Policy TowardSyria and Iranby David H. Goldberg

It is intriguing to consider how a new centrist coalition gov-ernment (or, more aptly, a Benjamin Netanyahu-led coalitiongovernment that includes one or more centrist parties) mightaffect Israel’s security interests concerning Iran and Syria.

Recall that Israel’s January 2013 election was all about domes-tic issues. The only party within the centrist bloc to adopt for-eign and security policy issues as a platform priority was TzipiLivni’s HaTnua. But her focus was exclusively on relations withthe Palestinians.

None of the centrist parties listed Syria and Iran among theirplatform priorities. This should not, however, be misconstruedas a sign of indifference. It was a practical matter of the oppor-tunity to influence the decision-making process.

On Syria, there currently is a strong popular consensus amongJewish Israelis in favour of maintaining the status quo. Thisseemingly mitigates the opportunities for the centrist parties tochange current government policy.

In contrast to the Iran issue (see below), there has been virtu-ally no public opposition to the Netanyahu-led coalition’s poli-cy approach towards the chaotic developments in Syria. Thisincludes the Government’s drawing of ‘red lines’ on the trans-fer of four types of weapons, including chemical weapons, torebel groups active in Syria’s civil war.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 2

Policy towardthe Palestinians

by Simon Rosenblum

Writing this commentary on Purim, a month has now passedsince the Israeli election. And a strange election it was, aspeace/security issues were hardly debated. The peace camp hastaken a long sigh of relief but is certainly anxious about whatcomes next. The election results were by no means a victory forpeace supporters, but were considerably better than they werelooking leading up to the election day.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been significantly weakened, but stillwill likely end up being the longest serving prime minister inIsrael's history. That is most certainly not a good thing.Although the Israeli right has become even more hawkish, theelection results have somewhat clipped their wings. That doesgive some hope for peace.

While the composition of the government is -- as I write -- stillnot negotiated, Netanyahu speaks of the need for a broadcoalition that "will allow us to conduct and advance a signifi-cant process of negotiations" with the Palestinians. He hasbrought the moderate former foreign minister Tzipi Livni intothe government as both Justice Minister and "chief negotia-tor" of the peace process with the Palestinians. Consequently,hopes are rising that U.S. President Obama's forthcoming visitto Israel will revive peacemaking efforts.

Things are not, however, always what they seem, and frankly Ifind these glimmers of hope to be something of a Purim shpiel.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 2

Israel’s Options for MakingPeace and Avoiding War

PEACEMATTERSCURRENT AFFAIRS FROM CANADIAN FRIENDS OF PEACE NOW

MARCH 2013

PEACEMATTERS is published by Canadian Friends of Peace Now Publications Agreement Number - 1750011

119 - 660 Eglinton Ave. E. Suite 517 Toronto, ON, M4G 2K2PH 416-322-5559 1-866-405-5387 FX 416-322-5587 E-MAIL info@peacenowcanada.org WEB-SITE www.peacenowcanada.org

4 PEACEMATTERS

GOLDBERG CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

David Makovsky, a senior Israeli analyst at the WashingtonInstitute for Near East Policy, probably understates the situa-tion when he laments that "part of the problem is that on allsides, there's disbelief that peace is possible. Yes, there maywell be a new peace process in the offing, but given all theabove, the odds on its success are sadly slim. How to make thetalks more than a fool's errand and ending the seemingly end-less occupation is the proverbial $64,000 question.

So consider a recent thought by Holocaust historian YehudaBauer, one of the greats in Israel, who no longer believes thatthe Israelis and Palestinians are capable of resolving matters bythemselves. He writes that the only way to end the occupa-tion/make peace is via "an agreement between the UnitedStates, and the European Union and Russia, with China'sinvolvement, [to] create a situation in which pressure will beapplied to both sides in the conflict to engage in serious nego-tiations until white smoke emerges."

Rumours have it that while serving as U.S. Secretary of State,Hillary Clinton pushed Obama to go over the heads of theregion's leaders and lay out to the Israeli and Palestinian peo-ples the shape of a two-state peace deal. Maybe the time hascome for a bold initiative like that.

Simon Rosenblum is a past president of CFPN Toronto

FRIEDMAN CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3

They surely recognize the danger that this visit could become arepeat of Obama's inaugural trip to the Middle East, duringwhich his famous Cairo speech inspired the region but also setthe stage for widespread disappointment when the ObamaAdministration's policies failed to deliver on the expectationsthat had been raised.

They should also recognize that failure to act now means theimminent end of the two-state solution, and with it the furtherdiminution of U.S. standing in the international arena, the like-lihood of renewed and wider-spread violence, continued dete-rioration of Israel toward pariah state status, and the end of thedream of an Israel that is both Jewish state and democracy.

For all these reasons, it is vital that President Obama seizes theopportunity that exists today for a historic re-set in his policyvis-à-vis Israel-Palestine.

Lara Friedman is Director of Policy & GovernmentRelations for Americans for Peace Now.

GOLDBERG CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

The ‘Iran debate’ is unique in that it is being conducted in thepublic domain. And it has involved many current and formersenior IDF commanders and respected members of Israel’s mil-itary-security-intelligence community who have openly chal-lenged core elements and precepts of the policy approachadopted over the past three years by the Netanyahu-led coali-tion government.

Centrist politicians waded into the Iran debate prior to therecent election campaign.

Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, in an October 2012 interview withThe Jerusalem Post, accused Netanyahu of leading Israel to war“too soon,” before it is necessary, and of exhibiting “hubris” intrying to intimidate the President of the United States to adopta more resolute posture towards Iran. Lapid said thatNetanyahu did a great job in drawing the Iranian nuclear issueto the world’s attention, but then made it an Israel-Iran prob-lem by over-playing his hand.

According to Lapid, “There is only one way to end the Iraniannuclear threat: The fall of the ayatollahs… The way to make theayatollahs fall is to strengthen the sanctions.” Lapid acknowl-edged that all policy options -- including the use of militaryforce -- must be left on the table in order to dissuade theIranian leadership from continuing with their nuclear weaponsprogram. But, the military force card should only be played inthe context of a doomsday scenario. “Like Netanyahu, I think ifwe came to the point of no return, Israel would have to bomb[Iran], but there is still a lot left to do to avoid that,” he empha-sized.

HaTnua leader Tzipi Livni’s views on Iran have evolved overtime. In October 2007, as a Kadima MK and Foreign Minister,Livni told Ha’aretz that, “Iranian nuclear weapons do not posean existential threat to Israel.” But in an interview with CNN inAugust 2012 (after she had lost the Kadima leadership to ShaulMofaz), Livni adopted a far more aggressive posture towardsthe nuclear weapons issue, asserting that, “Iran needs to knowthat all the options are on the table.”

At the end of the day, averting a premature military confronta-tion with Iran might depend on centrist members of aNetanyahu-led coalition government constraining the PrimeMinister from following his aggressive instincts. That’s a hugeresponsibility, indeed.

David H. Goldberg, PhD, is a Toronto-based policy analyst

ROSENBLUM CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Why am I such a Gloomy Gus when majorities of both Israelisand West Bank Palestinians are still in favour of a two-statesolution? That remains true, but their hopes are fading all thetime and this seriously affects the amount of energy they arewilling to expend to achieve such a result.

On the Palestinian side, there is more interest in Fatah/Hamasreconciliation than there is on renewing peace talks with Israel-- and Hamas casts an increasingly dark shadow. Witness somemonths ago when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas indi-cated to the Israeli media that "going home" was a lost cause-- thereby suggesting that the Palestinian Authority would befinally willing to end its insistence on a Palestinian "right ofreturn" to Israel proper. Well it didn't take a day before Hamasand others forced Abbas to backtrack, saying that this was onlya personal point of view and that the Palestinian people wouldnever negotiate away this fundamental right.

On the Israeli side of the coin, there is, of course, the seeming-ly relentless settlement throughout the West Bank and -- mostdisturbing -- efforts to build around East Jerusalem to the effectof bisecting the West Bank and cutting off East Jerusalem. WillYair Lapid, clearly the big winner in the elections, stand up toBibi regarding the settlements? Well, he has already said thatJerusalem can never be divided, and let’s not forget that hegave his major foreign-policy campaign speech in the largeAriel settlement. His influence on such matters will, in anycase, be quite limited, and he has other fish to fry. From thenewly reinvigorated Labour Party, there was not a peep aboutthe settlement issue and peace during the election campaign.

Settlements -- as Peace Now in Israel consistently and bravelyinsists -- are increasingly making it very difficult for Israel tosomeday withdraw to close to pre-1967 borders and allow fora contiguous Palestinian state. It is easy -- much too easy -- tosay that settlements can always be dismantled as they havebeen in the past. The likelihood of present-day Israel doing sois another matter entirely, as the numbers and influence of thesettlers and the national-religious camp in Israel continue togrow much faster than those of the peace camp. While timehas by no means run out for the two-state solution, time is alsonot its friend.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

2 PEACEMATTERS PEACEMATTERS 3

Yossi Alpher to Speak in Canada in May

CFPN is pleased to sponsor Israelisecurity consultant Yossi Alpheron a three-city speaking tour inMay. Mr. Alpher is former directorof the Jaffee Center for StrategicStudies at Tel Aviv, and a formersenior official with Israel’sMossad. He authors the weeklyHard Questions, Tough Answerscolumn for Americans for PeaceNow.

He will speak May 7th in Montreal, May 8th in Ottawaand May 9th in Toronto.

DETAILS OF LOCATIONS AND TIMES ARE AVAILABLE AT

www.peacenowcanada.org/events

Will Obama’s Visit to IsraelBe a Game Changer?By Lara Friedman

During [his] State of the Union address, [President Barack]Obama's comments regarding Israel were brief. He stated:"...we will stand steadfast with Israel in pursuit of security anda lasting peace. These are the messages I'll deliver when I trav-el to the Middle East next month." These words feed the fren-zy of speculation surrounding the upcoming Obama visit toIsrael and Palestine. Why now? Is Obama signaling a renewedfocus on the Israeli-Palestinian file? Does he have a peaceplan? Or is this trip really about Iran and Syria?

The answer is almost certainly more mundane. After failing totravel to Israel in his first term, Obama and his advisors wouldbe right to assess that there probably won't be a better time togo than now, and there will certainly be worse times. However,the actual reasoning behind Obama's visit became academicthe moment the visit was announced, because the mereannouncement of the visit put Israeli-Palestinian peace back onthe agendas of both the U.S. and Israel.

For evidence, look at the Israeli press, full of analyses and pre-dictions - all highly speculative - about the visit. See the leakfrom one of [Prime Minister] Netanyahu's top advisors - a well-known ideological hardliner - saying that settlement construc-tion is causing Israel to lose its closest friends. NoteNetanyahu's scramble to re-establish at least a pretense ofsupport for the two-state solution, after an election in which hesought as much distance as possible from such a position. Seehow the announcement of Obama's visit put Israel-Palestinepeace on the agenda of the negotiations over the next Israeligoverning coalition.

Indeed, the announcement has generated an almost audiblebuzz in Israel, where [in January] people voted in large num-bers if not for peace (though Meretz did double in size) thenagainst Netanyahu's pro-settlement agenda. Israelis may notbelieve that a peace agreement is within reach, but most stillsupport the two-state solution and most recognize that theirnation is heading toward international pariah status. OnFacebook, thousands of Israelis have already expressed supportfor what they hope will be Obama's message of peace. TheIsraeli Peace Now movement is planning a pro-peace rally inRabin Square the night before Obama meets Netanyahu; nodoubt settlers will hold their own demonstration, but the for-mer will be far larger.

At the same time, following three years of political stalemate,and coming on the heels of Netanyahu's recent bruising elec-tion victory-that-was-still-a-defeat, and to the backdrop ofwhat is increasingly recognized as the imminent death-by-set-tlements of the two-state solution, this conflict is ripe for U.S.re-engagement. Moreover, with the region in turmoil thatleaves few good policy options for the Obama Administration -- whether with respect to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Bahrain, or Iran --the Israeli-Palestinian arena today has become, oddly, the bestopportunity in the Middle East for the U.S. to engage andachieve real results.

To be sure, the chances of getting to a permanent status agree-ment under present conditions remain poor. Few still believethat an agreement is possible while Netanyahu is Israel's primeminister and Mahmoud Abbas is heading the PalestinianAuthority, or in the context of the existing Fatah-Hamas schism.However, the stars are aligned today for a new U.S. policy - onein which success is defined in the short-term as saving the two-state solution, and in the medium-term as initiating a crediblepolitical process that lays the groundwork for a permanent sta-tus agreement in the future.

In short, the announcement of the upcoming visit of Obama toIsrael and Palestine was a game-changer. This was probably notpart of the Obama Administration's calculus when the trip wasscheduled, and it's a safe bet that Obama and his advisorsaren't thrilled at the growing expectations surrounding thevisit.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

GOLDBERG CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Israel’s January 29th airstrike on a convoy transferring sophis-ticated Russian-made surface-to-air missiles to Hezbollah bare-ly generated a blip on Israeli public opinion surveys. The attackwas viewed by most media pundits as a necessary move to dis-rupt Hezbollah’s unrelenting build-up (since the 2006 war) ofweapons in preparation for its next round of warfare againstIsrael.

There appears to be strong national support among JewishIsraelis for the measured actions that the IDF has taken so farto deter Hezbollah and Syria, respectively, from taking stepsthat might escalate to war. These actions, in addition to lastmonth’s attack upon the Hezbollah weapons convoy, have alsoincluded the 2007 destruction of Syria’s nuclear reactor. Thereis also the recent decision to position two additional batteriesof Iron Dome anti-missile missile systems in northern Israel,lest deterrence fail and, in the worst case scenario, Hezbollahwere to launch long-range missiles with chemical warheads(acquired from Syria) against Israeli civilian population centres.

It is at the stage of determining the IDF response to such aHezbollah provocation that one might anticipate an importantrole for one or more centrist coalition members in constrainingill-conceived and poorly managed government decision-mak-ing. The Jewish Israeli majority surely has no desire to besucked into the mire of yet another round of asymmetrical war-fare with Hezbollah. Nor do Israelis have any wish to becomeembroiled in Syria’s civil war. A centrist minister or two would,hopefully, contribute a restraining influence on a Netanyahu-led coalition that might otherwise be tempted to pursue con-frontation with Hezbollah and/or interventionism in Syria.

The calculus of how centrist parties might affect coalition deci-sion-making towards Iran begins from an entirely differentplace than is the case with Syria.

Unlike Syria, there is nothing close to a national consensusamong Jewish Israelis when it comes to the Iran issue. Whilefew Jewish Israelis would dispute the fact that the Islamistregime in Teheran is a hateful enemy, there is no agreement asto either the specific nature of the threat Iran currently posesto Israel or the appropriate diplomatic or military response tothat threat.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 4

DONATE ONLINE!www.peacenowcanada.org/donations

Canadian Friends of Peace Nowis always seeking volunteers.