Israel Resource Review 12th June, 2006


A Journalist Presents Another Perspective for Kadima USA to Consider
David Bedein

According to the position paper issued by Kadima USA, issued on June 5th, 2006, the "current situation in Israel demands physical separation".

However, there is more that meets the eye, when it comes to Kadima.

Concerning Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem: Israel has allowed its courts to override its basic law of human rights and civil liberties in order for its in violation of universal declaration of human rights, to expel entire Jewish communities in clear violation of the San Remo Treaty, adopted by the League of Nations and reaffirmed by the UN, which protects the inherent right of Jewish settlement, west of the Jordan River, not to mention the God given right of the Jewish people to live in the land of Israel.

At the same time, the Israeli police confirm that the special unit of the Israeli police who oversee enforcement of illegal and unauthorized homes in Arab sector is currently not functioning.

Meanwhile, under the Kadima government, Israel's publicly funded schools will be now be required to inculcate the idea that that Israel has no inherent right to Judea and Samaria and, yes, to Jerusalem, and instead to teach a view of international law which denies inherent Jewish belonging to the land of Israel.

Prime Minister Olmert, the head of Kadima, often says that the basis of his plan is that 68 Jewish communities would be moved into the lands of about 60 communities in Judea and Samaria.

Yet at the same time, Olmert's administration in enforcing new legislation which forbids the addition of any homes or public buildings in these communities in Judea and Samaria, which are expected to absorb thousands of evicted people.

At the same time, Olmert will not commit himself to annexing any communities in Judea and Samaria

The premise of this plan is that the world will recognize Israel holding on to settlement blocs, even though no nation indicates that it will do so. After all, no nation on earth, except for Costa Rica and el Salavador, will even recognize Israel's primacy in West Jerusalem. And the US has never even recognized Israel's settlement policies for Jews in the Negev.

That is the meaning of President Bush's mention of the 1949 status quo, which forbid Israel from expanding its communities on the grounds of abandoned Arab villages in the early 1950's.

Where will the budget come from for the massive removal of a population?

After all, last July 7th, Shimon Peres declared that he had solid $2Billion commitment from the US, which was never delivered, which is one of the reasons for the lack of funds available to compensate the people who were expelled last year from Katif and from Samaria.

Yet this does not seem to bother Ehud Olmert, who relates to the so-called settler population in a way that conforms with the philosophy of Ehud's wife of 36 years, Aliza, a founder of WOMEN IN BLACK, an organization that defines settlement in any area taken by Israel in 1967 as a "crime". In an interview with the Independent and Financial Times of London published on June 10th, Olmert describes the great influence that Aliza has on him, and, it should be noted, that Ehud Olmert allowed his wife to conduct press conferences during his May visit to Washington, during which she expressed here clear political philosophy.

Security Implications:

Gen. Moshe Yaalon was summarily dismissed as IDF Chief of Staff last summer when he warned of the consequences of Israel's unilateral surrender of strategically placed Jewish communities in Katif and Samaria,

The Israeli government would not listen to Yaalon. Perhaps, then sttention should be paid to former CIA director James Woolsey, who warns that Olmert's proposed surrender of Judea and Samaria would be a "nightmare" and a threat to all Israelis, since the PLO also views Tel Aviv as "occupied territory" Meanwhile, Woolsey warns that there is an inherent danger to the free world if Hamas and other PA forces would be allowed to deploy in Judea and Samaria, without interference from the IDF. It should be recalled that the IDF is now deployed inside all Arab cities.

To the idea that a fence would be protective, a fence is only effective if the IDF maintains a presence on both sides, if this is still a time of war.

A fence at the conclusion of a peace process would be another thing.

A fence before a peace process means that a hostile force on the other side will fire over the fence.

In the words of the late General Aharon Yariv, who first introduced the "Territories for Peace" formula in the Knesset – "We said territories for peace, not territories before peace"

It was in that context that Gen. Staff Moshe Yaalon warned against the withdrawal from Katif, which simply handed over bases to the enemy and encouraged the enemy to launch more attacks.

After all, Clause 7 of the June 6th, 2004 Disengagement law forbid Israel from handing over any assets to Palestinians "involved in terror". In the crucial period after the expulsion and eradication of the Jewish communities of Katif, after August 21st, 2005, the Israeli s government could have fulfilled that clause. It chose not to do so. Instead, it left 400 buildings left intact to an enemy at war with Israel, in violation of the law.

The advantageous forward positions from which enemies now fire artillery on Israel were ceded to the enemy by the Israeli government.

What is happening to the Western Negev is what could happen to the entire Tel Aviv region if the Kadima surrender plan is applied to Judea and Samaria,

All Kadima leaders promised the Israeli public that they would achieve iron clad agreement to prevent mass infiltration of troops and ammunition and weapons from across the Philadelphia road. Yet the Rafah accord came to no accord, while Egypt facilitated this massive smuggling operation.

Why, then, did Olmert travel to Egypt in May to thank President Mubarak for cooperation in the successful disengagement from Gaza?.

Where is the Olmert reproach of Mubarak for allowing the free flow of arms and weapons to Gaza? Why did Olmert apologize to Mubarak for allowing his soldiers to cross the border into Israel?

Terror feeds off of unilateral moves, which are only seen in the context of surrender.

Even if Israel sees withdrawal as lessoning its responsibility for Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the world does not see it that way.

And would the creation of terror entity that cannot sustain itself not become a threat to Israel and to Jordan? Missiles on high ground can destabilize Jordan and Israel

The Judean desert, which is a completely empty land, and the Jordan River Rift, which hosts more than 2o prosperous Jewish farming communities, are currently devoid of almost major Arab communities, and would only become major bases of the PA army

Yet the Israeli general who was placed in charge of the disengagement, Giora Eiland, revealed last week that that he was given one order: Surrender territory, and that was it.

Olmert's role in the Israeli government was to oversee the Israel Broadcasting Authority.

Needless to say, throughout the 2004-2005 disengagement process, there were rare IBA interviews with the military experts, in uniform and out of uniform, who warned the Israeli public of the inherent security dangers of the pull-out.

The question remains: Does the Kadima platform not mean relagating Israel to the "Auschwitz lines", a term coined by the late Abba Eban, who was Israel's foreign minister at the time of the Six Day War.

Compulsive Reliance on Abbas:

Following the death of Arafat and the ascendance of his protégé, Machmud Abbas, the Israeli government disbanded its anti-incitement committee, stopped monitoring his media, made no demands that Abbas change his school books, made no demands that he cancel PBC incitement on his air waves, which were loaned to the PA by Israel, and did not hold Abbas responsible for the Al Aksa martyrs Brigades attacks, of which he is the commander, and held Abbas in no accountability for his formal embracing of Hamas as a coalition partner, before the elections in which Hamas became the dominant partner.

While the US gov't monitoring anti-semitism, Olmert refused to do so concerning the Palestinian Authority.

Olmert made a firm stand against allowing PA elections in Jerusalem, yet reversed himself

Olmert made a firm stand against Hamas in the PA elections, yet reversed himself

And even when the Israel Ministry of Defence's top research team at issued a report that Abbas's newest school books are, indeed, anti-semitic, Olmert would not follow through with a demand that these school books be removed. And Olmert has made no demand from nations abroad to stop financing Abbas's school system

However, Olmert has announced that he will, instead, arm troops loyal to Abbas – despite the fact that his troops have consistently turned their "light weapons" against Israeli citizens.

I was present when a major official of the Israeli Foreign Ministry briefed his guests with what he described as the "optimistic" report that Abbas was proposing a new peace initiative, known as the "prisoner's document". The diplomat told his enthusiastic audience that there is, indeed, "reason for hope because it "calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

However, the text of the referendum proposed by Abbas, based on the so-called "Document of the Prisoners" (Arab terrorists convicted of first-degree murder), makes no such statements. That "prisoners document" is readily available in English from official and unofficial Palestinian sources (see

In that document, there is no mention whatsoever of a "two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Or, for that matter, any recognition of Israel.

Instead, the document unbderlying Abbas's referendum predicates the establishment of a Palestinian state on "all territories occupied in 1967" on the "right of return for the refugees". In other words, the document for Abbas's referendum resorts to the traditional PLO demand for all lands settled by Israel after 1948.

Instead of premising the document for Abbas's referendum on recognition of Israel and a contiguous Palestinian state, the document is only "based on the United Nations Charter and the international law and international legitimacy".

All this would be only a matter of sloppy media coverage, except for the fact that the White House press spokesman, Mr. Tony Snow, made an official statement in which he swallows the misrepresentation of Abbas's referendum, hook, line and sinker. His response to the question if he had anything to say on the referendum that Abbas is proposing to hold was:

Yet once again, Prime Minister Abbas has demonstrated that he's somebody who wants to work toward a two-state solution. And that was one of the things, as you know, that came up in the conversation with Prime Minister Olmert earlier with the president.

The US administration may wish to be very careful about Israeli officials who promote Abbas. After all, these were the same Israelis who promoted Arafat as a "peace partner"


Kadima USA is now in the unprecedented position of creating a fund for a prime minister of Israel to promote whatever he may wish to promote, with no accountability to the Foreign Ministry, to the Prime Minister's office, or to the Israel State Comptroller

Kadima USA funds can be used by Olmert to douse recent studies which downplay the demographic threat, by showing that one million less Palestinian Arabs exist than were thought to exist.

Kadima USA Funds can be used by Olmert to convince he public that Abbs is a man of peace and that he therefore should be armed, and that the presence of the Jews and the IDF in Judea and Samaria represent an obstacle to peace. After all, what characterized the reportage of the Jews of Kaif by the Olmert-supervised IBA throughout spring and summer of 2005 was one great campaign of demonization.

Kadima USA funds can be used by Olmert to promote the Prisoner's document as a referendum for peace.

One example of the great lie that was promulgated, over and over on the IBA: That the lawyers for the evacuees would not cooperate with the Evacuation Authority, when, in truth, it was the government that would not meet with them, from November 2004 until July, 2005

In short, the only way in which Kadina can succeed in promoting its policies will be through a well-funded spin master campaign, which can raise its funds through Kadima USA, especially if it achieves non-profit status. .

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

A "Kadima USA" Policy Statement – June 5th, 2006
Rabbi Marc Schneier
President, Kadima USA

As Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes his first state visit to the United States, it is time for Jews around the world to firmly support his efforts to set defensible borders for the State of Israel.

I recognize that the effort to preserve a Jewish majority for the Jewish state may run contrary to the thinking of many Americans. After all, America is the greatest melting pot in the world. But Israel must take these steps to protect and secure her future in the face of a terrorist government sworn to her destruction, and to ensure that Jews permanently remain a majority in the Israeli homeland.

For many years, Israelis and their leaders have worked unceasingly for peace, accepting the right of the Palestinian people to establish a permanent home. Yet great hopes for peace were thwarted just months ago when the Palestinian people chose Hamas - a known terrorist organization that has repeatedly and publicly called for the destruction of the Jewish state - to lead them.

So long as Hamas continues to condone terror and refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Israel, mutual conciliation and ethnic understanding will remain out of reach. As a result, Israel must take extraordinary steps to secure its border and solidify its future. The challenges are stark and must be addressed finally and decisively. Israel can no longer wait for reason and goodwill to suddenly prevail among the Palestinian people. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has publicly stated his plan for disengagement and "convergence" in Israel and the administered areas. Let's be honest. Disengagement involves, at its most basic level, segregating Jewish and Palestinian communities so that each may govern itself and may exist peacefully but separately. Olmert correctly believes that this is necessary at the present time to safeguard Israel's continued survival and to ensure that Jews remain the majority in the Jewish state. AMERICAN JEWS do understand how changing demographics in Israel alter political realities. After all, demographic shifts in the United States have led to an ever-changing political landscape, requiring the US Jewish community to continually forge alliances with diverse ethnic groups. For example, the emergence of the Latino and African-American communities in the United States has heightened American Jewish sensitivity to the issue of demography.

Recently released US Census Bureau data report that 45 percent of Americans under the age of five are members of a minority racial or ethnic group, suggesting that broad changes to political and social agendas will occur in the United States over the next decade. This reality has altered Jewish communal policy and has intensified our efforts to forge greater outreach with the African American, Latino and Asian American communities. In Europe, we have seen the effects of demographic population shifts as well. The strong emergence of ethnic groups that were not historically represented in Europe, including Muslim Arabs, has wielded a serious impact on European Jewry. Witnessing today's European Jewish experience has once again heightened the sensitivity of American Jews to the importance of paying close attention to the impact of demography. OLMERT'S EMBRACE of the concept of unilateralism may initially stir some discomfort among American Jews. The very concept of separating ethnic groups is, of course, anathema to the American ideal.

I have spent much of my adult life building bridges among racial and ethnic communities by promoting coexistence and tolerance. Yet, I have embraced the convergence policy of Kadima for two reasons: terrorism and the preservation of the Jewish majority in the Jewish state.

As long as there is terror, there can be no peace. The current situation in Israel demands physical separation. The Israeli people cannot feasibly entertain dreams of peace until they no longer face the daily realities of terror. Additionally, changing demographics in Israel require that we alter our landscape and withdraw from significant portions of the West Bank. While a painful sacrifice, this unilateral initiative is essential to preserving the Jewish majority in Israel. The preservation of a majority Jewish state is more important than the specific geographical boundaries of the country.

This policy of the Olmert government is not a fatalistic decision to accept a thusly redrawn Israel in perpetuity. The Prime Minister has clearly and repeatedly expressed his desire to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority to realize a peaceful and secure future for Arabs and Jews alike.

We hope that Hamas will sincerely denounce its terrorist proclivities and recognize the right of both Israel and Palestine to exist and flourish in the Middle East. Yet we must always retain a Jewish majority in the Jewish state. This is the promise left to us by our ancestors, and the legacy we in turn will leave for our children.

The writer is the President of Kadima USA. Schneier is also president and founder of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, founding rabbi of The Hampton Synagogue and The New York Synagogue, and author of Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King, Jr. & The Jewish Community.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

Go to the Israel Resource Review homepage

The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine Authority.
You can contact us on