1. National Interest（http://nationalinterest.org）
Israel Isn't Isolated, 21 January 2013
by Gabriel Scheinmann
Following the reaction to Israel’s bevy of construction announcements late last year, one would assume that Israel’s right-wing, settlement-crazed government had, once more, managed to thumb its nose at the world and deepen Israel’s already-perilous pariah position. It had just received international support during Operation Pillar of Defense and the Obama administration’s backing in opposing the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN. Yet Israel not only announced construction in East Jerusalem and the large settlement blocks, but also advanced zoning plans in E-1, a barren, 4.6 square mile area that connects Jerusalem to Maale Adumim.
Condemnation was instant and global. Israeli ambassadors were upbraided across Europe. The Swedish Foreign Minister went so far as to say that “what the Israelis did on E1 has shifted opinions in Europe,” while the Obama administration said the construction would be “damaging” to a two-state solution and that it shared the same sentiment as its European allies, which had condemned Israel vociferously. Meanwhile, Time magazine dubbed 2012 “The Year of the Israeli Settlement” and the New York Times called Netanyahu’s plans “disturbing,” saying that it furthered Israel’s isolation.
But once the hysteria dissipates, it becomes obvious that Israel is far from the isolated and cast-off state it is made out to be. On the contrary, Israel is actually at the height of its global integration, increasingly enmeshed across diplomatic, economic and cultural fronts. Settlement construction may indeed spark outrage in European capitals and angst in the White House, but it has not stood in the way of Israel’s greater inclusion in the global economy and international institutions, as well as increased normalized diplomatic relations.
Historically, Israel was most isolated during the Cold War, as the entire Soviet-backed Eastern Bloc, save Ceausescu’s Romania, did not have relations with the Jewish State. As if that wasn’t enough, neither did China, India, or Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). To top it off, following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, nearly the entirety of sub-Saharan Africa suspended relations with Jerusalem under pressure from the Arab oil embargo. During the 1980s, outside a few exceptions, Israel only had full diplomatic relations with the United States, Canada, Latin America and Western Europe. Even then, it did not have relations with Spain until 1986 or full diplomatic relations with Greece, which was the sole European country to vote against Partition in 1947, until 1990. Relations with the Vatican weren’t established until 1994.
The end of the Cold War provided an immediate and massive improvement in Israel’s diplomatic position. Israel was able to establish embassies in the entire former Soviet space, from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus to Central Asia, as well as in China, India, and sub-Saharan Africa. Since 1989, Israel has established full diplomatic relations with nearly 70 countries and has peace treaties with two immediate neighbors, Egypt and Jordan. Today, the only non-Muslim majority countries that do not have relations with Israel are the Chavez-led bloc (Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and Nicaragua), Bhutan and North Korea. Although some Arab countries (Morocco, Tunisia, Oman, Qatar and Mauritania) have indeed closed budding Israeli trade offices or interests sections opened in the wake of the Oslo Accords, the evidence overwhelmingly affirms that Israel has both greater and deeper diplomatic relations now than it has ever had.
Even under the Netanyahu government, Israel has become more integrated into the workings of international institutions. For the first time last year, Israel became a member of the executive board of the UN Development Program, was recently elected to the executive board of UNICEF for the first time in 40 years, and its ambassador to the UN was elected to be a vice president of the UN General Assembly. In a real stunner, a 2011 UN panel of inquiry into the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla incident affirmed that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was both legitimate and legal. Although Israel’s inability to gain much Western support against the successful Palestinian bid to upgrade its status to that of a non-member observer state (same status as the Vatican) was certainly a diplomatic setback―the actual vote was never in question due to the dominance of OIC countries in the GA―Israel is slowly but surely becoming more integrated into the UN machinery.
Similarly, despite near-automatic condemnation of Israel’s supposed quick resort to military force, many states continue both to conduct military exercises with Israeli forces and to purchase arms from the Jewish State. In the past year alone, Israel has conducted military exercises with Greece, Poland, and Italy in addition to the largest joint military exercise in Israel’s history with the United States, dubbed Austere Challenge 2012. Romanian and Finnish air force chiefs paid visits to Jerusalem and Indian and Chinese warships made ports of call at Haifa. Moreover, Israel clinched major arms deals with Singapore, Colombia, India, Italy, and Azerbaijan―a Shiite Muslim country bordering Iran; Israel regularly sells systems to Finland, the Netherlands, Australia, and Brazil. In addition to its extraordinarily close military relationship with the United States, with annual joint exercises, co-proprietary missile defense programs, and officer exchanges, Israel bonds with the armed forces of other nations are only multiplying.
The Israeli economy is also at a high-point of global integration. In 2010, it was admitted into the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development), a 34-member club of Western-oriented countries committed to democracy and the free market. Israeli exports and imports were at all-time highs in 2012, trade with China and India grow annually at double-digit rates, and the EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for around 30 percent of Israel’s total trade. Just this past October, the EU and Israel ratified the ACAA (Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of industrial products), meaning that the EU now certifies Israeli industrial standards as equal to European ones, easing the import, for example, of Israeli pharmaceutical products, which are already the 5th largest source for the EU. Israel has also signed several groundbreaking, potentially multi-billion dollar gas deals with Cyprus and Greece. In the next year, Israel likely will become the first non-European member of CERN, the Geneva-based physics organization, and will ratify an “Open Skies” agreement with the EU, which will allow both European and Israeli airlines to operate direct flights between any of their cities. Lastly, 2012 was a record year for tourists flocking to Israel, as the unraveling of the Arab revolts has cast Israel as an oasis of calm. Perhaps the definition of “isolation” should be changed.
By any measure, the last several years have been a high-point of Israeli integration into the international community. Trade, tourism, and military exchanges are booming and Israel has been admitted into several prestigious international organizations. It was even recognized by South Sudan, weeks after the latter’s independence, and hosted South Sudanese president Salva Kiir a few months later.
While there is no doubt that Europe, the Obama Administration, and the mainstream media have an ingrained indisposition towards Israeli settlement construction, Israel’s international diplomatic, military, and economic standing in the world have only been strengthened over the past two decades. Perhaps this conundrum is best exemplified by the July 2012 visit to Israel of Jos�・ Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, who, in the same speech in which he expressed concern over continued settlement building, said it best: “a continent such as Europe, that invests heavily in innovation, needs to have close links with a ‘start-up nation’, like Israel.”
・Gabriel Scheinmann is a PhD student at Georgetown University and a visiting fellow at the Jewish Institute for National
2. Foreign Ministry of the State of Israel
（http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israel%20and%20the%20UN/Speeches%20-%20statements/Amb_Prosor_UN_Security_Council_Situation_Middle_East_23-Jan-2013.htm）
Amb Prosor addresses UN Security Council: The situation in the Middle East, 23 January 2013
Yesterday, the people of Israel went to the polls. Israeli democracy continues to flourish. We long for the day when the scenes of real elections built on the foundations of real democracy spread to all corners of a safe, stable, and secure Middle East.
Thank you, Mr. President.
As we begin a new year, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the five new members of the Security Council. I wish each of you the best of luck in navigating the sometimes stormy waters of this Chamber.
Mr. President,
Yesterday, the people of Israel went to the polls. Millions of men and women cast their ballots. Israeli democracy continues to flourish.
Elections are just one component of Israel's vibrant democracy. Our government guarantees the protection of minorities, women, and gays. Our courts ensure that everyone is accountable under the law. Our educational system teaches tolerance and peace, not violence and hate.
We long for the day when the scenes of real elections built on the foundations of real democracy spread to all corners of a safe, stable, and secure Middle East. Such a day would mark a great turning point in the history of our region.
My question to this chamber is … how long must we wait?
Today we see a far bleaker picture in much of the Middle East. Repression, instability, and horrific violence continue to plague the region.
More than 60,000 have been killed in Syria in just the past two years. Assad's victims include hundreds of Palestinians. Since we have heard so much about the Palestinian cause this morning, let me take the opportunity to remind this Council that Assad has used fighter jets to bomb the refugee camps where Palestinians live in Syria - and they are fleeing the country by the thousands.
In Lebanon, more than a million live under the brutal oppression of Hezbollah, which has transformed the entire south of the country into an Iranian terror base.
The world's most dangerous weapons are moving within reach of our region's most dangerous actors. We face the frightening possibility that Assad's vast stockpiles of chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. The Ayatollah regime in Iran threatens to combine its extremist ideology and advanced missile technology with nuclear weapons. The lives of millions hang in the balance.
Mr. President,
These are just a few of the great challenges that hang over the Middle East. Once again, none of them were prioritized for discussion this morning. Instead, the Security Council continues to use its monthly Middle East debate to single out, scrutinize, and criticize Israel - an island of democracy in the world's greatest hotbed of tyranny.
I have a novel idea. Perhaps this discussion could occasionally spend some time examining why the situation in the Middle East remains unstable, undemocratic, and violent. I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with Israel.
There are many threats to security in our region. But the presence of Jewish homes in Jerusalem - the eternal capital of the Jewish people - has never been one of them. Jews have been building homes in Jerusalem since the time of King David 3,000 years ago. Jewish communities witnessed the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. They lived in Jerusalem through crusades and pogroms.
Some here say that the preliminary building plans announced last month prevent a two-state solution, even though it's clear that all of these neighborhoods will remain part of Israel in any final peace agreement. I can't understand how people conclude that a Palestinian state cannot exist if there is contiguity between Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem, which are 7 kilometers apart. Those who make this claim are the same people who stand up and speak about a contiguous state between Gaza and the West Bank, areas divided by more than 70 kilometers. Connecting Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel in two. Yet, Israeli contiguity never seems to be a concern for some in this hall.
The briefing that we heard this morning was particularly selective in the facts it chose to present.
For instance, it does not take an NYPD detective - or Sherlock Holmes - to see that the fingerprints of senior PA officials were all over the recent provocations staged in the area known as "E-1". Conveniently, the involvement of these Palestinian leaders in these activities was miraculously omitted from the briefing this morning.
Mr. President,
Since selective perception is one the great hallmarks of this debate, I'd like to take a moment to set straight a few facts about the past two months.
Last November, President Abbas stood in these halls and submitted a unilateral resolution in the General Assembly. He claimed that it was an act of peace. He insisted that it was "the last chance to save the two-state solution." The Palestinian delegation promised that they would immediately return to the negotiating table after the vote, without preconditions.
I know that some in this hall voted for this resolution on that basis. Today, those nations who supported Abbas's bid have a duty to ask themselves: what, exactly, did we vote for?
Well, suffice it to say that the Palestinians have not lifted one finger to restart negotiations. We have seen not a single gesture, not a single statement, not a single indication that they want to return to negotiations. Just ten days after President Abbas spoke to the entire world about his commitment to a two-state-solution, his political party - the Fatah - released a new logo that completely erased Israel from the map.
Make no mistake. The major obstacle to the two-state solution is the Palestinian leadership's refusal to speak to their own people about the true parameters of a two-state solution; to speak a lexicon of peace, not a litany of war. You will never hear President Abbas or any other Palestinian leader say the phrase "two states for two peoples." You won't hear them say it because they call for an independent Palestinian state, but want millions of their people to flood the Jewish state. This would mean the destruction of Israel. Let me be clear: this is not a solution of peace. And no one who truly believes in peace could ever accept it.
Some in this hall say that the Palestinians know they will have to give up the "claim of return" at the negotiating table. Some Palestinian leaders might even whisper it quietly behind closed doors. But they have never, ever said it publicly. And the Palestinian people have no idea that they will one day have to give up the "claim of return".
Since the Palestinian leadership refuses to tell the Palestinian people the truth, the international community has the responsibility to tell them the truth. Those truly interested in peace will begin by speaking out forcefully, publicly, and unequivocally against this claim. We cannot abide by the voices of the selectively principled.
Mr. President,
Last December, a few days after President Abbas appeared at the UN, we heard a very public statement from Khaled Mashal, the Political Chief of Hamas. At a rally for hundreds of thousands in Gaza, he called for Israel's complete and total destruction. He said, and I quote, "Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land."
You would think that this call for Israel's destruction might merit a joint statement of concern from some prominent - and permanent - members of this Council.
I was told that some of these prominent and permanent members said something about this casual call for Israel's destruction. Israel is known for its amazing listening devices. These members must have whispered something so quietly that even our most sensitive equipment was not able to pick it up.
Apparently Mashaal's speech was not of any concern to President Abbas. Instead of seeking peace with Israel through negotiations, he has devoted all his energy to seeking unity with Hamas.
Hamas is the same terrorist organization that fired thousands of rockets into the heart of Israeli cities last November. This is the same terrorist organization that commits a double-war crime as a matter of policy, using Palestinian schools to fire rockets at Israeli schools. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews. It has turned Gaza into a destination of choice - a Club Med - for global jihadists.
Some in this hall have the audacity to suggest that Israel should also welcome Hamas with open arms. I ask: would you say the same if Islamic militants were firing rockets into your backyard? Would you say the same to France, which is now working with the Government of Mali to fight Al-Qaeda in the Sahel?
France's Foreign Minister said this month that his country was fighting to prevent the creation of an Islamist terrorist enclave "at the doorstep of France and Europe". If Mali is on France's doorstep, Gaza is in Israel's living room. France's principled stand should be commended. We only ask that France and all the countries who are supporting its principled stand today support Israel tomorrow when we fight Islamic terrorism on our borders.
Mr. President,
The Palestinian delegate speaks in these halls as if he represents a Jeffersonian democracy. Yet, no amount of rhetoric, spin, or bluster can change one simple fact: the Palestinians clearly fail to meet the most basic criteria for statehood. The only Palestinian state in these halls is the Palestinian state of denial.
Last month's resolution did not confer Palestinian statehood. It did not constitute recognition of a Palestinian state. Many member states made that clear on November 29th - and in the days that followed.
Israel has placed its view on record in connection with the adoption of GA resolution 67/19. This position remains unchanged.
The recent resolution does not entitle the Palestinians to participate in UN meetings and international conferences, join treaties, or seek membership in international organizations as a state. The change in terminology and titles risks creating a false impression of Palestinian statehood when no such state exists. This is clearly not mandated by resolution 67/19.
In the real world, statehood comes with control of territory. Yet, this resolution did not change the fact that the Palestinian Authority has no control over Gaza. That is 40 percent of the territory that President Abbas claims to represent! Any efforts to alter the Palestinians' status, outside the agreed negotiating framework, directly violate the agreements between the parties. These agreements include specific limitations on Palestinian capacity in the sphere of foreign relations. They contain express obligations to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations - and to refrain from any step that seeks to alter the legal status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of negotiations.
Acting to facilitate violations of these agreements undermines the credibility of this organization, which has repeatedly - repeatedly - affirmed that a Palestinian state can only emerge as a result of bilateral negotiations. Moreover, resolution 67/19 cannot serve as an acceptable terms of reference for future negotiations. The resolution not only contradicts agreed terms of reference, it seeks to predetermine some issues explicitly reserved for negotiation, while ignoring others - such as security and the end of claims - which are core components of any future agreement.
The campaign that the Palestinian leadership has waged at the UN is a false idol for the Palestinian people. There is only one route to statehood. It does not travel through this chamber in New York. It runs through direct negotiations between Jerusalem and Ramallah.
There are no shortcuts. No quick fixes. No instant solutions. Peace must be negotiated, it cannot be imposed.
Mr. President,
Exactly 67 years ago this week - on January 17, 1946 - the Security Council held its very first meeting at Westminster in London. On that day, the Security Council clearly defined its mission: to advance global peace and security, to oppose tyranny, and to safeguard the rights of all peoples.
It would be a true understatement to say that this monthly debate on the Middle East falls far short of that standard. Most of the millions in our region who live under oppression, fear, and violence are completely ignored in this debate. They are cast aside to make way for a litany of half-truths, myths, and outright lies about Israel.
Repeating a lie does not make it true. Repeating a constant flood of falsehoods does not - and cannot - change the facts. And the simple fact remains that …
Israel is not what's wrong in the Middle East. Israel is what's right in the Middle East.
Make no mistake. Cynical politics do no favors for the Arab world. The silence of this Council in the face of terror does no favors for those seeking a brighter future.
It's time to do some soul-searching in this chamber. This Council needs a GPS system to find its moral center in this debate on the Middle East.
Just weeks after this Council's founding, Winston Churchill outlined the challenge facing us today. He said the following about the newly formed United Nations, (and I quote): "We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham ... that it is a true temple of peace...and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel."
Thank you, Mr. President.
© 2008 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs - The State of Israel. All rights reserved.
(End)
