Yourish.com

Following on Backspin’s recent listing of the 18 Most Asked About Israeli Sites let’s go over some of the best pro-Israel think tanks out there. (Before I get to the think tanks, here’s one more Israeli government site that’s probably worth being familiar with: MASHAV, where you can learn about the good works Israel does for countries who routinely condemn Israel in the UN.)

Part of the impetus for listing the think tanks is the recent re-design of GLORIA. GLORIA or Global Research in International Affairs (Center) is run by Prof. Barry Rubin and is affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya. Also affilated with the IDC is the ICT or the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

I highly recommend the GLORIA site for up-to-the-minute papers on current topics concering the Middle East. I am not as familiar with the ICT website, but I’ve occasionally found good material there as well.

There is also the The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), which is affiliated with Tel Aviv University. Its output appears to be very much within the mainstream of Israel’s political world.

The Saban Center looks like it produces pretty standard leftist research. Like the INSS it appears to have strong ties to newsmakers, though not geared as exclusively to Israel as the INSS.

Another think tank that I rely on is the Jerusalem Council for Public Affairs. Run by Dr. Dore Gold, a former advisor to PM Netanyahu, it produces papers by academic and military experts. It also runs Daily Alert a daily report with “clippings” from major news stories regarding Israel. Daily Alert is available by e-mail.

The Middle East Forum is run by Daniel Pipes and features a number of related organizations. It’s experts are mostly academic and they produce essay for the Middle East Quarterly as well as op-eds for the media. A number of its offerings – including weekly columsn by Dr. Pipes – are available via e-mail.

The one final think tank that I’ll mention is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It’s run by Robert Satloff and its most famous member is Dennis Ross, advisor to presidents. It features a wide array of experts and its members often contribute op-eds or magazine length essays.

It’s probably unfair to refer to these thank-tanks as pro-Israel, although most of them do produce work is considered pro-Israel. They do, however, focus on the Middle East. They all produce work that can be useful in supporting your work.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

I’m sure that my friend Snoopy is going to hit me back hard for this, because he’s a fan of Burston. But I gotta say this.

Bradley Burston’s Here’s to the ’67 borders, the new middle of the road is a load of hooey.

It’s not that I disagree with him that somehow the notion that Israel retreating to more or less its 1967 has become the mainstream in Israeli political discourse. At least among those running the country that appears to be true. And it’s something that I’ve said for a long time.

What I disagree with is that it’s a good thing, something that Mr. Burston seems to believe.

There was a time when the mention of 1967 lines was met with nothing more than one version or other of Abba Eban’s 1969 comment to the German newspaper Der Spiegel:”We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz.”

Many of those who cite the “Auschwitz borders” quote as a bulwark against giving up all occupied territory, conveniently forget that Abba Eban was an outspoken and unabashed dove.

Many of those who oppose territorial compromise of all kinds turn a blind eye to Abba Eban’s comment that an Israel which refuses to consider ceding land is “tearing up its own birth certificate.

“Israel’s birth is intrinsically and intimately linked with the idea of sharing territory and sovereignty,” Eban declared.

Actually I think that most people who quote Mr. Eban realize that he was a dove. And that’s what made the quote so compelling.

No I wasn’t aware of the other comment. But again, that’s not what’s at issue. Even so-called hard liners like Binyamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon ceded land.

The question is how much land to cede.

I’m glad that Burston acknowledges

It’s important to note that in an era of land-for-Qassams in Gaza and deadly Palestinian internal strife, any accord over borders is a distant prospect at best.

Of course he doesn’t accord this observation the importance it’s due.

At the same time, there is growing awareness among Palestinians that maximalism, in particular the forms of long-distance Islamic extremism exported by Iran and Osama Bin Laden, could in the end kill the prospect of a Palestinian state altogether.Even Hamas officials have spoken of being “able to live with” an interim situation of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines. “Where the Hamas Charter speaks of “an end to the conflict and the end of the occupation,” Hamas, from Khaled Meshaal on down, is speaking clearly of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas official Razi Hamid told Army Radio in 2006.

“This is a new page today. We agree to an independent Palestinian state with the 1967 borders,” Hamid said. “Today there is an opportunity to reach a political settlement.”

“Live with an interim situation?” How someone can torture statements by Hamas into some sort of pragmatism is beyond me. The Palestinians haven’t been convinced that maximilism costs them anything. If they had there’d be a real difference, perhaps, between Fatah and Hamas. But there is none. These two terrorist organizations differ only in methods not in aim. (One could even go so far as to praise Hamas for its honesty that it seeks Israel’s destruction openly. Fatah has no such saving grace.)

Israel’s polity has changed over the past 40 years tremendously. On the other side we’ve seen no movement.

A few weeks ago Daniel Pipes offered some guarded praise for PM Olmert.

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as “a Jewish state,” Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed. “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state.”He confirmed these points a day later, describing the “recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people” as the “launching point for all negotiations. We won’t have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people.” The Palestinian leadership, he noted, must “want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state.”

Raising this topic has the virtue of finally focusing attention on what is the central topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict – Zionism, the Jewish nationalist movement, a topic that typically gets ignored in the hubbub of negotiations. Since nearly the birth of the state, these have focused on the intricacies of such subsidiary issues as borders, troop placements, armaments and arms control, sanctities, natural resources, residential rights, diplomatic representation, and foreign relations.

Of course, Pipes points out that nearly ever major member of Fatah denies that Israel is or could be a Jewish State, and PM Olmert thus finesses the issue

“My impression is that he wants peace with Israel, and accepts Israel as Israel defines itself,” Olmert said. “If you ask him to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does. That is not insignificant. It is perhaps not enough, but it is not insignificant.”

Daled Amos acidly observes

Olmert has not just lowered the bar on what is required of a peace partner. He has removed it.

Again, the point is that while Israel’s political position has become more accommodating there has been no reciprocal movement on the Palestinian side. Worse, Israel has gained little in the arena of public opinion. Perhaps the most dramatic Israeli action since 1993 has been the withdrawal from Gaza. Not only did Israel forcibly remove thousands of its own citizen giving the Palestinians their own contiguous territory, since then Israel has suffered thousands of rocket and mortar attacks into its undisputed territory. Despite all this, Israel is still portrayed negatively in the media.

Although Israel’s leadership expressed an expectation that Israel’s unilateral disengagement would improve Israel’s image as an occupier and an oppressor, and would decrease demands by the international community for major territorial concessions to the Palestinians, it appears that the opposite is in fact the case.The research, conducted by Dr. Tamir Sheafer and Itai Gabai from the Departments of Politics and Communications & Journalism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has found that in Britain and the United States, Israel was represented in a more negative light after the disengagement in comparison to the period that preceded it.

(via Backspin.)

And so Mr. Burston concludes

So here’s to the all new middle of the road, an especially useful view – and test of Palestinian intentions and aspirations – at a time when Bin Laden chooses to stake out the maximalist ground of a one-state all-Palestinian, all-Islamist solution.Maximalists on both sides would have us believe that compromise invites murder. It’s time for the quieter majority to stand up and point out that its maximalists who do the great majority of the killing around here.

A test of Palestinian aspirations? Isn’t that Ehud Barak said he was testing at Camp David in 2000 after it blew up in his face? Palestinian moderates have been tested and revealed to be maximalists. No different from Bin Laden, though they may be more polished in their presentation.

And it’s not maximalists on the Israel side who believe that “compromise invites murder.” Rather it’s not a matter of belief. It’s a fact. This is something that Mr. Burston even acknowledge in passing – when he commented on “land for Qassams.” Israel has compromised and – for better or worse – will continue to compromise, but there’s no reason to suggest that anything short of the 1967 borders is a failure to compromise. But that’s exactly what Mr. Burston is doing. And that’s exactly why his analysis is nonsense.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

From the Washington Post Friday,

“With President Bush coming so soon, one would hope to see positive steps toward the Palestinian people, but instead we see the opposite,” said Jamal al-Muhaisen, governor of Nablus. While Nablus has long been considered a stronghold of militant groups launching attacks on Israel, the Palestinian Authority has intensified policing efforts there in recent months.”I regard this incursion as an attempt to destroy our security plan, which was working,” Muhaisen said.

The IDF reports on the results of its raids on Shechem/Nablus:

The operations, which began Wednesday night, included the participation of ISA forces, the Paratroopers Reconnaissance Battalion, the Kfir Brigade’s Haruv Battalion, the Golani Brigade’s Gideon Battalion and Combat Engineering and Border Police special forces.Amongst the weapons discovered were rocket prepping materials, explosives belts, two handguns and explosive materials. The forces also uncovered bombs, missile launchers, nine bullet magazines and different military equipment. The entire weapons cache was detonated in a controlled manner by the special engineering forces.

In addition Israel arrested 23 suspects. Apparently the PA’s “policing efforts” were not as comprehensive as they might have been. Methinks that Mr. Muhaisen doth protest too much.

Israel Matzav asks rhetorically:

If this is what goes on with the IDF still raiding Shchem from time to time, imagine if the ‘Palestinian police’ were in charge all the time, and the IDF was not going in there. I don’t have to imagine it: I lived here from September 2000 to March 2002. I don’t want to go through that again.

(via memeorandum)

Of course this doesn’t occur in a vacuum of Israeli/Palestinian relations, it occurs on the eve of President Bush’s diplomatic trip to the Middle East that is scheduled to include PA controlled Ramallah. In other words President Bush’s safety is dependent, at least in part, on the ability of the PA to control hostile elements in Ramallah where the president is scheduled to visit. (Remember that the Palestinian media portrays the United States as an enemy of the Palestinians.)

I have no doubt that one of the reasons the president would never visit Sderot is because the qassams would be cited as security risks to his safety. Fair enough, but would he really be any safer under the protection of a “security” force that has overseen the murders of Americans in the past?

You have to wonder what the real impediments to peace are?

UPDATE: from today’s New York Times

In response to the Palestinian criticism, Mark Regev, a spokesman for Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, said, “We would hope these sorts of operations were no longer necessary, but the sad reality is that the Palestinian security apparatuses are not yet ready to meet the challenge.”The Palestinians’ “lack of capability” could lead to a vacuum that could “play into the hands of extremists,” Mr. Regev said.

He added that the Palestinian police had been seen taking “positive action” in Nablus on policing operations, but “so far, we haven’t seen them willing to take on the entrenched terrorist infrastructure.”

Israel is likely to raise what it says are the shortcomings of Palestinian security during the Bush visit, while the Palestinians have said they will press the issue of continued settlement building.

Again which is the real impediment to peace?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Headlines tell us so much. First from the Washington Post. Israeli Operations Kill 9 in Gaza

Israeli forces launched military operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank early Thursday, hours before a Katyusha rocket fired from Gaza crashed down harmlessly near the Israeli city of Ashkelon. At least nine Palestinians were killed during Israeli tank and helicopter attacks in Gaza, including five members of a family killed near the central city of Khan Younis, Palestinian officials said. . . . Israeli military officials said the operation in Gaza, which began just after midnight, was intended to counter Palestinian attacks and followed recent rocket strikes. Israeli soldiers also entered the northern West Bank city of Nablus in search of Palestinian fighters. The Katyusha was fired at about 8:30 a.m. Thursday, they said.

But the problem isn’t only with the headline, it’s also with the introductory paragraphs. Consider, what do 3 of the first 4 paragraphs of this report tell us? Before a Palestinian rocket harmlessly exploded in Israel, the IDF killed 5 members of a Palestinian family. There is nothing factually wrong with the report or that summary, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t fundamentally dishonest. Giving the Israeli rationale that the attack on Gaza “…was intended to counter Palestinian attacks and followed recent rocket strikes …” doesn’t fully describe the situation Israel finds itself in. In recent months Elder of Ziyon has been scouring news sources to produce monthly qassam calendars. He introduces the December post with this:

As usual, this is far from complete, and it is more to show how ignored the Qassam issue is rather than to show how many are being fired. Many Qassams never make it in the news, and the rare times that the IDF publishes statistics shows that I am usually undercounting by about 50%. Also, these are Qassams that make it to Israel; many that are fired explode in Gaza itself. This list does not include mortars being shot from Gaza, which are usually much more numerous on any given day.

dec 2007 – 99

nov 2007 – 69

oct 2007 – 58

sep 2007 – 42

Understand that by Elder of Ziyon’s estimate, roughly 500 qassams have been fired at civilian Israeli targets over the past 4 months with perhaps another 2000 rounds of mortars. Maybe most of the projectiles land harmlessly but this a relentless assault on Israeli territory. So to introduce a report by focusing on a family killed by the IDF misrepresents the situation on the ground. The reporter, Jonathan Finer, reports Israeli claims at the end that two members of the family had been firing on Israeli forces and then retreated into their house. It was then that the IDF fired on the house and killed everyone inside. Another problem with Finer’s report is the context into which he places it: President Bush’s upcoming visit to the Middle East.

The violence occurred as President Bush prepared to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories in an attempt to build momentum toward peace. “With President Bush coming so soon, one would hope to see positive steps toward the Palestinian people, but instead we see the opposite,” said Jamal al-Muhaisen, governor of Nablus. While Nablus has long been considered a stronghold of militant groups launching attacks on Israel, the Palestinian Authority has intensified policing efforts there in recent months. “I regard this incursion as an attempt to destroy our security plan, which was working,” Muhaisen said. Bush’s visit is timed to build on November peace talks in Annapolis, Md. Those meetings included Israeli and Palestinian officials, but not representatives of the armed Islamic movement Hamas, which controls Gaza.

Note how Finer frames the story now. By quoting Gov. Muhaisen, he effectively characterizes Israel’s reactions to terror as working against the “momentum toward peace.” In fairness, Finer does mention the Katyusha and the smuggling through Egypt to Gaza.

“What we’ve seen today is the beginning of a situation where it isn’t just the adjacent communities in the firing line but up to a quarter of a million Israelis,” said Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev. “Today’s rocket attack represents an escalation, an upgrade, a bigger rocket with a longer range, not something homemade, but something smuggled into Gaza from outside.” Citing concern that more advanced weapons were being brought into Gaza, the Israeli government had one day earlier condemned Egypt’s decision to open a border crossing for pilgrims returning from Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that his earlier paragraphs minimize the Katyusha at the expense of the Israeli offensive. (Though the Israeli offensive is, in fact, a reaction to constant rocket and mortar fire against Israel, we get little sense of that from this article. When Finer provides context it is to Israel’s disadvantage.

The simultaneous Israeli operations were the most significant offensives in the Palestinian territories in more than two months, residents said.

“Most significant” is more definite than “recent rocket strikes.” And yet the Washington Post treats the continued war against Israel as an afterthought. But the Jerusalem Post cuts through the fog and identifies the problem. It’s not a diplomatic problem but a Smuggling Crisis.

This goes beyond politeness to imply that the Egyptian failure to stop smuggling is a mere nuisance, even though this failure could easily force Israel into a foreseen and preventable war in Gaza. Egyptian irresponsibility is risking Israeli lives, harming Israeli security, and working directly counter to the international goal of isolating Hamas and bolstering an Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process. If anything, our leaders have not spoken out early and forcefully enough on this issue, and should certainly not stop pressing Israel’s case now.

If President Bush is to seek peace in the Middle East he must first stop the war against Israel. That should be a precondition for a Palestinian state and not the other way around.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.