Stand Firm Against Israel Until It Complies With International Law and Previous Agreements

... We believe that the necessary confidentiality that Secretary Kerry imposed on the resumed negotiations should not preclude a far more forceful and public expression of certain fundamental U.S. positions:

Settlements: U.S. disapproval of continued settlement enlargement in the Occupied Territories by Israel’s government as “illegitimate” and “unhelpful” does not begin to define the destructiveness of this activity. Nor does it dispel the impression that we have come to accept it despite our rhetorical objections. Halting the diplomatic process on a date certain until Israel complies with international law and previous agreements would help to stop this activity and clearly place the onus for the interruption where it belongs.

Palestinian Incitement: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s charge that various Palestinian claims to all of historic Palestine constitute incitement that stands in the way of Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood reflects a double standard. The Likud and many of Israel’s other political parties and their leaders make similar declarations about the legitimacy of Israel’s claims to all of Palestine, designating the West Bank “disputed” rather than occupied territory. 

Moreover, Israeli governments have acted on those claims by establishing Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank. Surely the “incitement” of Palestinian rhetoric hardly compares to the incitement of Israel’s actual confiscations of Palestinian territory. 

If the United States is not prepared to say so openly, there is little hope for the success of these talks, which depends far more on the strength of America’s political leverage and its determination to use it than on the good will of the parties.

The Jewishness Of The State Of Israel: Israel is a Jewish state because its population is overwhelmingly Jewish, Jewish religious and historical holidays are its national holidays, and Hebrew is its national language. But Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize that Israel has been and remains the national homeland of the Jewish people is intended to require the Palestinians to affirm the legitimacy of Israel’s replacement of Palestine’s Arab population with its own. It also raises Arab fears of continuing differential treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens.

Israelis are right to demand that Palestinians recognize the fact of the state of Israel and its legitimacy, which Palestinians in fact did in 1988 and again in 1993. They do not have the right to demand that Palestinians abandon their own national narrative, and the United States should not be party to such a demand. 

Israeli Security: The United States has allowed the impression that it supports a version of Israel’s security that entails Israeli control of all of Palestine’s borders and part of its territory, including the Jordan Valley. Many former heads of Israel’s top intelligence agencies, surely among the best informed in the country about the country’s security needs, have rejected this version of Israel’s security. Meir Dagan, a former head of the Mossad, dismissed it as “nothing more than manipulation.”

Israel’s confiscation of what international law has clearly established as others’ territory diminishes its security. 

Illegal West Bank land grabs only add to the Palestinian and the larger Arab sense of injustice that Israel’s half-century-long occupation has already generated, and fuels a revanchism that sooner or later will trigger renewed violence. 

No Palestinian leader could or would ever agree to a peace accord that entails turning over the Jordan Valley to Israeli control, either permanently or for an extended period of time, thus precluding a peace accord that would end Israel’s occupation. 

The marginal improvement in Israel’s security provided by these expansive Israeli demands can hardly justify the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people to which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.

The Terms For A Peace Accord advanced by Netanyahu’s government, whether regarding territory, borders, security, resources, refugees or the location of the Palestinian state’s capital, require compromises of Palestinian territory and sovereignty on the Palestinian side of the June 6, 1967, line. They do not reflect any Israeli compromises, much less the “painful compromises” Netanyahu promised in his May 2011 speech before a joint meeting of Congress. Every one of them is on the Palestinian side of that line. 

Although Palestinians have conceded fully half of the territory assigned to them in the U.N.’s Partition Plan of 1947, a move Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, has hailed as unprecedented, they are not demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the June 6, 1967, line.

Netanyahu’s unrelenting efforts to establish equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian demands, insisting that the parties split the difference and that Israel be granted much of its expansive territorial agenda beyond the 78 percent of Palestine it already possesses, are politically and morally unacceptable. The United States should not be party to such efforts, not in Crimea nor in the Palestinian territories.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FRANK CARLUCCI, LEE HAMILTON, CARLA A. HILLS, THOMAS PICKERING and HENRY SIEGMAN

Israel Responsible For Current Deadlock

US secretary of state John Kerry, told the Senate foreign relations committee... that Israel was responsible for the current deadlock.

“Unfortunately, the [Palestinian] prisoners weren’t released when they were supposed to be, and when they were about to maybe get there, 700 settlement units were announced in Jerusalem, and poof, that was sort of the moment,” 

Defusing Israel's 'Detonator' Strategy

The Country Needs To Trade Militarism For Negotiation and Compromise.

Patrick Tyler puts forward the following:

Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed general who led Israel to military victories in the 1956 Suez war and the Six-Day War of 1967, believed in what he called a "detonator" strategy for the Jewish state.

"When someone wishes to force on us things which are detrimental to our existence, there will be an explosion which will shake up wide areas, and realizing this, such elements in the international system will do their utmost to prevent damage to us."

Speaking to Israel's military elite after the Suez campaign, Dayan acknowledged that his was not a "constructive thesis."

"It is a thesis advocating that we should be a kind of biting beast, capable of developing a crisis beyond our borders. If anyone tries to harm us, the explosion will do damage to others too."

In trying to assess whether Israel will launch a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear complex, possibly triggering a broad Middle Eastern war and a new shock to the global economy, Western leaders need to take into account Israel's capacity for playing the role of "detonator" in the Middle East, a strategy that can be seen in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand for "red lines" that, if crossed, would serve as a trigger for war.

From my discussions with Israeli military and political leaders, I believe that despite the drumbeat in the news media, the chances of an Israeli attack remain remote. Every study of the military problem Israel faces in mounting airstrikes far from its home territory reveals the tremendous risks the Jewish state would take for palpably insignificant gains in setting back the long-term Iranian ambition to develop a national nuclear industry. Netanyahu, in my view, will not risk the catastrophe of war. But the danger of miscalculation is grave.

...the United States and other nations will have little credibility if the net effect of their actions is a "red line" inhibiting the technological development of another state. Young Iranians who risked their lives for reform and who admire Western democracy are also fiercely nationalistic in defending Iran's right to develop technologically.

Yet however the Iran crisis turns out this fall, it is not as important as the profound problem the West, and especially the U.S., faces in dealing with a potential "detonator" strategy emanating from Israel over the long term; a number of states in the region could soon be at the threshold of nuclear development.

Over six decades and through as many wars, the U.S. has escalated its commitment to Israel's security, but it has neglected a corresponding insistence that Israel develop the institutions of diplomacy, negotiation and compromise necessary to fully engage the Arabs during a crucial period of Arab awakening. Every president since Eisenhower has pressed Israel to make the kind of concessions that are necessary for peace.

President Nixon said he would give Israel the "hardware" of weapons if Golda Meir would supply the "software" of diplomatic flexibility.

"The philosophical underpinning of U.S. policy toward Israel," President Ford said, "had been our conviction — and certainly my own — that if we gave Israel an ample supply of economic aid and weapons, she would feel strong and confident, more flexible and more willing to discuss a lasting peace." But after serial wars and a strong aversion within the ruling elite to compromise, Ford lamented, "I began to question the rationale for our policy."

Israel... 60 years after its founding, remains in the thrall of an original martial impulse, the depth of which has given rise to succeeding generations of leaders who seem ever on the hair trigger in dealing with their rivals, and whose contingency planners embrace only worst-case scenarios in a process that magnifies the sense of national peril, encourages military preemption and covert subversion, and undermines any chance for a more engaging diplomacy based on compromise and accommodation.

Israel's second prime minister, Moshe Sharett, a lifelong diplomat whose political career was destroyed by the circle of strong militaristic figures who coalesced around David Ben-Gurion in the 1950s, admonished his countrymen that "the question of peace must not be lost sight of for one single moment." Yet Israel in the modern era has lost sight of peace. A new generation of generals sees war planning and the acquisition of new weaponry as the only effective national strategy.

The West must face the prospect that Israel may not be able to rebuild a strategic consensus for peace like the one that the late Yitzhak Rabin imposed on the military establishment in 1992, an act of courage for which he paid with his life.

As the Jewish state and its military establishment become more hard line, more religious and more prone to propagate a vision of constant threat and peril, America will have to lead the world with an act of courage as great as Rabin's in rebuilding the strategic consensus for peace — in Israel, in Congress and among the Jewish and fundamentalist Christian communities that so assiduously, and often blindly, advocate Israeli militarism.

That will require presidents, and presidential candidates, to put the security of Israel into a new category of bipartisanship, and to resist the "detonator" theory by building a broad and engaging peace strategy.

Via: "The LA Times"

Israel Obstructs The Peace, and Is Paid Handsomely For It

Jonathan Cook writes,

Israel has barely put a foot right with the international community since its attack on Gaza more than three years ago provoked global revulsion.

The right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu has serially defied and insulted foreign leaders, including US President Barack Obama; given the settlers virtual free rein; blocked peace talks with the Palestinians; intimidated and marginalised human rights groups, UN agencies and even the Israeli courts; and fuelled a popular wave of Jewish ethnic and religious chauvinism against the country's Palestinian minority, foreign workers and asylum seekers.

No wonder, then, that in poll after poll Israel ranks as one of the countries with the most negative influence on international affairs.

And yet, the lower Israel sinks in public estimation, the more generous western leaders are in handing out aid and special favours to their wayward ally. The past few days have been particularly shameless.

It was revealed last week that the European Union had approved a massive upgrade in Israel's special trading status, strengthening economic ties in dozens of different fields. The decision was a reversal of a freeze imposed in the wake of the Gaza attack of winter 2008.

Amnesty International pointed out that the EU was violating its own commitments in the European Neighbourhood Policy, which requires that, as a preferred trading partner, Israel respect international human rights, democratic values and its humanitarian obligations.

Equally troubling, the EU is apparently preparing to upend what had looked like an emerging consensus in favour of banning settlement products - the only meaningful punishment the EU has threatened to inflict on Israel.

With some irony, Europe's turnabout was revealed the same day that Israel announced it was planning to destroy eight villages in the West Bank, expelling their 1,500 Palestinian inhabitants, to make way for a military firing zone. Four more villages are also under threat.

The villagers' expulsion was further confirmation that Israel is conducting a "forced transfer" of Palestinians, as recent EU reports have warned, from the nearly two-thirds of the West Bank under its control.

Europe's only real leverage over Israel is economic: business between the two already accounts for about 60 per cent of Israeli trade, worth nearly 30 billion euros (Dh136 billion). But rather than penalising Israel for repeatedly stomping over the flimsiest prospects for a two-state solution, the EU is handsomely rewarding it.

It is not alone. The United States is also showering economic benefits and military goodies on Israel, in addition to the billions of dollars in aid it hands over every year.

In the past few days alone, President Obama signed a new law greatly expanding military cooperation with Israel and donated a further $70 million to develop its Iron Dome missile defence system; the Pentagon arm-twisted Lockheed Martin into collaborating with Israeli firms in revamping the new F-35 fighter jet; and Congress approved a four-year extension of US loan guarantees to make it cheaper for Israel to borrow money on the international markets.

All this munificence is coming from the two dominant parties to the Quartet - the international group comprising the US, the EU, the United Nations and Russia. The Quartet's role is to champion the very two-state solution Israel is striving so strenuously to destroy.

In a further irony, the World Bank issued last week its latest report on the state of the Palestinian economy, concluding that its situation was so dire the Palestinian government-in-waiting, the Palestinian Authority, could not be considered ready for independent statehood. The report noted that the Palestinians were heavily reliant on foreign donors and that local private businesses, agriculture and manufacturing were all in decline.

With feigned obtuseness, the World Bank recommended that the PA increase exports to foreign markets, glossing over the biggest impediment to such trade: the severe restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of people and goods into and out of Palestinian territory.

As the Quartet has grown ever more silent in the face of Israeli transgressions, US politicians have stepped in with cynical manoeuvres to shore up Israel's intransigence and destroy any hopes of a peaceful solution.

Last week, for example, US lawmakers were reported to have put their names to a congressional resolution recognising the recent report of Israel's controversial Levy Committee. The report concluded that Israel was not occupying the West Bank and that consequently the settlements there are legal.

The topsy-turvy character of international diplomacy was acknowledged this month by a recently retired British ambassador to the Middle East. Tom Philips, who served in Israel and Saudi Arabia, writes in the latest edition of Prospect magazine that Europe and the US need to use "big carrots and big sticks" if there is to be any hope of reviving the peace process.

But Mr Philips believes the US is "genetically indisposed" to forcing change on Israel. He proposes instead choking off donor money to the PA so as "to put the full weight of the occupation on Israel, a burden I do not think they would be able to endure".

In another of the rich ironies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it now seems even some diplomats are concluding that the Palestinians will be best served by destroying the fledgling government that was supposed to be the harbinger of their independence.

The real obstacles to peace - Israel, its occupation and western complicity - might then be laid bare for all to see.

Via: "The National"

Israel's Irrational Defense Establishment

There is no great measure of rationality in the way the heads of the defense establishment are conducting themselves, quietly serving irrational leaders and divulging the bitter truth to us only after they take off their uniforms.

By Akiva Eldar
Published 02:05 30.04.12
Latest update 02:05 30.04.12
Courtesy Of "Haaretz Newspaper"

It's safe to assume that when former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin spoke of the "two messianics" leading the country, what he really meant to say was that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are acting on irrational motives.

During this week's Independence Day celebration, Barak - who invented the image of Israel as a villa in the jungle - suggested the prerequisites for being accepted into the rational leaders club, insofar as rationality is defined "in the Western sense of the word." He explained that it isn't enough for rational leaders to be "sophisticated and calculating, aspiring to remain in power, and aiming for their goals with unending cunning while continuously gauging the steps and intentions of their rivals." They must prove, he said, that "they are seeking peaceful solutions to the problems on the agenda."

Barak was referring, of course, to the ayatollahs who rule Iran. It would never occur to any of our leaders to employ calculation and cunning to break up a party while remaining in power. We clearly have a government that has been turning every stone in search of peaceful solutions.

The following questions ought to help Barak determine whether he and Netanyahu are indeed worthy of the title "rational in the Western sense of the word":

Would rational leadership deny the risk that intensifying the occupation and freezing negotiations with the Palestinians - combined with the growing solidarity of the general Arab public with their brethren in the territories, the regime change in Egypt, and the increased pressure on Iran - might put an end to Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region (according to foreign sources, of course )?

Is it rational to ignore the possibility that a change in U.S. government and the rise in oil prices will generate international pressure on Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East?

Would rational leadership toss out a peace initiative that has the support of all the Muslim countries, an initiative that offers our little state recognition within borders that will be accepted by the whole world, with some territorial exchanges, normalization and security arrangements?

Would rational leaders ignore the fact that the absence of a Syrian partner offers Israel an opportunity to come to a separate agreement with the Palestinians, without having to address demands that it give up the Golan Heights?

Does rational leadership - whose raison d'etre is to preserve its country's Jewish and democratic identity - spend massive resources dispersing its Jewish population in a manner that advances the post- or anti-Zionist concept of turning it into a binational state, or a leprous apartheid regime?

How rational is it to calmly accept the Knesset speaker's declaration that he would prefer a binational "Whole Land of Israel" to a Jewish state within the 1967 borders, while expelling foreign visitors who come to support a similar arrangement?

Would a rational leadership talk day and night about "Judaizing Jerusalem," while angrily attacking those who suggest returning to the West Bank the Arab neighborhoods that were annexed to Jerusalem after the Six Day War, and whose population constitutes a third of the city's residents?

Does anyone know a rational person who dares to seize his neighbor's land and then expects to find a judge who will take seriously his claims that expelling squatters from the property would have far-reaching social consequences?

Would a rational leadership gamble that the hybrid creature called the Palestinian Authority - which was meant to be part of an interim arrangement - will forever serve as the occupation's subcontractor?

What's rational about assuming that Greek taxpayers who can't make their own ends meet will pay the salaries of Palestinian teachers and policemen, instead of Israeli tycoons (the price, based on a cautious estimate, would be NIS 12 billion a year )?

The tragic failure of this test is not just the failure of Netanyahu and Barak; it is the failure of most of Israeli society. What's rational about "social leader" Shelly Yacimovich denying that there's a connection between peace and social welfare? The tens of thousands of Israelis who demonstrated to improve their quality of life, but who refused to say a word about life itself, are irrational men and women.

There is no great measure of rationality in the way the heads of the defense establishment are conducting themselves, quietly serving irrational leaders and divulging the bitter truth to us only after they take off their uniforms.

What Israeli Hasbara Won't Hide

Illustration by Carlos Latuff


Israel Seems To Be Waiting In Ambush For Any Threat Or Criticism Of It So It Can Pounce On Its Critics and Then Wait For The Next Provocation. This Is How We Prefer To Conduct Our Affairs These Days.

By Doron Rosenblum
Published 03:43 25.04.12
Latest update 03:43 25.04.12
Courtesy Of "Haaretz Newspaper"

When the Israeli universe was still young and full of hope, the cartoonist Dosh drew the iconic figure that reflected the collective self-perception: Srulik, a naive boy in a kova tembel (that sort of blue or khaki sailor cap with the brim turned down, sometimes still sighted on kibbutzim and in kindergartens ) whose intentions are pure and whose hands are clean. Were we called upon to update that icon today, possibly a great many Israelis would still cling to the self-image of an innocent child in a hostile world. However, in the spirit of the times - at least as it prevails in the government - the kova tembel has been replaced by a ghetto boy's peaked cap and the khaki shirt with a yellow star.

In the eyes of foreign observers, or people with more critical vision, Israel already looks different: perhaps like an impatient and hysterical military man with a skullcap on his head from an army of occupation, who is threatening or threatened, it is not clear which, and is prepared to land a resounding thwack in the face of any gentile or leftist he happens upon, and see himself as the victim of a pogrom. It's the work of the devil. This unflattering stereotype came out of nowhere recently and took on flesh and blood. The hysterical reactions to the affair of Lt. Col. Eisner - applause and support from broad sectors (which revealed their moral compass ) and from another direction the frantic efforts to dull the incident mainly for purposes of hasbara - "public diplomacy" - actually prove the extent to which this image really is representative. Indeed no hasbara effort can deny what is happening to Israel. It is becoming more and more of an ethnocentric, contrarian religious community with a shortening fuse and no tolerance or patience for any scrap of criticism or independent thought that doesn't line up with the most extreme marker on the right.

Israel is perceived as a brutal state living in well-fanned hysteria and existential anxiety, which sees any political process as a conspiracy, any move on the ground as a justification for war and any criticism as an anti-Semitic campaign. In the 64th year of its independence, there is a strange contradiction in Israel: on the one hand, the apparent acceptance of the perpetuity of the conflict and of the view that it has no solution, and on the other hand the loss of the skills and sense of strength needed to withstand this conclusion.

Instead of steeling itself in the face of a conflict that will last for generations, it seems Israel is only becoming more fragile and more sensitive to every touch, even the slightest. The shadow of mountains looks like mountains; anything that in some way benefits the Palestinians is perceived as a threat to us. Any act of demonstrative protest is considered an "airlift" by the Luftwaffe or a terrifying "flotilla" in the style of the Spanish armada, and every foreign observer is perceived as an enemy requiring an "operation" and a "confrontation." How does neurotic sensitivity like this accord with the apparent readiness for eternal war? Perhaps the psychiatrist of "The Big Brother" reality show has answers.

Israel appears enclosed in a bizarre egocentric bubble: On the one hand, in the outer shell there is relative security and quiet, which in a rare and wonderful way has been going on for three years now. However, from within, instead of a sense of strength and some calm, fears are seething and jumpiness and violence are bubbling over. In the absence of a positive vision and under a leadership that sends a message of contrarianism only, Israel just seems to be waiting in ambush for any threat or criticism of it so it can pounce on its critics and then wait for the next provocation. This is how we prefer to conduct our affairs these days.

This dissonant bubble - perhaps produced by the prime minister's personality and perhaps itself producing his leadership - cannot continue to exist in the long run. One day it will crack and break open: with a bang or a whimper, from within or without. But until then, to paraphrase Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks: If we discount the Arabs, the ultra-Orthodox, the Palestinians, Gush Dan, the demonstrators, the left, the center, Haaretz, The New York Times, Channel 10, Europe, Asia, Africa, U.S. President Barack Obama, the present and the future - our situation has never been better.

ZIONISM IS DEAD AND KICKING

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 AT 12:20PM GILAD ATZMON
By Gilad Atzmon

In a recent Haaretz article article, leadingIsraeli columnist Gideon Levy affirms that Zionism is pretty irrelevant as far as Israelis are concerned. Similar to the line I myself develop in The Wandering Who, Levy contends that Israelis do not understand what Zionism stands for. For them it is an archaic notion.

The meaning of it is simple. That which seems as a vivid 'Zionist' / 'anti Zionist' debate is in practice an internal Jewish Diaspora quarrel with no significant practical meaning.

Levy writes, "In 2012, the 64th year of the (Jewish) state, no one even knows for certain what remains of it (Zionism), what the role of Zionism is and how it is defined."

"Who is a Zionist?" asks Levy. "The truth is that there is no answer. Not because Zionism was not a just cause - it was, even if it was tainted by unnecessary injustices, and not because it didn't succeed. It was the greatest national success story of the 20th century. But that century is over and its greatest success story has been established. The national home arose, and now it is a regional power. Anyone who wanted to - about one-third of the Jewish people have - joined it, and the door remains open to the rest."

Zionism was clearly a Judeo-centric revolutionary idea, but as it seems, it achieved its goal in 1948. Hence, it isn't surprising that contemporary Israelis fail to grasp the meaning of Zionism. If early Zionists promised to transform the Diaspora Jew into a civilised being, the Israelis, for some reason, see themselves as 'civilised subjects'. They at least in their eyes, are the post revolutionary products.

Hence, Levy argues that "Zionism is no longer relevant, and its place is in the history books alone." He suggests that "Zionism's way has been lost to us (the Israelis). That was inevitable, because it has completed its task."

Similar to the line of thought I develop in The Wandering Who, Levy also differentiates between Israeli patriotism and Zionism. "Anyone who contributes to the state is a worthy citizen and a decent patriot. Anyone who contributes to its institutions is a philanthropist - this has no connection to Zionism. Anyone who is required to serve in its army, exactly like anyone who is supposed to pay taxes to it, is fulfilling his legal obligations. This has no connection to Zionism or its values."

However, as much as Levy is correct in his reading of the Israeli and the Israeli society, it may be possible that, being an Israeli, he misses the role of Zionism as a Jewish Diaspora collective symbolic identifier. The Jewish Statehas a clear and significant function within the contemporary Jewish Diaspora discourse. The vast majority of Diaspora Jews and Jewish institutions identify or affiliate with Israel and support its cause. It is also true that some Jews, are critical of Israel and its policies. A few of these Jews identify themselves as 'anti Zionists.' Yet, bearingLevy's observation in mind, the meaning of it all is that the debate between the Zionists and their Jewish opponents (i.e anti Zionists) has very little political significance for Israelis, Israeli politics and even Palestinians. This debate is there to help Diaspora Jews to identify themselves politically, spiritually and socially. It has very limited practical or pragmatic meaning if any at all.

But it also seems as if Levy ignores the huge impact of Zionists and Lobbies within Western politics. In the USA, it is AIPAC that dominates the country's foreign policy. Here in Britain, 80% of the leading party's MPs are CFImembers (Conservative Friends of Israel). The situation in France and Canada is similar. So as much as Zionism is foreign to Israelis, it is pretty relevant for Diaspora Jews.

With AIPAC pushing in the open for an American attack on Iran, Zionism seems to be a serious threat to world peace. And yet, somehow, it is the so-called Jewish Anti Zionists who go out of their way to silence any criticism of Zionist lobbies and Jewish power within Western politics.

As much as Levy is correct in suggesting that Zionism may be dead for Israel, it is certainly alive and kicking in theWest. It is probably the most influential and dangerous political school of thought. Especially because it has managed to drift away from the relatively modest notion of a 'promised land' into a globally belligerent expansionist ideology aiming at a 'promised planet.'

Gilad Atzmon is an international jazz saxophonist, novelist and writer.

Atzmon's album Exile was BBC jazz album of the year in 2003. He is known as the "hardest-gigging man in British jazz." His albums, of which he has recorded nine to date, often explore the music of the Middle East and humanist themes. He supports the Palestinian right of return and the one-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Atzmon writes about Zionism, Israel, Jewish identity politics, Israeli Lobby, Palestine and the Middle East. His latest book 'The Wandering Who-A Study of Jewish Identity Politics' was praised by leading and most relevant humanists, academics and writers. The book is now a best seller.

The Wandering Who? is now available at Amazon.com

Israel and The Walls That Surround It

Does The New Border Wall With Lebanon Highlight Israel's Precarious Relationship With Its Neighbours?

Inside Story
Last Modified: 02 May 2012 10:38
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

A wall is sometimes built to protect, sometimes to separate and occasionally to do both - but will Israel's latest project protect it or further seal the country's isolation in the region?

"Israeli isolation with its Arab neighbours started in 1967 in Khartoum with the three no's: No negotiations, no recognition and no talking to the Jewish state. But there is a saying that goes 'Good fences make good neighbours'." - Gregg Roman, the deputy director of the Gloria Centre

A new 'border wall' is going up in Israel, but this time it is in the north of the country, on the border with Lebanon. The six-metre high slabs of concrete and barbed wire are meant to avoid friction and protect from incoming fire.

Israel already has a security wall running along the border with Lebanon. But this one will only be one kilometre long, stretched between Metulla and the Lebanese village of Kfar Kila, and is actually very small in the context of the whole border.

Metulla is Israel's northern-most outpost and it is surrounded by Lebanon on three sides, which explains why Israel feels it needs extra protection there.

The country's newest frontier wall follows the construction or planned-construction of four others. These could eventually see Israel completely enclosed by steel, concrete and barbed wire.

The most famous and controversial of these is the 748km 'separation wall' encircling the West Bank. Israel says it is a necessary security measure that has deterred attacks from the Palestinian territories. But given that it runs inside the Green Line, which marks out Israeli and Palestinian territory, many see it simply as annexation of Palestinian land.

"The problem is not the wall itself; the problem is the placement .... Israel, from a military point of view, does not need this wall at all. It is not necessary ... because the city of Kfar Kila and the other high places of Lebanon dominate the plain of Al Hula." - Hisham Jaber, a Lebanese defence analyst

Adjoining that will be another new wall Israel is building along its 241km western border with Egypt. This is due for completion at the end of the year and Israel says it is a necessary deterrent against terrorism and illegal infiltration.

Then there is the 51km wall around the Gaza Strip that has succeeded in keeping Palestinians under siege, but has not stopped rockets being fired into Israel.

And then there is one more: announced by Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, in January that will be constructed along the border with Jordan. That wall is intended to curb migrant workers from entering Israel.

But when all these walls are completed, will they actually serve to separate Israel from its neighbours and even stoke tensions further?

Inside Story, with presenter Kamahl Santamaria, discusses with guests: Hisham Jaber, a former Lebanese military general, defence analyst and head of the Middle East Centre for Studies and Research, a think tank in Beirut; Gideon Levy, a columnist for Haaretz newspaper, a member of its editorial board and the author of The Punishment of Gaza; and Gregg Roman, the deputy director of the Gloria Centre, a former political adviser in the Knesset, and an official at the Israeli ministry of defence.

"In a very, very irrational way, Israel is doing anything possible in the last decade not be accepted in the Middle East and then to complain about all the dangers and all the risks and then to cover itself and surround itself with walls. I have nothing against walls but Israel should open up to the Middle East. In the first steps we should have a long time ago put an end to the occupation. But the occupation is not mentioned here as if it is a false major and everyone accepts it and now let's face the dangers which have a lot to do with the occupation. I don't say the occupation is the only reason why Israel is threatened but it is the main one."

Gideon Levy, the author of The Punishment of Gaza and a columnist for Haaretz

FACTS: ISRAEL'S BORDERS

• Israel has begun building a wall along its northern border
• That wall will be one kilometre long and around seven metres high
• It separates Israel's Metulla and Lebanon's Kfar Kila
• The wall replaces a wire fence that currently runs along the border
• Israel says the wall will protect Metulla from Lebanese attacks
• Israeli forces pulled out of Lebanon in May 2000
• The 'blue line' is the de facto border between Israel and Lebanon
• The ceasefire has largely been upheld along the border since the 2006 war
• Israel is also building a wall along its border with Egypt
• Israel says the new border wall with Egypt will be ready by the end of 2012
• Israel says fences deter terrorism and illegal infiltration into Israel