Israel Interview: Netanyahu on Israeli Culture and Security (22 February)

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview to Haaretz's Ari Shavit. He said that the Palestinian Authority is giving signals of lifting pre-conditions to start negotiations. Asked about public criticism against the Cabinet initiative to launch a restoration program of historical sites in Israel, including locations in the West Bank, he defended the programme on the grounds of security:

Middle East Inside Line: Sarkozy on Palestine State, Barak in US for Iran Talks, Son of Hamas Founder Spied for Israel

The dominant global culture is endangering the cultures of smaller nations. Our problem is particularly acute. We are living in this country because we are linked to it; we were exiled, and we have returned. There's no people that needs to deepen its roots in its land more than we do. That is why I believe national security doesn't only depend on military and economic might, but also on enhancing the young generation's knowledge of our past, and strengthening its connection to our land.

TRANSCRIPT:


Shavit: Benjamin Netanyahu, a year into your term, observers seem to agree: You're an impressive survivor, but just a survivor. The government you lead has no vision, no destination. It's not going anywhere.

Netanyahu: "That is completely and utterly unfounded. My vision is of an Israel that is a world technological superpower, anchored in values, reaching peace from strength. To this end, we are working to jump-start the economy, to augment our security and to strengthen Israel through inculcating basic national values. I see all this as part of an economic, educational and cultural revolution that is just beginning.

Your criticism partly stems from the fact both Palestinians and Syrians have adopted a strategy of unwillingness to negotiate. They present us with extremist preconditions that they did not present to earlier Israeli governments. I don't know any other government in the world that would enter negotiations under conditions that determine in advance how they should conclude. The critics expect us to accept the Palestinian and Syrian dictates; they describe the acceptance of those dictate as a vision. I don't see it as a vision. The vision is to empower Israel economically, militarily and culturally so as to enable it to make true peace with its neighbors. Not peace on paper, rather peace that will last.

It will take time for the Palestinians and Syrians to retreat from the positions they have taken. I think the Palestinians, at least, may be backing down. There are signs that negotiations with them will begin in the foreseeable future.

Shavit: Today, the cabinet met in Tel Hai to launch a program involving restoration of historical sites. Many see this plan as ridiculous and anachronistic. They say it's irrelevant to the present-day problems facing Israel.

Netanyahu: Yigal Alon once said that a people that doesn't know its past cannot be certain of its future. In the storm that is sweeping societies and states across the globe, a process of cultural superficiality is taking place: The dominant global culture is endangering the cultures of smaller nations. Our problem is particularly acute. We are living in this country because we are linked to it; we were exiled, and we have returned. There's no people that needs to deepen its roots in its land more than we do. That is why I believe national security doesn't only depend on military and economic might, but also on enhancing the young generation's knowledge of our past, and strengthening its connection to our land. These are the values I was raised on. These are values familiar to any Israeli over the age of 40. And they are the values that must be renewed today.

David Ben-Gurion believed the foundation of our nation-building involved studying the Bible, walking the land and preserving archaeological sties. These values have been eroded over the last 30 years, and we are trying to stop that process. Among other things, this involves preserving our cultural treasure troves: Hebrew songs, Jewish and Hebrew writings, films, plays that have been videoed, photographic archives. These assets are being depleted, lost. I don't think it's ridiculous or anachronistic to try and save them. I don't think there's a contradiction between being open to the world, and preserving our culture and imparting it to our youth. The Americans know how to appreciate the Lincoln Memorial, the Gettysburg National Cemetery and the Alamo site in Texas, but this does not affect their openness to technological innovation.

I'll give you an example. [Tel Aviv's] Rothschild Boulevard is a thriving street of cafes and bars, of innovative street shows and 'White Night' festivals. I think it's wonderful. But at No. 16 Rothschild Boulevard, there's a peeling old hall where Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the State of Israel. Why not renovate and reopen it? Why not allow the young people who are out having fun on the boulevard to go inside and see what it represents? I'm certain they would like that. This is why I see the resolution we made today as one of the most important in many years.

Shavit: Which of the sites slated for renovation are you particularly fond of?

Netanyahu: Tel Hai, obviously. My father arrived at Rosh Pina in 1920, and in 1923 he broke his arm playing soccer. He was treated in the beautiful old hospital in Safed by the same physician who treated Trumpeldor, and he and others told my father of the famous words that Trumpeldor uttered before he died - probably based on the Latin phrase: dolce et decorum est pro patria mori. I think the spirit of sacrifice embodied by Tel Hai is still just as vital today, not so that we will die, but so that we can live.

Shavit: There's another plan you are going to present to the cabinet this week - not about historical legacies but about transportation. You intend to pave roads and build railroad tracks on an unprecedented scale. Why spend money that we don't have on asphalt and concrete?

Netanyahu: It's not that much money. We're talking about some NIS 30 billion over 10 to 15 years. In terms of our gross national product, this is quite manageable. The country has been concentrated for 60 years between Gedera and Hadera, with one main transportation corridor 'copied' along Highway No. 6. The Negev and the Galilee are off the map. Both economically and in terms of the expansion of the population and closing gaps, there's tremendous importance to integrating the north and south in the transportation network.

The United States carried out a similar revolution twice: first in the 19th century, with trains, and then in the 1950s, with highways. This is why you can hit the road in Boston and reach Los Angeles without stopping at a single traffic light. In Israel, you can't go from Kiryat Shmona to Tel Aviv without waiting at lights. This is what we're going to change. We won't just bring the center to the north: We'll bring the north to the center.

We'll increase local tourism, increase employment, but most importantly, we'll facilitate social mobility. Look at the revolution happening in Yokneam and Or Akiva, which were seen as God-forsaken places until they started blooming thanks to nearby highways, rail lines or intersections. Together with the Israel Land Administration reform and the reforms in planning and construction, the new routes will encourage faster growth, open up opportunities and free us from being stuck between Gedera and Hadera.

Shavit: Wouldn't it be better to invest the money in education? NIS 30 billion could revolutionize elementary, high school and university education.

Netanyahu: We'll be investing in education, too. But it's important to understand that investing in transportation infrastructure creates growth. We believe it will contribute enormous resources and add some 2 percent to annual growth, creating new budget sources to fund education, health and welfare for the elderly. Investment in roads is a prime growth engine. Together with our other recent moves, it will help increase the size of the national pie, which we can then divide up according to different needs: security, education and society. At the end of the day, in one year we've done more to promote our vision than many other governments.

Shavit: I won't ask you about Dubai, of course. But I'll ask you this: Would you say that today you still have the same faith in the Mossad and its chief?

Netanyahu: I won't comment on journalistic speculation, even from such an esteemed journalist as Ari Shavit.

Middle East Inside Line: Sarkozy on Palestine State, Barak in US for Iran Talks, Son of Hamas Founder Spied for Israel

Sarkozy Steps Back from Palestinian State: On Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas discussed the future of negotiations and a Palestinian state. Sarkozy made two points: there should be no unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state before borders are defined with Israel, and there was no time to be waste in starting negotiations since "if there are no talks....we take the risk, the international community, of a third intifada".

Abbas supported Sarkozy's line, "Negotiations first, proclamation of a state later."

Israel Pushes Washington for Harsher Sanctions on Iran: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak left for the US on Tuesday, for five days of talks with senior American officials, including US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that will focus on Iran.

PA Security Prevents Attacks into Israel: According to Haaretz, the Palestinian Authority prevented a suicide attack about six weeks ago that a young woman (from Islamic Jihad) from Nablus had planned to carry out in Israel. Palestinian security sources said that it was not the first success to thwart such terrorist activities.
Shimon Peres Advocates Extension of Heritage Sites in West Bank: Israeli President Shimon Peres, during his meeting with Robert Serry, the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, said Wednesday that Hamas is trying to create an artificial conflict over the extension of Israeli national heritage sites in the West Bank. On Tuesday, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya urging Palestinians in the West Bank to rise up against Israeli forces after the Israeli cabinet added the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel's tomb in Bethlehem to the list of sites.

Top Hamas Official's Son Worked for Israel's Shin Bet: Haaretz says that Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of leading Hamas figure Sheikh Hassan Yousef, served for over a decade as the most valuable source for Israel's Shin Bet domestic security service. During the second Intifada, Haaretz says,information Yousef gathered led to the arrests of a number of high-ranking Palestinian figures responsible for planning deadly suicide bombings.

Latest Iran Video: Rafsanjani's Daughter is Confronted

Faezeh Hashemi, the daughter of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and a prominent women's rights activists, was leaving after a talk at a university when she was surrounded by a group of men. Pedestrian, who calls the group "Basij", has provided a translation and explanation of the conversation:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9GP7iShZ48[/youtube]

A group of men, are forcing asking her to come out of the car, the one in front throws out her belongings, they say: “why were you here giving a talk? what were you saying?”

She responds: “Because I wanted to.”


Basij: “so we want you to talk to us too.”

All the time the men are also arguing amongst themselves which is the most interesting part of the conversation. Their use of the words “debate”, “discussion”, “dialog”, “conversation"....these are all words they’ve openly taken from the reform movement.

Basij: “weren’t you the one who was just making the speech? About the student movement having demands? Walk outside your car, and let’s have a conversation. We’re students too, we want to talk. Be certain, we don’t want to be rude, we just want to talk. Only talk. ”

Faezeh: “you can talk anywhere you want. Go and talk.”

Basij: “no, we want you to repeat some of the things you said.”

Faezeh: “what did I say? Tell me what I said.”

Basij: “you don’t know what you said?”

Faezeh: “I said what I said. If you have any comments about what I said, well, you can state them now.”

A number of the men start shouting together:  “when are you going to end this? How long is this going to continue?”

Another man: “how long are you going to continue this?”

Faezeh: “continue what?”

The men respond together, each stating one of the words: “this”, “this green …” “Omavi movement” “American movement” [The Bani Umayyah, Omavi, had been enemies of the Bani Hashim, the prophet's family. So they are indicating that the movement is against the prophet and Shi'a Islam.]

Basij: “are you against this movement or for it?”

Faezeh: “that’s my own business.”

Basij: “you claim that you came here to study today, but the doors were closed so you went amongst the students to give a speech?”

Faezeh: “Go inside and ask anyone you want what I was doing here.”

Basij: “who do we ask?”

Faezeh: “anyone, administration, professors, etc”

Basij: “we want to ask you. You’re standing here, we can ask you. We want to have a debate”

Faezeh: “I’m not going to answer you. I don’t want to answer you. A debate has to be two-sided. I have a right not to have a discussion, not to have a debate.”

They keep pressing her to have a “debate”. “Why did you come here today? To incite the students?”

Faezeh: “I had a class today.”

Basij: “show me the print of the class” [note sure what he means by "print"]

Faezeh: “if you have a class, you keep the print? Nobody keeps it.”

Basij: “do you have the documents with you? Do you have a student ID?”

Someone from the back  shouts: “do you have the ownership documents of this building with you?” [hitting at Rafsanjani's rumored fortune] “this is her father’s land after all, this is all her inheritance.”

Another basiji says: “no, don’t smear. don’t be rude. Put her things back in the car.”

She says: “you can’t use force, you can’t …”

A basiji says: “thank God, she has started talking, everybody praise Allah!”

As she starts driving they shout: “pour some water behind her” [pouring a glass of water behind a traveler is a custom in Iran, symbolizing a safe journey and a safe return. They are saying it to mock her.]

As she drives away she says: “be certain, you will not reach your aims using these methods.”

And they all shout together: “and you will?!”

Afghanistan Latest: Anger at US over Civilian Deaths; Karzai's Power Move; Drug Users Training Afghan Police?

Juan Cole offers a full round-up of developments:

Pajhwok News Agency reports that on Tuesday, the Afghanistan senate deplored the foreign airstrikes that killed 21 innocent civilians in the province of Daikundi on Sunday, and demanded that NATO avoid any repetition of this sort of error.

But some senators went farther, demanding that NATO or US military men responsible for the deaths be executed. Senator Hamidullah Tokhi of Uruzgan complained to Pajhwok that the foreign forces had killed civilians in such incidents time and again, and kept apologizing but then repeating the fatal mistake: "Anyone killing an ordinary Afghan should be executed in public."

Afghanistan Analysis: Dutch Government Falls Over Troop Withdrawal

Lawmaker Fatima Aziz of Qunduz concurred, observing, "We saw foreign troops time and again that they killed innocent people, something unbearable for the already war-weary Afghans."


Maulvi Abdul Wali Raji, a senator from Baghlan Province, called for the Muslim law of an "eye for an eye" to be applied to foreign troops for civilian deaths. Pajhwok concludes, "Mohammad Alam Izdiyar said civilian deaths were the major reason behind the widening gap between the people and Afghan government."

Note that those speaking this way are not Taliban, but rather elected members of the Afghanistan National Parliament, whose government is supposedly a close US ally.

Sarah Chayes, a former National Public Radio correspondent who lived for years in Qandahar but has been on Gen. Stanley McChrystal's staff for the past year, told CNN that she sees increasing frustration in the Afghan public over the killing of civilians by NATO and US strikes. She implies that how the government of President Hamid Karzai deals with this issue could determine its fate, given that it is acting like, and perceived as acting like a criminal syndicate.

In the meantime, Karzai is taking no chances. Radio Azadi reports in Dari Persian that Karzai took control of the supposedly independent Electoral Complaints Commission, and will appoint all 5 of its members. The system had been that 3 members were appointed by the United Nations, and the other two chosen by the supreme courty chief justice and the independent high electoral commission.

The ECC threw out about 1 million fraudulent ballots in last summer's presidential election, a move that could have forced Karzai into a run-off election against rival Abdullah Abdullah. But the latter withdrew from the race on the grounds that Karzai controlled the in-country electoral commission and refused to relinquish control of it. Many observers believe that Karzai stole the election. In short, Karzai is increasingly acting like a Middle Eastern dictator, manipulating state institutions to ensure that he cannot be unseated in an election.

Whatever US troops are fighting for in Afghanistan, it is not democracy.

As for those nearly 100,000 trained Afghan troops that Washington keeps boasting about, it turns out that the Pentagon sub-sub-contracted the troop training and "a Blackwater subsidiary hired violent drug users to help train the Afghan army." Many journalists doubt that there are actually so many troops in the Afghanistan National Army, citing high turnover and desertion rates, while others suggest that two weeks of 'show and tell' training for illiterate recruits is not exactly a rigorous 'training'-- even if it were done properly, which it seems not always to have been.

Canadian Brig. Gen. Daniel Ménard said that some estimates of the number of Taliban roadside bombs planted in Marjah were too low, putting them at 400 to 500. He said that despite what happened in Marjah, where Taliban took advantage of the ample warning NATO gave that it was coming, the same procedure will be followed this May when the Kandahar campaign begins. It is aimed at blunting the summer campaign of Taliban coming over the border from Pakistan.

Former Pakistan chief of staff, Mirza Aslam Beg, wrote in Nava-e Waqt for February 23, 2010, explaining Taliban strategy in Marjah. These passages were translated from Urdu by the USG Open Source Center:

Marjah is located some 15 km from Lashkargah City, which is the provincial capital of Helmand Province. It is a flat desert area. It has a few scattered mud houses. There is a green belt to its north and west, which is irrigated by the Helmand River. This green belt has large agricultural farms and orchards, with a population of about 6,000 to 7,000 people. The entire terrain is flat and totally unsuitable for guerilla war, which is the preferred style of the Taliban. It will be very easy for the allied air forces and ground war machine to control the movement of the Taliban in this area. Now, the question arises is why are the allied forces preparing for a similar kind of heavy attack in an area where there is hardly any resistance?

It appears there is a historical and psychological factor behind this decision. History says that every army that went to this area did not return safely. The allied forces believe that if they succeed in taking control of Marjah and the Taliban are compelled to back off, the allied forces will gain a psychological upper hand, making it easy for them to carry out operation against the Taliban in other provinces in Afghanistan as well.

The Taliban have become experts in fighting a war in the difficult desert terrain of the northern regions for the past 30 years. They are brave mujahids [holy warriors] who have full confidence in themselves and in their quest for success against their enemies. Time and circumstance are totally on their side. Thus, it is easy to understand their strategy in the battle of Marjah.

One of their strategies is to send 1,000 to 2,000 fighters under the command of Commander Mullah Abdul Razzaq. These fighters are committed to fight until their last breath and will bleed the allied forces to the end. They will defend the region with their scattered fighters spread all over the area. They will also defend the area against the attacking forces through the use of improvised engineering devices (IEDs), including the Omar bomb and booby traps. Their ground defense system, which was used by the Hezbollah against Israel in 2006, can also be used as a defense weapon. This strategy has been used by the Taliban during the last four days of this war.

The number of Taliban present in the adjacent areas of Helmand is around 10,000 to 12,000. These troops have the ability to attack the allied forces from the nearby areas of the main battleground and keep them engaged by attacking them regularly. Moreover, they will cut off the supply line of the allied forces. Under this strategy, on one side, the Taliban will continue the battle in Marjah, and on the other side, they will create problems for the allied forces by increasing attacks on them in provinces under their control.

Iraq Analysis: Thomas Friedman and the Never-Ending "Liberal Intervention"

UPDATE 0915 GMT: Here is what, in today's power politics, is what the rhetoric of "liberal intervention" props up. Thomas Ricks declares, alongside Friedman's piece in The New York Times, "Leaders in [the US and Iraq] may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come."

Seven years after the 2003 war and the violence and disorder that followed, Iraq has moved on to other political conflicts and issues. Yet, for some, this will always be a case of returning to the scene to construct victory or to build the excuse for absolution. War must become liberation, crime must become justice, tragedy must become redemption.

Iraq: How Serious is the Sunni Election Boycott?
Photos of the Decade: 2004 (Abu Ghraib)

One of those who persists is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. This morning Friedman, who used his "liberal" drum to bang loudly and incessantly for the 2003 invasion, opens his column:

From the very beginning of the U.S. intervention in Iraq and the effort to build some kind of democracy there, a simple but gnawing question has lurked in the background: Was Iraq the way Iraq was (a dictatorship) because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq was the way Iraq was — a collection of warring sects incapable of self-rule and only governable with an iron fist?

Initially, the sentence is so confusing to risk being vacuous. Don't be fooled: in its morass of words lies the self-belief that distinguishes not only Friedman but many of those who cling to "our" (and "our" has nothing to do with those who live in Iraq) righteousness in waging the conflict.

Friedman has little cognizance of what is happening in Iraq in 2010, but that is not the point of his editorial, which dismisses any need to consider today: "Will Iraq’s new politics triumph over its cultural divides, or will its cultural/sectarian divides sink its fledgling democracy? We still don’t know."

Instead, returning to his tangled opening, Friedman has a different, self-justifying mission: if the man who became (in)famous for repeatedly declaring that the US would triumph in "six more months" (Wikipedia even has re-defined a duration of six months as a "Friedman) can ever declare progress in Iraq, then the US and Thomas Friedman are vindicated for liberating the country from a dictator. If progress is elusive, then it is because of the inherent flaws of these frustrating creatures called "Iraqis". Heads, we win; tails, you lose.

Let's be clear here. For all his chest-thumping of sincerity, Friedman's words pay little if any attention to the concerns or aspirations of those in Iraq. It is notable that the only source for today's thoughts is General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in the country, who Friedman quotes without any reflection. And it is notable that Friedman's ambitions are about the threat to the US, not to Iraqis, and about the fulfilment of "our", not "their", political visions:

The two scenarios you don’t want to see are: 1) Iraq’s tribal culture triumphing over politics and the country becoming a big Somalia with oil; or 2) as America fades away, Iraq’s Shiite government aligning itself more with Iran, and Iran becoming the kingmaker in Iraq the way Syria has made itself in Lebanon.

Let's be clear, however. This issue goes far beyond Thomas Friedman, who will continue to absolve himself at length and at regular intervals. Many commentators as well as public officials, sometimes with good intentions, advocated the invasion of Iraq for the liberation of its people. They usually did so, however, with little knowledge of and regard for Iraqis. Thus the 2005 exchange between Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker and Bush Administration official Douglas Feith:

When I asked...if the Administration was too enamored of the idea that Iraqis would greet American troops with flowers, [Feith] argued that some Iraqis were still too intimidated by the remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party to express their emotions openly. “But,” Feith said, “they had flowers in their minds.”

Hundreds of thousands of deaths later, Iraq faces complex political, economic, and social issues. The reality is that the 100,000+ US troops, as well as numerous diplomats, advisors, and intelligence operatives, in the country are peripheral to the conflicts and negotiations. But Friedman, and those who share his viewpoint, cannot acknowledge that. There must be a vindication for what "we" sought to do for "them" in 2003. There has to be history's verdict, handed down in favour of the US.

Because, in the end, "liberal intervention" means never having to say you're sorry.