Not What You Think, But What They Want to Hear

Patrick Cockburn, who writes for London's Independent, is one of the best reporters on Middle Eastern affairs. His columns are available at The Unz Review, featuring perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream media. His latest details a secret report that is disturbing to the proposition--a key assumption of this blog--that you need to listen to what people say in order to know what they think: 

* * *

Israeli spokesmen have their work cut out explaining how they have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, compared with just three civilians killed in Israel by Hamas rocket and mortar fire. But on television and radio and in newspapers, Israeli government spokesmen such as Mark Regev appear slicker and less aggressive than their predecessors, who were often visibly indifferent to how many Palestinians were killed.

There is a reason for this enhancement of the PR skills of Israeli spokesmen. Going by what they say, the playbook they are using is a professional, well-researched and confidential study on how to influence the media and public opinion in America and Europe. Written by the expert Republican pollster and political strategist Dr Frank Luntz, the study was commissioned five years ago by a group called The Israel Project, with offices in the US and Israel, for use by those “who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel”.

Every one of the 112 pages in the booklet is marked “not for distribution or publication” and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report, officially entitled “The Israel project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to  Newsweek Online, but its true importance has seldom been appreciated. It should be required reading for everybody, especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy because of its “dos and don’ts” for Israeli spokesmen.

These are highly illuminating about the gap between what Israeli officials and politicians really believe, and what they say, the latter shaped in minute detail by polling to determine what Americans want to hear. Certainly, no journalist interviewing an Israeli spokesman should do so without reading this preview of many of the themes and phrases employed by Mr Regev and his colleagues.

The booklet is full of meaty advice about how they should shape their answers for different audiences. For example, the study says that “Americans agree that Israel ‘has a right to defensible borders’. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel’s military history. Particularly on the left this does you harm. For instance, support for Israel’s right to defensible borders drops from a heady 89 per cent to under 60 per cent when you talk about it in terms of 1967.”

How about the right of return for Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled in 1948 and in the following years, and who are not allowed to go back to their homes? Here Dr Luntz has subtle advice for spokesmen, saying that “the right of return is a tough issue for Israelis to communicate effectively because much of Israeli language sounds like the ‘separate but equal’ words of the 1950s segregationists and the 1980s advocates of Apartheid. The fact is, Americans don’t like, don’t believe and don’t accept the concept of ‘separate but equal’.”

So how should spokesmen deal with what the booklet admits is a tough question? They should call it a “demand”, on the grounds that Americans don’t like people who make demands. “Then say ‘Palestinians aren’t content with their own state. Now they’re demanding territory inside Israel’.” Other suggestions for an effective Israeli response include saying that the right of return might become part of a final settlement “at some point in the future”.

Dr Luntz notes that Americans as a whole are fearful of mass immigration into the US, so mention of “mass Palestinian immigration” into Israel will not go down well with them. If nothing else works, say that the return of Palestinians would “derail the effort to achieve peace”.

The Luntz report was written in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 and January 2009, when 1,387 Palestinians and nine Israelis were killed.

There is a whole chapter on “isolating Iran-backed Hamas as an obstacle to peace”. Unfortunately, come the current Operation Protective Edge, which began on 6 July, there was a problem for Israeli propagandists because Hamas had quarrelled with Iran over the war in Syria and had no contact with Tehran. Friendly relations have been resumed only in the past few days – thanks to the Israeli invasion.

Much of Dr Luntz’s advice is about the tone and presentation of the Israeli case. He says it is absolutely crucial to exude empathy for Palestinians: “Persuadables [sic] won’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Show Empathy for BOTH sides!” This may explain why a number of Israeli spokesman are almost lachrymose about the plight of Palestinians being pounded by Israeli bombs and shells.

In a sentence in bold type, underlined and with capitalisation, Dr Luntz says that Israeli spokesmen or political leaders must never, ever justify “the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children” and they must aggressively challenge those who accuse Israel of such a crime. Israeli spokesmen struggled to be true to this prescription when 16 Palestinians were killed in a UN shelter in Gaza last Thursday.

There is a list of words and phrases to be used and a list of those to be avoided. Schmaltz is at a premium: “The best way, the only way, to achieve lasting peace is to achieve mutual respect.” Above all, Israel’s desire for peace with the Palestinians should be emphasised at all times because this what Americans overwhelmingly want to happen. But any pressure on Israel to actually make peace can be reduced by saying “one step at a time, one day at a time”, which will be accepted as “a commonsense approach to the land-for-peace equation”.

Dr Luntz cites as an example of an “effective Israeli sound bite” one which reads: “I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child.”

The study admits that the Israeli government does not really want a two-state solution, but says this should be masked because 78 per cent of Americans do. Hopes for the economic betterment of Palestinians should be emphasised.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted with approval for saying that it is “time for someone to ask Hamas: what exactly are YOU doing to bring prosperity to your people”. The hypocrisy of this beggars belief: it is the seven-year-old Israeli economic siege that has reduced the Gaza to poverty and misery.

On every occasion, the presentation of events by Israeli spokesmen is geared to giving Americans and Europeans the impression that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians and is prepared to compromise to achieve this, when all the evidence is that it does not. Though it was not intended as such, few more revealing studies have been written about modern Israel in times of war and peace.

* * *

Patrick Cockburn, "Israel-Gaza Conflict: Secret Report Helps Israelis to Hide Facts," Independent (Unz Review), July 27, 2014

Dermer: IDF Deserves Nobel Peace Prize

Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, spoke on July 21 at Christians United for Israel (CUFI). This transcript is from his Facebook page: 

* * *

. . . As we meet here tonight in Washington, thousands of Israeli soldiers are fighting in Gaza and millions of Israelis are huddled in bomb shelters.

Twenty seven Israelis have lost their lives. Twenty five soldiers including two American citizens Max Steinberg and Sean Carmeli, have paid the ultimate price for the defense of Israel.

Israel’s army is defending our country against the firing of rockets at our cities and against terrorists tunneling under our borders to massacre and kidnap our civilians.

But what is at stake is not just a battle between Israel and Hamas.

It is a battle between a democratic society that seeks peace with all its neighbors and a terror organization whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of the Jewish people.

-- Interruption

It is also a battle between a free society that allows freedom of speech, and one that doesn’t.

It is a battle between a compassionate country that’s dropping leaflets, making phone calls and sending text messages to save Palestinian civilians and a brutal terror organization that uses hospitals as military command centers, manufactures rockets next to Mosques and turns UN schools into weapons depots. 

Israel appreciates that most responsible leaders around the world have supported Israel’s right to defend itself – that list includes President Obama, President Hollande of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Cameron of Great Britain, Prime Minister Abbot of Australia, and Prime Minister Harper of Canada.

And we also appreciate that President Obama and the American Congress have helped Israel develop the Iron Dome missile defense system.

Iron Dome saves Israeli lives. Without Iron Dome, hundreds of rockets would be landing on our cities and killing our civilians.

But Iron Dome also saves Palestinian lives. Because if those missiles were landing in Israel, our government would have to respond with much greater force.

But ladies and gentlemen, Israel deserves more than the support of the international community.

Israel deserves the admiration of the international community.

Because no military in history has taken greater care than the IDF to protect innocents of the other side.

And this care is happening not when we are fighting a war by remote control thousands of miles away.

This is happening when ¾ of our country – the equivalent of over 200 million Americans - are huddled in bomb shelters.

Imagine what the United States would do if 2,000 rockets would be fired by a terror organization from contiguous territory, and 200 million Americans would have to rush to bomb shelters day after day?

Does anyone seriously believe that America would use less force?

Does anyone seriously believe that Britain would use less force if 40 million Brits were in bomb shelters every day?

Actually, in the case of Britain, we can do more than guess. We know how they responded.

The only other time in history when thousands of rockets were fired at a civilian population was during World War II. The Germans fired 4,000 rockets at Great Britain.

What was the British response? What was Churchill’s response? Dresden. Carpet bombing of German cities.

Now I’m the last person in the world who will criticize Churchill, who was perhaps the greatest leader of the 20th century.

That's right, Churchill deserves a round of applause.

I will not criticize the decisions he made to fight the Nazis and defend our common civilization.

But at the same time, I will not accept, and no one should accept, criticism of Israel for acting with restraint that has not been shown and would not be shown by any nation on earth.

I especially will not tolerate criticism of my country at a time when Israeli soldiers are dying so that innocent Palestinians can live.

--Interruption

There is a section for moral idiots at the back of the room

Israel did not have to send its soldiers into many of the places they are fighting today.

We could have given people time to evacuate these areas – which we did anyway - and then bombed from the air all the buildings that were being used by fighters to store and fire weapons.

But we didn’t. As we have done time after time, we are sending our soldiers into this hornet’s nest of Palestinian terror that is booby-trapped with mines and riddled with subterranean tunnels.

Some are shamelessly accusing Israel of genocide and would put us in the dock for war crimes.

But the truth is that the Israeli Defense Forces should be given the Nobel Peace Prize… a Nobel Peace Prize for fighting with unimaginable restraint.

One day, when the enemies of Israel are defeated and the cynics are silenced, people will look back and marvel at how the most threatened nation on earth never lost its nerve and always upheld its values.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Never forget the moral difference between Israel and Hamas.

Hamas deliberately targets the innocent. They want to kill as many of our civilians as possible. For them, the more civilians they kill, the greater the success.

Israel does not target the innocent. We want to harm as few civilians as possible. For us, the more civilians that are harmed, the greater the failure.

What makes Israel’s task so challenging is the unprecedented effort of Hamas to endanger their own civilians.

While the IDF is doing everything to get Palestinian civilians out of harm’s way, Hamas is doing everything to put Palestinian civilians into harm’s way – by ignoring IDF warnings to evacuate, by forcing Palestinians to serve as human shields, and by placing missile batteries next to playgrounds, hospitals and homes.

And you know why Hamas is doing this?

It’s not only because of the evil they represent – and it may not be politically correct, but they are evil. After all, an organization that is capable of producing scores of suicide bombers doesn’t care a whit about Palestinian civilians losing their lives.

But Hamas also uses its strategy of human shields because it works.

--Interruption

It works on people like that.

Because time after time, when Palestinian civilians die, when those heart-wrenching pictures of women and children appear on television – pictures that would move any decent human being – the blame is placed on Israel and the pressure is put on Israel.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The question is whether we can break this cycle.

Will the world stand up to the use of human shields?

Will the media continue to allow Hamas to manipulate it?

Will the UN and many so-called human rights organizations continue to say nothing and do nothing?

Edmund Burke once said that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people do nothing.

But when it comes to Hamas’s use of human shields, what the UN and many human rights organizations are doing is worse than being silent in the face of evil.

They attack the good. They attack Israel for its legitimate actions of self-defense. They file Goldstone reports accusing Israel of war crimes.

Now don't get me wrong. These organizations are not like Hamas. They do not intentionally harm Palestinian civilians.

But in convincing Hamas that its strategy of using human shields will be effective, they are unwittingly serving as their accomplices.

It’s time for the UN to find a moral compass.

It’s time for the world to find a moral backbone.

It's time to take a stand against the use of human shields.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have a common heritage. We face common enemies. We share a common future.

That future is under threat by radical Islamist movements that are sweeping through the Middle East.

The values of the Islamists can be seen every day in Gaza, in Syria, in Iraq, in Iran and elsewhere in the region.

Radical Shias are led by Iran and its foremost proxy Hezbollah. Radical Sunnis are led by the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda and Hamas.

The radical Shias speak of the return of an imam from the 9th century. The radical Sunnis hope to restore a Caliphate from the 7th century.

If they met halfway, I suppose they’d end up in the 8th century – but wherever they ended up, rest assured, it would be a place where there are no rights for women, no tolerance for Jews or Christians, and where those suffering most under their repressive rule would be Muslims who did not share their twisted ideology.

Today, Christians are literally fleeing for their lives from Mosul, Iraq. Under the threat of extortion, conversion or death, 35,000 Christians have fled their homes, many to the safety of the Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq.

May God Bless those Kurds for their decency and humanity.

Maybe that Presbyterian group that recently decided to divest from Israel - the one place in the Middle East with a thriving Christian community - can summon the courage to fire off a press release showing some sympathy with their Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq, Syria, Libya or anywhere else in our region.

But don’t bet on it.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It may be many decades before the fires being stoked between Shia radicals and Sunni radicals burn out.

The most important thing for the world is to not be singed by the flames. That means preventing any of those radicals from developing weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.

And it is the Shia radicals, led by Iran, that are closer to achieving that goal.

Hamas in Gaza is the little evil. The Ayatollah regime in Iran is the Great Evil. I don't mean to offend Hezbollah but they're just the medium size evil.

Iran’s regime executes hundreds of political prisoners. It stones women and hangs Christians.

It has helped the Syrian regime massacre nearly 200,000 people, and turned million more into refugees.

Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world, perpetrating terror attacks on five continents and 25 countries in the last four years alone.

And Iran continues its march to develop nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, a bad deal was not signed last week with Iran.

A bad deal is a deal that would leave Iran with its nuclear weapons capability essentially intact. That is a deal that would have been unacceptable to Israel.

We hope the international community will stand firm and not agree to a deal where Iran does not fully dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

Pressure can make that happen.

To those who don’t believe that, think about this. If I would have stood here a year ago and told you that virtually all the chemical weapons could be removed from Syria through a diplomatic process, you'd have laughed me off the stage.

But with the right mix of military and diplomatic pressures, that is exactly what happened. And President Obama deserves credit for that.

And with the right mix of military pressures, tough sanctions and clear eyed diplomacy, Iran can be forced to fully dismantle its nuclear weapons capability.

As always, Israel reserves the right to defend itself.

The Jewish people did not restore our sovereignty in the Land of Israel after 2,000 years – the land where our patriarchs prayed, our prophets preached and our kings ruled – we did not restore our sovereignty to let the lifeline of our people be severed by a radical Ayatollah regime in Iran.

Pastor Hagee - Israel lives. And Israel will continue to live, from generation to generation till the end of time.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In the Book of Deuteronomy, the people of Israel were presented with a simple choice:

I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life, so that you and your children may live.

The lines that are being drawn today in the world could not be clearer.

Good is fighting evil.

Those who sanctify life are fighting those who glorify death.

And just as the people of Israel are given a choice, all people have a choice.

Choose wisely. Choose good. Choose life. And in doing so, choose to secure our common future.

Thank you.

* * *

Ambassador Ron Dermer, Facebook, July 21, 2014

Turks to Israelis: Stop the Gaza War

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government are extremely critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Here are snippets from news reports of the last few days with comments from Erdogan and his foreign minister. 

* * *

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued his harsh criticism of Israel on Thursday, accusing the Jewish state of attempting a “systematic genocide” of Palestinians in Gaza.

“We have been witnessing this systematic genocide every Ramadan since 1948. The world remains silent because those who lost their lives are Palestinian,” Erdogan told a meeting of Islamic scholars in Istanbul to mark Ramadan, Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News reported.

Erdogan also said that the UN was not doing enough to help the Palestinians.

“Do you hear the voice of the United Nations? They are doing something only for a show. Is there executive action? No. Why was the United Nations established? For world peace. Does it make a contribution to world peace?” he said.

The Turkish prime minister then blamed Muslim countries for not doing enough to stop the bloodshed.

“When the West remains silent, the Islamic world watches too,” he said, adding that “Some Islamic countries are content with what is happening in Palestine today.” (Jerusalem Post, July 18, 2014)

* * *

“Israel is a country that threatens world peace. It has never favored peace,” [Erdogan] told reporters on Friday. “I do not envision any progress [in ties] with Israel as long as I am in charge,” he said, even though this might harm his reputation in the Western countries that are sympathetic to the Israeli position in the conflict.

“The Western reaction might be different. But I have never tried to look sympathetic to dominant powers, and I never will,” he said.

* * *

In his remarks at a meeting between Turkey and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in İstanbul on Friday, Foreign Minister Davutoğlu said there is a need for sustainable peace in the region and that Turkey is doing its utmost to ensure peace in the region and will continue to do so.

He said phone traffic between him and his counterparts continued all night after Israel launched its ground offensive on Thursday evening.

“First, this aggression [air strikes and ground offensive] should stop. No matter what their excuse, this is against the human conscience. We are determined to motivate the international community to take action,” he said, accusing Israel of being opportunistic. He also claimed that the Israeli ground offensive is partly an attempt to sabotage Palestinian efforts to form a unity government that brings together the rival Palestinian factions of Hamas, which controls Gaza, and Fatah.

“There is opportunism here. Palestinians [rival factions Hamas and Fatah] reached reconciliation between themselves, and Israel couldn't stand that. Now, it is trying to harm this togetherness. We advise Palestinians to stand by one another,” Davutoğlu said.

The foreign minister said Turkey also aims to ensure a permanent cease-fire and reiterated its commitment to support the Palestinians.

“Although everybody else keeps quiet, Turkey will never remain silent in the face of any injustice,” he said, adding, “We are going to voice our thoughts loudly.” (Today’s  Zaman, July 18, 2014)

 * * *

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan compared Bayit Yehudi faction chairwoman Ayelet Shaked to Hitler on Tuesday, in remarks criticizing Israel’s actions against terrorists in the Gaza Strip.

Erdogan gave a fiery anti-Israel speech in which he said Ankara will not normalize ties with Israel as long as Israel continues to “kill innocent children and continue its operations in Gaza.”

The Turkish prime minister referred to a female MK who said “all Palestinians are our enemies.

“This mentality is no different to that of Hitler,” the Istanbul-based daily Hurriyet reported Erdogan as saying.

“If these words were said by a Palestinian, the whole world would have denounced it,” he continued.

Erdogan’s supposed quote of Shaked referred to an article by now-deceased Makor Rishon editor Eli Elitzur from 2002, at the height of the second intifada, which the Bayit Yehudi MK posted on her Facebook wall on July 1.

“The Palestinian people declared war on us, and we must fight back. Not an operation, not low-intensity, not destroying terror infrastructure... This is a war between two nations. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started,” Elitzur wrote.

When asked to comment on Erdogan’s statement, Shaked’s spokeswoman Tal Benesh quipped that this is “the end to all-inclusive vacations,” referring to the resorts many Israelis visit in Turkey. (Jerusalem Post, July 15, 2014)

* * *

HRW: Unlawful Israeli Airstrikes

From a July 16 report by Human Rights Watch on Israeli military action in Gaza.

* * *

Israeli air attacks in Gaza investigated by Human Rights Watch have been targeting apparent civilian structures and killing civilians in violation of the laws of war. Israel should end unlawful attacks that do not target military objectives and may be intended as collective punishment or broadly to destroy civilian property. Deliberate or reckless attacks violating the laws of war are war crimes, Human Rights Watch said.

Israeli attacks in Gaza since July 7, 2014, which Israeli officials said delivered more than 500 tons of explosives in missiles, aerial bombs, and artillery fire, killed at least 178 people and wounded 1,361 as of July 14, including 635 women and children, according to the United Nations. Preliminary UN reports identified 138 people, about 77 percent of those killed, as civilians, including 36 children, and found that the attacks had destroyed 1,255 homes, displacing at least 7,500 people.

“Israel’s rhetoric is all about precision attacks but attacks with no military target and many civilian deaths can hardly be considered precise,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Recent documented cases in Gaza sadly fit Israel’s long record of unlawful airstrikes with high civilian casualties.”

Palestinian armed groups also should end indiscriminate rocket attacks launched toward Israeli population centers. Israeli media reported that Palestinian armed groups have launched 1,500 rockets at Israel, wounding five Israeli civilians and destroying property.

Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups conducted fewer attacks and rocket launches in May and early June. An Israeli airstrike killed an alleged member of an armed group and his son on a motorcycle in Gaza on June 11, sparking rocket launches by Palestinian armed groups, and leading to a massive escalation of Israeli attacks on July 7. Israel also blamed Hamas for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers near a West Bank settlement on June 12 and launched a military operation in the West Bank on June 13, killing at least six Palestinians. Hamas had praised the kidnappings but denied responsibility.

Human Rights Watch investigated four Israeli strikes during the July military offensive in Gaza that resulted in civilian casualties and either did not attack a legitimate military target or attacked despite the likelihood of civilian casualties being disproportionate to the military gain. Such attacks committed deliberately or recklessly constitute war crimes under the laws of war applicable to all parties. In these cases, the Israeli military has presented no information to show that it was attacking lawful military objectives or acted to minimize civilian casualties.

Israel has wrongly claimed as a matter of policy that civilian members of Hamas or other political groups who do not have a military role are “terrorists” and therefore valid military targets, and has previously carried out hundreds of unlawful attacks on this basis. Israel has also targeted family homes of alleged members of armed groups without showing that the structure was being used for military purposes.

On July 11, an Israeli attack on the Fun Time Beach café near the city of Khan Yunis killed nine civilians, including two 15-year-old children, and wounded three, including a 13-year-old boy. An Israeli military spokesman said the attack was “targeting a terrorist” but presented no evidence that any of those at the café, who had gathered to watch a World Cup match, were participating in military operations, or that the killing of one alleged “terrorist” in a crowded café would justify the expected civilian casualties.

In another July 11 attack, an Israeli missile struck a vehicle in the Bureij refugee camp, killing the two municipal workers inside. The men were driving home in a marked municipal vehicle after clearing rubble from a road damaged in an airstrike. Their relatives said that neither man was affiliated with an armed group, and that the driver had followed the same daily routine in the same vehicle every day since July 7. The explosion blew the roof off the vehicle and partly disemboweled a 9-year-old girl and wounded her sister, 8, who were sitting in front of their home nearby. Human Rights Watch found no evidence of a military objective in the vehicle or in the area at the time.

An Israeli airstrike on July 10 on the family home of Mohammed al-Hajj, a tailor, in the densely crowded Khan Yunis refugee camp killed seven civilian family members, including two children, and wounded more than twenty civilians. An eighth fatality, al-Hajj’s 20-year-old son, was a low-ranking member of the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, residents told Human Rights Watch. The Israeli military said the attack was being investigated. Even if the son was the intended target, the nature of the attack appears indiscriminate and would in any case be disproportionate.

“The presence of a single, low-level fighter would hardly justify the appalling obliteration of an entire family,” Whitson said. “Israel would never accept an argument that any Israeli home of an Israel Defense Force member would be a valid military target.”

A fourth Israeli airstrike, on July 9, killed Amal Abed Ghafour, who was 7-months pregnant, and her 1-year-old daughter, and wounded her husband and 3-year-old son. The family lived across the street from an apartment building that was struck with multiple missiles, according to witnesses. Residents of nearby homes said Israeli forces fired a small non-explosive “warning” missile at the apartment building minutes before the main missile strikes. However, the family did not know of the warning or have time to flee. Israeli officials have not said why they targeted the apartment building.

A brief initial statement on July 8 by the Israeli military spokesperson’s office asserted that military attacks had targeted “four homes of activists in the Hamas terror organization who are involved in terrorist activity and direct and carry out high-trajectory fire towards Israel,” without any further qualification. In subsequent statements, the military said that its policy is to attack homes used as “command and control” centers or “terrorist infrastructure” after warning residents to leave, but has provided no information to support these vague claims.

The Israeli rights group B’Tselem said on July 13 that the Israel Defense Forces spokesperson had changed the wording of statements concerning such attacks over the course of the current military offensive, but that in only one specific case did the military claim that weapons were hidden in a home it had attacked. An Israeli military official stated on July 12 that the military has targeted “more than 100 homes of commanders of different ranks” in Gaza, the Israeli news website Ynet reported.

Civilian structures such as residential homes become lawful targets only when they are being used for military purposes. While the laws of war encourage the use of effective advance warnings of attacks to minimize civilian casualties, providing warnings does not make an otherwise unlawful attack lawful.

For warnings to be effective, civilians need adequate time to leave and go to a place of safety before an attack. In several cases Human Rights Watch investigated, Israel gave warnings, but carried out the attack within five minutes or less. Given that Gaza has no bomb shelters, civilians realistically often have no place to flee.

Attacks targeting civilians or civilian property are unlawful, as are attacks that do not or cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants. Attacks intended to punish the family members of an enemy commander or fighter would also constitute unlawful collective punishment. Attacks causing the extensive destruction of property carried out unlawfully and wantonly are also prohibited.

“Warning families to flee might reduce civilian casualties but they don’t make illegal attacks any less illegal,” Whitson said. “The Israeli failure to demonstrate why attacks that are killing civilians are lawful raises serious questions as to whether these attacks are intended to target civilians or wantonly destroy civilian property.”

The United Nations Human Rights Council should hold a special session to address violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in the context of the conflict, Human Rights Watch said. The Council should mandate the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to form a fact-finding mission to impartially investigate, report promptly and publicly on violations by all sides, and issue recommendations to the parties and the UN.

The European Union and its member countries should support convening a special session and formation of a fact-finding mission. They should also work for a resolution that:
 

• Stresses the conflicting parties’ obligations under international law to protect civilians;
• Stresses the need for borders to be kept open for humanitarian and medical assistance to reach those in need and permit them to leave;
• Condemns violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by all parties; and
•  Stresses the need for accountability for grave violations.
   

Neither Israeli nor Palestinian authorities have ever taken serious action to investigate alleged war crimes by members of their forces in previous armed conflicts. Human Rights Watch has documented numerous serious violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces in the past decade, particularly indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

From 2005 to the end of 2012, Israeli military operations in Gaza resulted in the deaths of 1,474 civilians and the destruction of thousands of buildings. In the same period, Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza firedsome 8,734 rockets at Israeli population centers, killing 38 civilians, including 26 Israelis, 2 foreign nationals, and 10 Palestinians when rockets fell short of their intended targets.

The Palestine Liberation Organization should direct President Mahmoud Abbas to seek the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes committed by all parties on Palestinian territory.

Governments that are providing weapons to Israel, to Hamas, or to armed groups in the Gaza Strip should suspend transfers of any materiel that has been documented or credibly alleged to have been used in violation of international humanitarian law, as well as funding or support for such material, Human Rights Watch said. The US supplies Israel with rotary and fixed wing military aircraft, Hellfire missiles, and other munitions that have been used in illegal airstrikes in Gaza.

“The longstanding failure of either side to prosecute war crimes in Gaza means that the only meaningful option for justice and accountability is legal proceedings before the International Criminal Court,” Whitson said. “How many more civilians will die as a result of unlawful Israeli attacks before President Abbas submits Palestine to this court?” . . . 

* * *

Further details follow in the report. See Israel/Palestine: Unlawful Israeli Airstrikes Kill Civilians, Human Rights Watch, July 16, 2014

Netanyahu on July 4: Shared Values, Common Interests

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on July 3, gave the following remarks at the US Embassy Fourth of July celebration. He notes: "In the huge land mass from Gibraltar to the Khyber Pass, the United States shares values only with Israel." 

* * *

I came here directly from security consultations in the Government Compound in Tel Aviv. Over the past several weeks, we have been determinedly fighting Hamas terrorism, and Hamas has already paid a heavy price – in Judea and Samaria we have arrested hundreds of Hamas activists, we shut down nearly all of its institutions and we did many other things. In Gaza over the past several days, we hit dozens of Hamas activists and destroyed outposts and facilities that served Hamas terrorists.

Now we are preparing for two possibilities in the south: The first is that the firing at our communities will stop and then our operations will stop as well and the quiet that prevailed in the south after Operation Pillar of Defense will continue.  The second possibility is that the firing at our communities in the south will continue and then the reinforcement forces that are located in the field will act forcefully. The security of our citizens comes first.

On behalf of the citizens of Israel, I would like to praise the residents of the south. The strength you are demonstrating allows us to act determinedly and responsibly towards one goal – your security, all our security.

Over the past several weeks, we have endured the kidnapping and horrifying murder of the three boys who won over our hearts and whose families have captured our hearts – what wonderful families. We will pursue all those who had a part in the murders of Gilad, Eyal and Naftali and we will catch them. We will continue to fight terrorism as we have fought it since the establishment of the country.

Our security forces continue to investigate the background to the shocking murder of the boy whose body was found in the Jerusalem Forest. Whatever the motive may be – this murder must be strongly condemned and we will bring those responsible for this crime to justice.

I appeal to all the citizens of Israel and ask you: Please exercise restraint in your actions and words. Our hearts ache, our blood boils, but we must remember that we are, first and foremost, human beings and we are citizens of a law-abiding country. We are making decisions in a responsible, cool-headed and considered manner. The American people, who experienced terrible terrorist attacks on its own soil, empathizes with our fight and we empathize with their fight."

July 4th has always been a great celebration for all those who cherish America's historic commitment to liberty. For me it resonates in a special way because I lost my brother at the rescue mission at Entebbe on July 4th, 1976, and since that date, July 4th has always been a special mixture of pain and pride – pride because this is a day in which the celebration of freedom and the fight against terrorism are intertwined. Today our two nations, America and Israel, stand together in celebrating freedom and stand together in confronting terrorism.

What is the secret of the special relationship between the United States and Israel? The answer can be summarized in four words: Shared values, common interests. Shared values because the United States and Israel were both founded on the principles of liberty, democracy and freedom. In both our lands, the rights of the individual are sacred and the foremost right, without which the others cannot exist, is the right to live.

And that is why we pursued the murderers of Gilad, Eyal and Naftali. They denied them that basic right in such a cruel way. And that is why I unequivocally condemn the murder of a Palestinian youth in Jerusalem a few days ago. The police investigation is ongoing. We don't know yet the motives or the identities of the perpetrators but we will. We will bring to justice the criminals responsible for this despicable crime, whoever they may be. Murder, riots, incitement, vigilantism – they have no place in our democracy.

And it is these democratic values that differentiate us from our neighbors and unite us with the United States. These are shared values but in today's Middle East, we are united also by common interests because we face common threats of terror and upheaval from those who despise our values. The US and Israel are working together to roll back the tide of terror and defeat its evil forces.

I want to thank President Obama for his words of deep sympathy and support following the brutal murders of Eyal, Gilad and Naftali. Naftali was also an American citizen.

My friends, the United States has other partners in the region and these partnerships, these relationships are important, both for the United States and for Israel. But those partnerships are based on interests. In the huge land mass from Gibraltar to the Khyber Pass, the United States shares values only with Israel. And this is what makes the bond we share so unique and so unbreakable. When America celebrates its independence, Israel celebrates with America. The people of Israel are unabashedly pro-American and the American people are unabashedly pro-Israel. And by the way, that support keeps going up and up and up each year, tremendous support for Israel in America and I can tell you – Ambassador, you can relay this in a cable – tremendous support for America in Israel.

That's not obvious in our region because we share the values. We understand what America is about. And that friendship is essential as we move forward to face the great challenges before us: Denying Iran nuclear capability, stemming the tide of radicalism in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere and building peace and stability with our neighbors.

So on behalf of the Government and people of Israel, I thank President Obama and his Administration. I thank the US Congress and the great American people. And I thank you, Ambassador Shapiro. I thank you all for your great friendship and your unfaltering support.

Happy Independence Day, America. God bless Israel and God bless America.

* * *

PM Netanyahu's Remarks, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

Israel to US: Kurdish Independence Inevitable

From Reuters:

Israel told the United States on Thursday [June 26] Kurdish independence in northern Iraq was a "foregone conclusion" and Israeli experts predicted the Jewish state would be quick to recognise a Kurdish state, should it emerge.

Israel has maintained discreet military, intelligence and business ties with the Kurds since the 1960s, seeing in the minority ethnic group a buffer against shared Arab adversaries.

The Kurds have seized on recent sectarian chaos in Iraq to expand their autonomous northern territory to include Kirkuk, which sits on vast oil deposits that could make the independent state many dream of economically viable.

Washington wants Iraq's crumbling unity restored. On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Iraqi Kurdish leaders and urged them to seek political integration with Baghdad.

Kerry discussed the Iraqi crisis with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in Paris on Thursday.

"Iraq is breaking up before our eyes and it would appear that the creation of an independent Kurdish state is a foregone conclusion," Lieberman's spokesman quoted him as telling Kerry.

A day earlier, Israeli President Shimon Peres had a similar message for U.S. President Barack Obama, who hosted the dovish elder statesman at the White House.

Briefing reporters, Peres said he had told Obama he did not see unifying Iraq as possible without "massive" foreign military intervention and that this underscored Kurdish separation from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and Sunni Arab minority.

"The Kurds have, de facto, created their own state, which is democratic. One of the signs of a democracy is the granting of equality to women," Peres said.

He added that neighbouring Turkey appeared to accept the Kurds' status as it was helping them pump out oil for sale. 

A HISTORY OF SILENCE

Israel last Friday took its first delivery of the disputed crude from Iraqi Kurdistan's new pipeline. The United States disapproves of such go-it-alone Kurdish exports. 

There are some 30 million Kurds on a swathe of land running through eastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq and western Iran. They have hesitated to declare independence in Iraq, mindful of opposition from neighbouring states with Kurdish populations.

Israel's Foreign Ministry said there were currently no formal diplomatic relations with the Kurds. Israeli officials declined to comment, however, on the more clandestine ties.

"Our silence - in public, at least – is best. Any unnecessary utterance on our part can only harm them (Kurds),” senior Israeli defence official Amos Gilad said on Tuesday.

Asked on Israel's Army Radio whether Kurdish independence was desirable, Gilad noted the strength of the Israeli-Kurdish partnership in the past and said: "One can look at history and draw conclusions about the future."

Israeli intelligence veterans say that cooperation took the form of military training for Kurds in northern Iraq, in return for their help in smuggling out Jews as well as in spying on Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad and, more recently, on Iran.

Eliezer Tsafrir, a former Mossad station chief in Kurdish northern Iraq who is now retired from Israeli government service, said the secrecy around the ties had been maintained at the request of the Kurds.

"We'd love it to be out in the open, to have an embassy there, to have normal relations. But we keep it clandestine because that’s what they want,” he told Reuters.

Ofra Bengio, an Iraq expert at Tel Aviv University and the author of two books on the Kurds, said last week's oil delivery and other commercial ties between Israel and Kurdistan were “obviously” part of wider statecraft.

"I certainly think that the moment (Kurdish President Masoud) Barzani declares independence, these ties would be upgraded into open relations,” she said. “It depends on the Kurds.”

The Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq has denied selling oil to Israel, whether directly or indirectly. The Israeli government declined to comment on Friday's oil delivery.

* * *

Dan Williams, Israel tells U.S. Kurdish independence is 'foregone conclusion', Reuters, June 26, 2014. 

* * *

Update, July 1, 2014: The relationship of the Kurds to the Israelis entails difficulties for the former, as the foregoing story intimated. Here's another indication: according to the Financial Times, reports that Israel had bought oil from Kurdistan brought forth a confrontation in the Iraqi parliament:

In parliament on Tuesday a Shia lawmaker in Mr Maliki’s bloc insulted a female Kurdish parliamentarian asking about the government’s refusal to handover the Kurdistan Regional Government’s budget allocation. 

“Go sell your oil to Israel, you collaborator,” the lawmaker shouted as some in the chamber applauded. 

[The Kurdish and Sunni parties subsequently left the chamber] Muthana Ameen, a Kurdish MP, said the walkout was not prompted by the insult but “because there was no point staying – there were no candidates agreed on”

Netanyahu Interview

The following interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, was conducted by Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg View and was published on May 22, 2014: 

* * *

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: The peace process is in a coma. When do you go to a Plan B? How do you extract Israel from a situation that many people say is unsustainable?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: There are a couple of points of consensus in Israel that are beginning to emerge. The first point of consensus is that we don’t want a binational state. Another point of consensus is that we don’t want an Iranian proxy in territories we vacate. We want a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the nation-state of the Jews. Now how do we get that? The Palestinians don’t agree to recognizing Israel as the Jewish nation-state, and it’s not clear to me that they’ll agree to elements of demilitarization that are required in any conceivable plan that works.

GOLDBERG: A lot of people in Israel, from [former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.] Michael Oren to [former head of Israeli military intelligence] Amos Yadlin, are looking at the idea of taking unilateral steps to disengage from the Palestinians.

NETANYAHU: We want a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. How do you get that if you can’t get it through negotiations? It’s true that the idea of taking unilateral steps is gaining ground, from the center-left to the center-right. Many Israelis are asking themselves if there are certain unilateral steps that could theoretically make sense. But people also recognize that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza didn't improve the situation or advance peace -- it created Hamastan, from which thousands of rockets have been fired at our cities.

GOLDBERG: So you’re still committed to negotiations?

NETANYAHU: Let me be clear -- negotiations are always preferable. But six prime ministers since Oslo have failed in their pursuit of a negotiated settlement. They’ve always thought we were on the verge of success, and then [Yasser] Arafat backed off, Mahmoud Abbas backed off, because they can’t conclude these negotiations. We don’t have a Palestinian leadership that is willing to do that. The minimal set of conditions that any Israeli government would need cannot be met by the Palestinians. No matter what the spin is about blaming Israel, do we actually expect Abbas, who seems to be embracing Hamas, to give a negotiated deal? In all likelihood, no. I hope he does, but I’m not sure he’s going to do it.

GOLDBERG: So go back to this question of what to do next.

NETANYAHU: We don’t want a binational state, and we don’t want a Palestinian-Iranian state next door. There is an emerging consensus that we don’t have a partner who can challenge constituencies, do something unpopular, do something that is difficult. Abbas has not done anything to challenge the prevailing Palestinian consensus. In fact, he’s doing the opposite: the Hamas reconciliation, internationalizing the conflict, not giving one iota on the right of return, not giving an iota on the Jewish state. He wouldn’t deal with Kerry’s framework.

GOLDBERG: Do you still think that the Palestinians embrace the idea of destroying Israel in stages -- by setting up a state and then using that state to continue to press their demand through violence and other means for all of Palestine?

NETANYAHU: What the Palestinians keep saying is, Look, we want the maximum. We will not make any adjustments in our demands. Nothing. Not tactical, not strategic. I said to them, You tell me that you want me to draw a map of a state, but you won’t tell me that the state on the map will recognize the Jewish state next to it. They want a map without an end of conflict.

I think Palestinian society is divided into two. The first half openly calls for Israel’s destruction. And the second half refuses to confront this and refuses to confront the demons inside their own camp.

In Israel, there is a vigorous debate about what compromise would entail. There is no such debate in the Palestinian Authority. I’m not talking about Hamas. I’m talking about the so-called moderates who will not talk about the minimal conditions that are necessary for peace from the point of view of any Israeli government and just about any Israeli. They expect us to just leave, shut our eyes, tear out the settlements. Well, been there, done that. We did it in Gaza. And what we got was not peace, but rocket fire.

GOLDBERG: What I don’t understand is why you don’t just leapfrog this negotiations morass and declare an indefinite settlement-building freeze -- not tearing them out, but freezing them? That way, the onus will be on the Palestinian side, not on you, to prove that they are interested in compromise.

NETANYAHU: I don’t think it would work. Having tried once, I saw that it doesn’t work. The Americans said the only way Abbas is going to come into negotiations is either you release prisoners or freeze settlements: Choose. We chose [to release prisoners]. We made it very clear to the U.S. and to the Palestinians exactly how much we would build, including in Jerusalem. We built exactly what we said we would build in every one of the tranches. It wasn’t that we surprised anyone with extra construction.

GOLDBERG: Why continue to grow settlements at all when you’re trying to negotiate? The American critique of your position is that you keep building in ways that set back the possibility of a Palestinian state.

NETANYAHU: The settlements are an important issue, but they are not the core of the problem. This conflict has been going on for almost a century. During the first half of that century, there wasn’t a single settlement. From 1920, when this conflict effectively began, until 1967, there wasn’t a single Israeli settlement or a single Israeli soldier in the territories, and yet this conflict raged. What was that conflict about? It was about the persistent refusal to recognize a Jewish state, before it was established and after it was established.

GOLDBERG: You’ve spoken about this before as an illusion.

NETANYAHU: Just a few years ago, we were told that the Palestinian issue was the core of the conflict in the Middle East. Now you see Syria imploding, Lebanon imploding Yemen imploding, Iraq imploding, Libya imploding. Until three years ago, people believed this, and I was laughed out of court when I mentioned this. This absurdity was widely believed. There was no challenging it.

Syria's Civil War

Then there was a second illusion: that if you solved the Palestinian problem, you’ll get the Arabs to agree with you on a tougher policy on Iran. Well, that’s out the window now because they oppose Iran regardless of the Palestinian issue.

Now the last illusion remains: The core of the problem in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. That’s about as truthful as the previous illusions. The real issue was and remains opposition to the Jewish state. That’s the demon that they have to confront, just as we’ve confronted the demon of a greater Israel. Not easy, but we did it.

GOLDBERG: A lot of people would say you haven’t done this yet, because you haven’t risked the stability of your ruling political coalition in pursuit of territorial compromise with the Palestinians.

NETANYAHU: Look at what I’ve done. I gave the speech at Bar-Ilan University, a religious university, five years ago recognizing the two-state solution. Second, I tried a 10-month [settlement] freeze, and Abbas did nothing. Then I did something that was the toughest of all -- I released terrorist prisoners, killers of innocent people. That was the hardest decision.

That’s what I did to facilitate the negotiations. And what has Abbas done? Nothing. He’s refused to entertain Kerry’s efforts to try and lock horns on the core issues. He internationalized the conflict. He went to the UN organizations in express violation of Oslo and all the interim agreements. And now he’s embracing Hamas.

GOLDBERG: Why do you think that Kerry and [U.S. special envoy] Martin Indyk believe that the settlements are a great impediment to peace? Indyk in particular has denounced “rampant settlement activity" as a key factor undermining negotiations. 

NETANYAHU: Most of the settlement population, between 80 to 90 percent, is clustered in three urban blocs, in suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem that everyone knows will stay in a final peace settlement. Effectively, the territory that is involved has not increased. It’s marginal. It’s been marginal for the last 20 years. No new settlements have been built since the time I was first prime minister, which was 1996. 

What you are talking about is an increasing population within these urban blocs. It doesn’t materially affect the map. If you took an aerial photograph to see how much territory has been "consumed" by so-called "rampant" settlement activity, the answer is practically nothing. If you can make a deal, you can make a deal. The addition of a few hundred housing units a year in this territory doesn’t alter it. Successive Israeli governments have offered deals and couldn’t get them because the Palestinians would not lock horns with the primary obstacle to peace, which is the refusal to end the conflict with Israel once and for all. To recognize that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination, just as the Palestinian people do. My insistence on recognition of the Jewish state is not a tactical PR stunt. It goes to the core of the conflict. 

GOLDBERG: There are people in Washington who think that John Kerry is borderline delusional for pursuing negotiations so hard. 

NETANYAHU: Kerry made a big effort. We made a huge effort together. I think he tried very hard. It’s a tough go.

GOLDBERG: Come back to this point: If the settlements aren’t a big deal, then what’s a big deal?

NETANYAHU: In the Middle East today, there are two great threats. The threat is militant Islam in its Shia variety or Sunni variety. The threat is what happens when radicals get a state. Shia militants have taken over a state called Iran that is seeking nuclear weapons and which threatens everyone in the region. The Arabs see both threats as supreme. There is very broad agreement. Does the Palestinian issue play a role here? It hinders more open relations, but such relations are taking place anyway.

Iran's Uranium Enrichment

GOLDBERG: What will you say to the Americans if they come to you and say, "We’ve got a deal that keeps Iran perpetually a year or more from reaching the possibility of nuclear breakout"? That seems like a reasonable conclusion, no? 

NETANYAHU: I think this is a setup for the same mistake that was done with North Korea. You leave Iran with a breakout capability -- let’s say a year. During that year, you have two problems. Will you muster the political will and capability to deal with this in a year? What if there is another unfolding crisis somewhere? Second, on the matter of inspections that are promised -- they built their underground bunkers when they were under inspection! 

Intelligence isn’t perfect -- far from it. Intelligence did not prevent enrichment sites from being built without anyone knowing for years. 

Everybody in the region -- everybody -- shares my assessment that what you have to do is dismantle Iran’s enrichment capability. If you leave them with enrichment capability, then everybody will scramble to get their own capability. They might do two things simultaneously: They might actually kowtow to Iran and begin relations with Iran, and at the same time scramble for their [own] nuclear weapons. So this agreement that is meant to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons will be instead a tremendous force for proliferation. 

Look at what Iran does without nuclear weapons. They’re in Syria; they’re in Gaza, sending ships with weapons. They’re in Yemen, in Bahrain, Iraq, everywhere. So if [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei’s Iran becomes a threshold nuclear power, what do you think will happen? Is this going to move Iran into greater moderation, when he has greater force, or is he going to be even less moderate?

GOLDBERG: There’s been a lot of criticism of President Obama on Syria, the "red line" controversy, and the deal he engineered with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to bring about the removal of Assad’s chemical weapons. It’s now nine months or so after that particular crisis. What’s your assessment of the chemical weapons deal today?

NETANYAHU: I think this is the one ray of light in a very dark region. It’s not complete yet. We are concerned that they may not have declared all of their capacity. But what has been removed has been removed. We’re talking about 90 percent. We appreciate the effort that has been made and the results that have been achieved.

GOLDBERG: Chuck Hagel was just here. He was under fire during his confirmation process for being anti-Israel. How do you view him today?

NETANYAHU: The relationship has truly been fine. Our defense cooperation and intelligence sharing, which has been substantial in both directions, and our work on anti-missile and anti-rocket defense have been very good, and this work continues under Chuck Hagel and President Obama, and I’m pleased with that. That doesn’t mean we can’t have differences of opinion on Iran.

GOLDBERG: So how deep are those differences?

NETANYAHU: The Americans say, "We will not let Iran have nuclear weapons." We say we should not let Iran have the capability to produce nuclear weapons. There’s a difference. If Iran is allowed to maintain what is called a threshold capability, then in all likelihood, they will break out. We think they should be pushed back so that they don’t have that capability to produce nuclear weapons. We need to dismantle their capability, to take away their enriched uranium and, of course, to address the other components of their system. What is the justification for giving it [enrichment] to them? They are a systematic violator of every UN resolution, including a UN report that shows they’re still violating even today.

GOLDBERG: Recently, we’ve seen charges that Israel continues to aggressively spy on the United States. Does your government run spying operations against American targets?

NETANYAHU: This is an outright lie. Since [Jonathan] Pollard, almost 30 years ago, Israel has not conducted any espionage operations in the United States, period. Full stop. Not direct espionage, not indirect espionage, nothing, zero. We do not conduct in any way, shape or form espionage operations in the United States.

GOLDBERG: You just got off the phone with the newly elected prime minister of India. You’re increasingly isolated in parts of Europe. Are you looking east in ways that Israel hasn’t before?

NETANYAHU: We still have a ways to go to solve the Israel-Palestinian dispute. But there is a broader recognition that this issue shouldn’t hold us hostage. Israel is rapidly developing relations in Asia. I was recently in China, and I just came back from Japan. We have conversations with many Asian countries, Latin American countries, African countries. These countries want to seize the future, and they recognize that the only way they can win is to innovate, and Israel is one of the great centers of innovation in the world. These countries understand that they have to upgrade their products and services with technology in order to compete in a rapidly changing world. Israel is seen as an R&D lab by many governments and companies, and they’re interested in Israeli technology. These countries and companies are not being held back by the continuing conflict.

I hope we resolve it, for our sake. I hope we resolve it because I don’t want a binational state. I hope we resolve it because I’d like to have broader and more open relations with the Arab world, and I hope to resolve it in order to remove the unjustified attacks on Israel. But we are proceeding ahead despite this. We don’t mortgage our future to the maturation of Palestinian politics.

 * * *

Jeffrey Goldberg,  "Netanyahu Says Obama Got Syria Right," Bloomberg View, May 22, 2014