|
Tel Aviv, Israel -- Ehud Olmert is an experienced politician, but an inexperienced Prime Minister. His defense Minister, Amir Peretz, a skillful trade unionist, is even more of an amateur in security matters. The combination of the two proved to be a recipe for disaster.
Since the modern birth of the state of Israel following the 1947 UN Partition Resolution, which was rejected by the Arab states and the leaders of the Palestinian community, and especially since the 1967 war, two major ideas defined in two sharp phrases have dominated the Arab-Israeli (and international) public discourse. The difference: one state or two.
Tel Aviv - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a typical example of the opportunities and guarantees provided by American democracy. AIPAC is playing by the rules set by the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers and political system. Yes, it has used those rules and opportunities to gain advantages. But what's wrong with that? Such clever behavior should be admired, not cursed. In that sense, AIPAC is no different from any other lobby in America; it exists to promote its interests. If AIPAC or its officials are breaking the laws or the rules, put them on trial. AIPAC’s only problem is that it is successful and outstanding, and thus has become an object of envy.
By Yossi Melman
This afternoon, the countdown leading to a new and early election in Israel will begin – and mark the end of the peace process.
At 6pm Israeli time, the Winograd Committee will publish its final and full report on the Second Lebanon War, which Israel launched in June 2006. The report is considered to be one of Israel's most guarded secrets. But leaks by interested political and military parties, off-the-record conversations with the five members of the Committee, and the Winograd interim report all hint at the findings and their consequences. The report will undoubtedly bash both military and political leaders, as well as decision making process which led to the 33-day war.
The Current Discussion: With the Israeli re-invasion of Gaza, it's clear that the "Annapolis Peace Process" is collapsing. Does it matter? Who's to blame?
Who’s to blame? Nobody and everyone. The Palestinians. The Arab world. The Israelis and the Bush administration. All are to blame for showing lack of vision, willingness and readiness to compromise and achieve genuine peace.
I don't like to boast about my previous writings in the style of I TOLD YOU SO. But I did. This is what I wrote four months ago, in Nov 2007 before the Annapolis Summit was convened:
The Current Discussion:Israel celebrated its 60th birthday last week. Will it survive to celebrate its 100th?
This is an ill-drafted question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Israel shouldn't be singled out. The same question could be asked about many states whose existence is questioned or challenged by conflicting claims of sovereignty – in the Balkans, the Russian Federation, China, Africa or South America, and above all in the Middle East. Almost every state in this region must confront territorial demands from neighbors or from minority groups seeking to destroy or disintegrate them. The same question could apply to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Iran or Iraq.
Comments (18)