas" (Vallentine Mitchell) and "Jerusalem: Rebirth of the City" (Viking-Penguin), at:

http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/wall-ruling_/11362.htm. (11340)

17Ibid.

18Ibid.

19Dore Gold, "Jerusalem in International Diplomacy." See:

http://www.jcpa.org/jcprg10.htm. (10747)

20For these and more statistics, see "Jerusalem: The City's Development from a Historical Viewpoint," at:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1998/7/Jerusalem-%20The%20Citys%

20Development%20from%20a%20Historica. (10748)

21Rami Yizrael, "The Jewish Quarter in Old Jerusalem in the War of Independence" (in Hebrew), Jerusalem: Ben

Zvi Institute at:

http://ybz.org.il/?ArticleID=71. (11343)

22The Right of Return here refers to Arab demands that Israel allow all the Palestinians who fled in 1948 and left in

1967 – more than four million Arabs by their own estimates – to simply 'overrun' Israel demographically.

23According to Egyptian Minister of Waqfs (religious endowments) Mahmoud Hamdi Zakzouk: "Jews have no

legitimate claim to Al-Buraq Wall," April 28, 2001. The Western Wall, it is claimed, was the 'hitching post' where

the Prophet tied his winged steed in "The Night Journey" before ascending into heaven.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010428/2001042829.html. (11344)

24Mark Ami-El, "Destruction of the Temple Mount Antiquities," August 2002, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,

August 1, 2002, at:

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp483.htm. (11567)

25Dore Gold, "Jerusalem in International Diplomacy." (10747)

26Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht "Jerusalem and the Holy Places," The Anglo-Israel Association, October 1968.

Lauterpracht was Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice. He also published Aspects of the

Administration of International Justice (1991). He is the Director, Research Centre for International Law at

Cambridge University, and Member, Arbitration Panel, World Bank Centre for the Settlement of Investment

Disputes.

27Ibid.

© 2008, Eli E. Hertz Page 13 of 13 Jerusalem

28Professor Julius Stone, Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations (Johns Hopkins University Press,

1981). This work represented a detailed analysis of the central principles of international law governing the issues

raised by the Arab-Israel conflict. Professor Stone was recognized as one of the twentieth century's leading

authorities on the Law of Nations and one of the world's best-known authorities in both Jurisprudence and

International Law. His 26 major works include the authoritative texts Legal Controls of International Conflict,

Aggression and World Order, The International Court and World Crisis and The Province and Function of Law.

29All citizens of the State of Israel were denied access to the Holy Places under Jordan control.

30Draft resolutions attempted to brand Israel as aggressor and illegal occupier as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War

were all defeated by the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

A/L.519, 19 June 1967, submitted by: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

"Israel, in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the universally accepted principles of

international law, has committed a premeditated and previously prepared aggression against the United Arab

Republic, Syria and Jordan …" (emphasis added) at:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/2795fff6b58b212c052566cd006e0900!

OpenDocument. (10919)

A/L. 521, 26 June 1967, submitted by: Albania

"Resolutely condemns the Government of Israel for its armed aggression against the United Arab Republic, the

Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan, and for the continuance of the aggression by keeping under its occupation parts

of the territory of these countries;" (emphasis added) at:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1947-

1974/28%20Draft%20Resolution%20by%20Albania%20at%20the%20Emergency%20Se. (10921)

A/L. 522/REV.3*, 3 July 1967, submitted by: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cambodia, Ceylon, Congo

(Brazzaville),Cyprus, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, United Republic of

Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

"Calls upon Israel to withdraw immediately all its forces to the positions they held prior to 5 June 1967" (emphasis

added). At:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/76bf6a75b8482d15052566c6006560d4?OpenDocument. (10918)

A/L.523/Rev.1, 4 July 1967, submitted by: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,

Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana,

Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela.

"Israel to withdraw all its forces from all the territories (emphasis added) occupied by it as a result of the recent

conflict;" at:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/510ef41fac855100052566cd00750ca4!O

penDocument. (10920)

31Judge, Sir Elihu Lauterpracht, "Jerusalem and the Holy Places," p. 11.

32Professor, Judge Schwebel. What Weight to Conquest? in "Justice in International Law", Cambridge University

Press, 1994.

33"What started the al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000?" at:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_start.php. 10751)

34"Suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem, August 9, 2001," at:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/2000_2009/2000/10/Suicide%20bombing%20at%20the%20Sbarro%20

pizzeria%20in%20Jerusale. (10752)

This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number

(xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at www.MEfacts.com

 

 

Understanding Gaza Pain and Perfidy Under International Law

 

By  Professor Louis René Beres

 

It is easy to feel sorry for the Palestinians in Gaza. Televised and print images of their apparently unrelieved misery suggest Israeli cruelty in the creation of shortages and in the use of armed force. Exactly the opposite is true. The moment that flagrantly illegal Hamas rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants cease, no harms of any kind will be imposed by Israel.

 

Hamas commits other egregious violations of international law. It is always a codified war crime to use civilians as "human shields." This cowardly act even has a precise legal name - "perfidy." By persistently placing their most impoverished women and children in harm's way - especially in those areas from which they launch terrorist rockets into Israel - Palestinian terrorist leaders deliberately create Palestinian casualties.

There is more here than meets the eye. Several Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, are forging conceptual and tactical bonds with al-Qaeda. These criminal organizations are now actively planning for mega-terror operations against Israel. If they cannot be stopped - perhaps because of continued one-sided and selective coverage of Palestinian suffering in Gaza- such attacks would involve (at a minimum) chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction. Over time, especially if Iran should begin to transfer portions of its growing inventory of nuclear materials to selected terror groups, Israel could also face Palestinian-directed nuclear terrorism.

 

What government could be expected to sit back passively and render its population vulnerable to instantaneous mass-slaughter? Would we, in the United States, sit quietly by as rockets rained down upon American cities from terrorist sanctuaries somewhere on our southern borders? Would we allow such carnage to continue with impunity? Can capitulation and surrender ever be the proper or excusable reaction of a sovereign state sworn to protect its populations? For as long as political philosophers have written about the essential obligations of sovereignty, no state responsibility has been as important as the fundamental assurance of protection.

 

Although not widely recognized, Israel has always been willing to keep its counter terrorism operations in Gaza consistent with the settled standards of humanitarian international law. Palestinian violence, on the other hand, still remains in violation of all civilized rules of engagement. And all this after Israel very painfully "disengaged" from Gaza on the US-backed promise that the Palestinians - finally - would put an end to their relentless barrage of terror. Significantly, this barrage also remains strategically senseless, as it does absolutely nothing to advance any vital Palestinian interests.

International law is not a suicide pact. Rather, it offers an authoritative body of rules and procedures that permits states to express their inherent right of self-defense. When terrorist organizations celebrate the explosive "martyrdom" of Palestinian children, and when Palestinian leaders unashamedly seek religious redemption through the mass-murder of Jewish children, the terrorists have no legal right to demand sanctuary. Anywhere.

 

Under international law terrorists are always hostes humani generis, "Common enemies of humankind." Even according to the most ancient sources of international law, such murderers must be severely punished wherever they are found. For their arrest and prosecution, jurisdiction is "universal."

 

Palestinian terrorism, even during its present "slow" period (when contending Hamas and Fatah factions are too busy attacking each other), is far worse than most people ever imagine. Using bombs filled with nails, razor blades and screws dipped in rat poison; the killers maim and burn Israeli civilians with abundant cheers from their neighbors and with warmest blessings from local clergy. As for those "commanders" who actually direct and control the suicide-bombers, they typically cower for protection in assorted hiding places. At times they issue loud calls for their wives, mothers and daughters to stand between themselves and the Israelis.

 

This is the documented "heroism" of Palestinian terrorism. What is unknown to most observers is that carefully trained IDF counter-terrorism units operate in exactly the opposite fashion. These Israeli soldiers always identify and target only the terrorist leaders. Always they seek to minimize collateral harms. There are times, of course, when such harms simply can't be avoided. Even the IDF, which follows its code of "Purity of Arms" far more stringently than any other nation's army, including our own, cannot undo the deliberate barbarism of Palestinian perfidy.

 

Deception can be legally acceptable in armed conflict, but The Hague Regulations forbid placement of military assets or personnel in heavily populated civilian areas. Further prohibition of perfidy is found at Protocol I of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. It is widely recognized that these rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law. Perfidy represents an especially serious violation of the Law of War, one identified as a "grave breach" at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV. The critical legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for inadvertent counterterrorist harms done to Arab civilians. Even if Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad and their several sister terror groups did not deliberately engage in perfidy, any Palestinian-created link between civilians and terrorist activities would always give Israel full legal justification for defensive military action.

 

International law is not a suicide pact. All combatants, including Palestinian terrorists, are bound by the Law of War of international law. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and at the two protocols to these Conventions. Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for "self-determination," the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters. A product of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1977), this Protocol brings all irregular forces within the full scope of international law. In this connection, the terms "fighter" and "irregular" are charitable in describing Palestinian terrorists. These fanatics are plainly criminals who intentionally target civilians, and whose characteristic mode of "battle" is not purposeful military engagement, but primal religious sacrifice.

 

In the final analysis, Israel faces a Palestinian terrorist enemy who embraces violence not for land, and not for national self-determination, but for God. For this determined Jihadist enemy, terrorism is now a plainly sacred expression of worship. Israel, like every other state, has the indisputable right and obligation under international law to protect its citizens from such an enemy.

International law is not a suicide pact.

----------------------

LOUIS RENÉ BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism and international law, including some of the earliest major books on nuclear terrorism.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Foreign secretary David Miliband "queries" Barack Obama's Iran policy

The Times (of London)

British Foreign secretary David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama's policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years. The Foreign Secretary, on his visit to the US this week, has held talks with all three presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. But when he met Mr Obama's team of foreign policy advisers on Wednesday, Mr Miliband is understood to have queried the presumptive Democratic nominee's declared willingness to meet leaders from rogue states such as Iran.

... British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia. There is also deep concern about Iran's support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern," Mr Miliband said this week. "No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity."

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America's presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a "naive" commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

In a televised debate last summer, Mr Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet the leaders of countries such as Iran and Cuba without preconditions during his first year in office. He replied: "I would." But this week he appeared to pull back, saying he would still be willing to meet Iranian leaders but not before what he described as "preparations" and not necessarily with President Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, Mr Obama says that "tough but engaged diplomacy" of the type carried out by President Kennedy or President Reagan with the Soviet Union would represent "a different approach, a different philosophy" to the "failed Iran policy" of the current administration.

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain's support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. "Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community," Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate's positions. But the same source added: "We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don't know what route he will take or what he means by 'no pre-conditions'. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we're doing."

A Foreign Office spokesman later said: "I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama's policy. It would be quite wrong to say that."

Mr McCain's foreign policy chief, Randy Scheunemann, would not comment on his own meetings with Mr Miliband. But he said: "Obama's position is obviously different to that of Britain and France. Otherwise Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy would have already met the President of Iran without conditions.

Although Britain, unlike the US, maintains diplomatic relations with Iran, the West has been more or less united in seeking to isolate the Iranian leadership. The US, Britain, France and to some extent Germany have pressed for tighter sanctions against Iran, including measures directed against the country's ruling elite, for failing to comply with UN resolutions calling for a halt to its uranium enrichment programme.

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.

There is also deep concern about Iran's support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

"The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern," Mr Miliband said this week. "No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity."

 

 

The Problem With Talking to Iran

By Amir Taheri

The Wall Street Journal

 

"WE DO NOT AGREE TO A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GREAT SATAN; WE WANT TO DESTROY YOU"

 

In a report released this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed "serious concern" that the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to conceal details of its nuclear weapons program, even as it defies U.N. demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

 

Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama " in lieu of a policy for dealing with the growing threat posed by the Islamic Republic " repeats what has become a familiar refrain within his party: Let's talk to Iran.

 

There is, of course, nothing wrong with wanting to talk to an adversary. But Mr. Obama and his supporters should not pretend this is "change" in any real sense. Every U.S. administration in the past 30 years, from Jimmy Carter's to George W. Bush's, has tried to engage in dialogue with Iran's leaders. They've all failed.

 

Just two years ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proffered an invitation to the Islamic Republic for talks, backed by promises of what one of her advisers described as "juicy carrots" with not a shadow of a stick. At the time, I happened to be in Washington. Early one morning, one of Ms. Rice's assistants read the text of her statement (which was to be issued a few hours later) to me over the phone, asking my opinion. I said the move won't work, but insisted that the statement should mention U.S. concern for human- rights violations in Iran.

 

"We don't wish to set preconditions," was the answer. "We could raise all issues once they have agreed to talk." I suppose Ms. Rice is still waiting for Iran's mullahs to accept her invitation, even while Mr. Obama castigates her for not wanting to talk.

 

The Europeans invented the phrase "critical dialogue" to describe their approach to Iran. They negotiated with Tehran for more than two decades, achieving nothing.

 

The Arabs, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have been negotiating with the mullahs for years â?" the Egyptians over restoring diplomatic ties cut off by Tehran, and the Saudis on measures to stop Shiite-Sunni killings in the Muslim world â?" with nothing to show for it. Since 1993, the Russians have tried to achieve agreement on the status of the Caspian Sea through talks with Tehran, again without results.

 

The reason is that Iran is gripped by a typical crisis of identity that afflicts most nations that pass through a revolutionary experience. The Islamic Republic does not know how to behave: as a nation-state, or as the embodiment of a revolution with universal messianic pretensions. Is it a country or a cause?

 

A nation-state wants concrete things such as demarcated borders, markets, access to natural resources, security, influence, and, of course, stability " all things that could be negotiated with other nation-states. A revolution, on the other hand, doesn't want anything in particular because it wants everything.

 

In 1802, when Bonaparte embarked on his campaign of world conquest, the threat did not come from France as a nation-state but from the French Revolution in its Napoleonic reincarnation. In 1933, it was Germany as a cause, the Nazi cause, that threatened the world. Under communism, the Soviet Union was a cause and thus a threat. Having ceased to be a cause and re-emerged a nation-state, Russia no longer poses an existential threat to others.

 

The problem that the world, including the U.S., has today is not with Iran as a nation-state but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the guidance of the "Hidden Imam." The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme leader" of the Islamic Republic " who Mr. Obama admits has ultimate power in Iran " exposes the futility of the very talks Mr. Obama proposes: "You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We ... do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world."

 

So, how should one deal with a regime of this nature? The challenge for the U.S. and the world is finding a way to help Iran absorb its revolutionary experience, stop being a cause, and re-emerge as a nation-state.

 

Whenever Iran has appeared as a nation-state, others have been able to negotiate with it, occasionally with good results. In Iraq, for example, Iran has successfully negotiated a range of issues with both the Iraqi government and the U.S. Agreement has been reached on conditions under which millions of Iranians visit Iraq each year for pilgrimage. An accord has been worked out to dredge the Shatt al-Arab waterway of three decades of war debris, thus enabling both neighbors to reopen their biggest ports. Again acting as a nation-state, Iran has secured permission for its citizens to invest in Iraq.

 

When it comes to Iran behaving as the embodiment of a revolutionary cause, however, no agreement is possible. There will be no compromise on Iranian smuggling of weapons into Iraq. Nor will the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps agree to stop training Hezbollah-style terrorists in Shiite parts of Iraq. Iraq and its allies should not allow the mullahs of Tehran to export their sick ideology to the newly liberated country through violence and terror.

 

As a nation-state, Iran is not concerned with the Palestinian issue and has no reason to be Israel's enemy. As a revolutionary cause, however, Iran must pose as Israel's arch-foe to sell the Khomeinist regime's claim of leadership to the Arabs.

 

As a nation, Iranians are among the few in the world that still like the U.S. As a revolution, however, Iran is the principal bastion of anti-Americanism. Last month, Tehran hosted an international conference titled "A World Without America." Indeed, since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has returned to a more acute state of revolutionary hysteria. Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to truly believe the "Hidden Imam" is coming to conquer the world for his brand of Islam. He does not appear to be interested in the kind of "carrots" that Secretary Rice was offering two years ago and Mr. Obama is hinting at today.

 

Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans."

 

Mr. Obama wavers back and forth over whether he will talk directly to Mr. Ahmadinejad or some other representative of the Islamic Republic, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Moreover, he does not make it clear which of the two Irans " the nation-state or the revolutionary cause " he wishes to "engage." A misstep could legitimize the Khomeinist system and help it crush Iranians' hope of return as a nation-state.

 

The Islamic Republic might welcome unconditional talks, but only if the U.S. signals readiness for unconditional surrender. Talk about talking to Iran and engaging Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot hide the fact that, three decades after Khomeinist thugs raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, America does not understand what is really happening in Iran.

 

Amir Taheri

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Israel, Europe and the future.

By Ami Isseroff

 

The star of America may be declining, and American policy toward Israel will probably be less friendly in the future than it has been of late (see The future of US-Israel Relations). These issues are not directly related to the announced stands of current presidential candidates, though the emergence of Barack Obama as the Democratic party candidate for president has underlined the problem. The choice of Obama, after all, tells us something about how Americans view Israel. His rhetoric is designed to appeal to the American public.

Obama didn't succeed by saying things people don't want to hear. When he speaks about Israel, he speaks for America, as does John McCain, who says about the same thing, in more Republican language. Americans are fond of Israel, but not its settlements. No American administration has ever backed Israeli claims to Jerusalem, much less the Golan or the West Bank.

Most Americans, especially policy makers, think Arabs are only angry about the occupation, producing a conflict which is a "sore" that can be eliminated by ending the occupation. History for them began with the Six Day War. The American Middle East dream since that war has been to engineer a peace settlement by getting Israel to give up territory, after which everyone will live happily ever after, with the US enthroned as the leading power in the Middle East. Never mind the reality of history before 1967, when there was no occupation. Americans don't really really "get" organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and did not see the danger of letting Hamas participate in Palestinian elections. That was not Obama who did that, it was the Bush administration that so loves Israel. More harm is often done out of ignorance than out of hate.

But whatever the attitude of the United States toward Israel, it is certain that US influence in the Middle East is on the wane. I have often noted the problematic dependence of Israel on the United States (see for example The United States Mandate for Palestine) We are not the economic disaster area that we were when we obtained massive US aid following the peace with Egypt. As the years go by, the dollar value of the aid remains the same, but the real value has shrunk considerably and its proportion in the Israeli budget keeps shrinking. Increasingly, it becomes a liability that prevents us from entering a multilateral world and makes Israel vulnerable to cheap political attacks in the United States. Isn't it absurd that the country with the strongest currency in the world is still receiving billions of dollars of US charity each year? There is more to sovereignty than annexing this or that bit of territory and there is more to independence than grousing about US pressure and advocating "in your face" politics. If we want to be independent, we have to show we can be independent, rather than acting out like disturbed teenagers who continue to live off the family largess. Israel is of age. We need to go out into the world and 'seek our fortune.'

Israel will have to diversify its allies and trading partners, an imperative that has already been noted by others, and which Israel is doing something about (see here for example). A big part of the future alliance has to be the European Union. But if Americans don't "get" the Middle East, it seems equally true that Israel and its supporters don't "get" Europe entirely. They see Europe through sometimes distorting glasses - distorted both by past history and by American views of Europe. Robin Shepherd provides an example of the sort of thinking about Europe that typifies many supporters of Israel. To a great extent it is true or half true, but it doesn't help us much.

Certainly many European radicals are anti-Zionist and perhaps anti-Semitic. But European governments are not run by the Red Army faction or even Ken Livingstone. Certainly Europeans are not enthusiastic about Israeli nationalism. But lecturing Europeans on their failings is not going to solve our problems with them, and neither with hoping for a re-emergence of European nationalism. The European right is not characterized by love of Jews necessarily, and betting on a return to nationalism in Europe is probably betting on the wrong horse. When Europe understands the threat posed by Jihadist radicals, the response will have to be made by a more or less unified "European nation" - and that is precisely how the threat is seen by many - as a threat to European values.

We also must take into account that an increasing number of Europeans ARE Muslims themselves, and that Turkey may be eventually a part of the European union. Israeli policy and the quest for allies must be based on what exists and will exist, not on what he think ought to exist. In every situation, there is a way for astute statecraft to create opportunities, if the situation is understood.

Alliances are based on needs and common interests. If Israel wants European support, it must position itself to be useful to Europe and it must demonstrate to Europeans that it is useful and show that we have common interests, rather than delivering sermons on the foibles of radicals and the resurgence of anti-Semitism. Of course Israel has enemies in Europe, and of course cynical, Machiavellian and defeatist politics have been part of the European scene for a few centuries, and of course anti-Semitism has been indigenous to Europe for even longer. But we also have friends, and we must be sensitive to changes. Jacques Chirac is gone and even if Mr Sarkozy does not have a bright political future, it is doubtful if another Chirac will return. Italy has just elected a friendly government. Germany is consistently supportive of Israel, and in Germany we have strong intellectual spokesmen and advocates for the Jews and Israel like Matthias Kuntzel. Even those who disagree with Israeli policies, like Miguel Moratinos, are basically supportive of Israel. We should not be lumping all Europeans together into a demonic stereotype of Ulrika Meinhof, Carlos the terrorist and the UK UCU with its perennial Israel boycott motions. We need to preserve some proportion - the latest boycott motion was condemned by the UK education minister. We must be aware of the problematic nature of European attitudes to Israel and the alarming rise of anti-Semitic manifestations, but we need to stop waving our arms and yelling "gevalt!" We must focus on finding allies and on changing the situation.

Should we, for example, be providing the European security establishments with our expertise and contacts in fighting terrorism, a problem that will loom larger and larger in the European consciousness if our understanding of Islamism is correct? Can we interest Europeans in opportunities to improve their armaments by applying battle-tested Israeli solutions? Can we, for example, trade more European leverage and influence in the peace process for a more balanced and rational European approach to the Middle East? Can we also make Israel a convenient gateway for Europeans who want to trade with India, China and Asia, and vice-versa?

The task of statecraft is not to bemoan a bad reality, but to see the means to change it and make it work to your advantage. In the past, the Zionist movement was skilled in seeing opportunities even in disastrous situations, and using them to gain advantages even when our numbers were few and our real influence was negligible. The Zionist movement is no longer a group of penniless and eccentric Eastern European intellectuals, as it was when it obtained the Balfour declaration. Israel is no longer a collection of unarmed farmers and refugees as it was when we obtained recognition from both the United States and the USSR in 1948. The IDF is no longer based on a junkyard mixture of surplus B-17s and superannuated Sherman tanks as it was when we obtained British and French cooperation in the Suez Campaign, and French cooperation in building a nuclear reactor. The "bad guys" of Europe will probably be there for a long time to come. They are only influential and important if we let them be so. A lot of their power arises from the overly close bilateral relations that Israel cultivated with the United States, and the desire of European governments to ensure their place in the sun of the Middle East. We can change that, and we won't necessarily lose our American friends by seeking additional ones. Quite the contrary - alliances are stimulated by competition.

Israel can survive and prosper if we assert our independence in constructive ways, use our strengths and demonstrate our worth to potential allies rather than moralizing and bemoaning the errors of European intellectuals.

Ami Isseroff

 

Original content is Copyright by the author 2008.