Lieberman and the UN

Recently at the UN, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman gave a speech regarding the peace process. For him, peace is not something that will occur recently. He states that as both Israel and Palestine currently stand, peace cannot occur. He argues that it is best that a temporary solution be reached, in which further negotiations will spring from. Furthermore, he proposed that when peace will arrive, that the borders should be redrawn to accommodate current demographics, and not to a population transfer. This would mean that Arab settlements in Israel will be turned over to Palestine, and Jewish settlements in Palestine would become a part of Israel. To underscore his views that peace will not achieved any time soon, he stated that any peace treaty will not be singed in the next few decades.

This led to a number of reactions. In Israel, the Prime Minister's Office stated that "Lieberman's address was not coordinated with the prime minister." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a member of the Likud Party, distanced himself from the foreign minister's statements, but did not oppose them.

Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense and a member of the Labor Party, has stated that Mr. Lieberman's statements do not represent the government. The Kadima Party has also used this as an opportunity to criticized the Likud Party, stating that the Prime Minister and his party cannot even coordinate a unified foreign policy. Mr Lieberman is a member and founder of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, which currently is part of the ruling coalition government with the Likud.

In the United States, many Jews were outraged, mentioning that such proposals can only weaken Natanyahu's government, and only give the Arabs more reasons not to take the Prime Minister seriously.

But why doesn't Lieberman believe in the peace process, and what exactly is his land proposal? For some Israelis, peace is a fantasy, and at best elusive. Those on the right wing of politics usually have this view, and since many also support the settler movement, they naturally would not want them to be evicted from their homes. But why oppose peace, or seemingly delay it? Well, as almost everyone has said, it has much to do with these settlements. The Palestinians would not want large Jewish enclaves within their new state, and Israelis living within these settlements want to stay a part of Israel, or at the very least not be a part of Palestine.

So Mr Lieberman proposes that instead of evictions and population exchanges, that simply redrawing the map to conform to current demographics is the best option. Not only is this legal in regards to international law, but each side can remain homogeneous and without these seemingly thorns in their stomachs. Just how the new map will look, and how this will effect things like the regional economy or defense within these countries, has yet to be discussed. At any rate, the new borders will most likely not conform to the 1949 Green Line. But as one can guess, not everyone believes in such a plan, and there is much opposition from both sides.

So can peace be achieved? That is the hope of the current peace process, but others are preparing a 'Plan B' in case it doesn't. Although such skepticism might not help the peace process as it stands, it is always smart to be prepared if the current negotiations fail.

I believe that these are reliable articles for a number of reasons. The authors work for well respected newspapers, like Haaretz, and have researched their reports well. The main thing they are reporting on, a speech, is a very concrete event that can be used to analyze. That and combined with reactions from Israel and without add depth to it. Overall, the articles are both fair and balanced too, presenting not only what he said but what its implications are as well.

Growing Tensions on Israel's Northern Frontier

Political rallies like this one are common in Turkey.

Recently, Turkey passed a referendum on changing it's constitution. This is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is meant to make the country more democratic, and thus more in line with the EU, which it wants to join. President Abdullah Gul said, "All the articles in the constitutional amendment package are about bringing Turkey's standards to the European level under Turkey's European Union membership process.” (Arutz Sheva, 9/13/10) But when it comes to internal politics, this is a big boost to the current ruling party, which is Islamist. The referendum recently took more power away from the judiciary as well, which is seen as the defenders of secularism in an increasingly visible Islamic nation.

When it comes to diplomacy though, this gives Turkey a huge boost. And this could lead to worse news for Israel in the long run, according to the author of the Arutz Sheva article. He reasons that now Turkey will try to implement a peace treaty between Syria and Israel, which has French backing. Although on the surface this seems like a good thing, being forced to sign for peace is never good. This could also lead to signing away the Golan Heights, which is vital for Israeli security to the north.

Israeli commandos boarding the flotilla.

Turkey's aim seems twofold: to not only gain EU membership and support, but to increase it's power in the Middle East. Thus, if it becomes more aggressive with Israel, as the Gaza Flotilla has shown, the world will in a sense care less. This could be very dangerous, and considering Turkey and Israel were once close allies, hurtful for Israel as well. That and a potential alliance between Iran, Turkey and Hezbollah, and you have one very explosive concoction.

Syria has much to gain as well. Signing a peace treaty will give them closer ties with Europe. And as mentioned previously, if they gain the Golan Heights, territory they claim, it is simply the icing on top of the cake. For some time Syria has been seeking a 'just and comprehensive' peace with Israel, with Turkey to be the key mediator, and possible French and EU observations. How permanent this peace will be if it comes is yet to be seen.

Israeli troops on their way to the front, 1973.

The Golan Heights are extremely important for Israel strategically. A hilly area on the Syrian-Israeli border, whoever controls the heights could very well control the war. As seen in 1973, this lead to deadly results on both sides, but Israel was able to maintain it's hold on the area. But there is another advantage; it would bottleneck any potential future Syrian attack. It is very narrow, and Syria's large army would not be able to use their numbers to the fullest potential, something which would give Israeli forces an immense advantage. And since one on one Israel overall is a much more effective fighting force, as seen by previous engagements between the two countries, this all the more important. Lastly, since it is elevated ground, it makes it much easier to detect Syrian troop movements, thus negating any element for surprise.

A UN soldier keeping watch in the Golan.

For Syria, Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli strike on Gaza in 2008, has severely crippled any chances of peace. So now that they seem to be putting the past behind them so quickly, including how in 2007 it's quite possible Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear site, it brings up questions of motives.

Overall, these developments on Israel's northern frontier are worrisome. On the one hand, peace seems possible, and tensions that have been perpetual on the borders could finally end. This could also mean they could concentrate diplomatically on things like Iran or Hezbollah and finally move on. On the other hand, the current peace deal could very well be against Israel's interests, and actually slow down their abilities to deal with the growing Iranian threat. And if it also means giving away a very important piece of land, that could leave them militarily vulnerable, something that could be followed up on if war does break out again.

Peace, it seems, can be quite international.

Although there is bias in the first article, there defiantly seems to be congruence in regards to the first articles claims and what the other articles were stating. A lack of contradiction and since it comes from a reliable news source means I can trust the source, even if it requires a bit of skepticism and a bit background reading. That is because the first article was relating the Turkish referendum and other events surrounding the Middle East at large, thus making the article holistic in it's views. And like I stated previously, an understanding of current events and the past together are essential to understanding even news articles like the first one. What sense would German reunification in 1989 have made if the readers did not understand WWII and it's impact?

Hi, it's Edan.

A News Link

Painting by Canaletto

Here's a link:

Now this is all a test. To see if this will work.