YNET: Abbas' strategic threat could be more dangerous than Hamas Op-ed: Palestinian leader's initiative to isolate Israel is not aimed at achieving a better starting point for future negotiations – but at putting an end to the Zionist enterprise. Michael Oren

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas proved that he is not a partner for peace.

• Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter  

And a Palestinian leader who accuses the State of Israel, which arose from the ashes of the Holocaust, of committing genocide in Gaza, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, has no intention of becoming a partner for peace either.

Different View

Abbas is a partner for peace after all  / Shimon Shiffer Op-ed: Despite historical distortions in Palestinian leader's aggressive UN address, Israel has no one better to negotiate with. Full op-ed

In his previous General Assembly speeches, Abbas denied the Jewish people's historical connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. But this time he conveyed an unprecedented message: He does not want negotiations – not even American-brokered talks – and is not interested in durable pace based on security arrangements and mutual recognition.

The fact that Israel doesn't have a partner for peace has been accepted by the Israeli public a long time ago. But now we are forced to acknowledge a new fact: That Abbas poses a danger which may be revealed as strategically more serious than the tactical dangers posed by Hamas.

His remarks at the UN on Friday mark the opening shot of a political Palestinian initiative aimed at isolating Israel in the international arena, delegitimizing it and imposing sanctions on it.

Abbas' plan basically sets an impossible ultimatum for Israel: He has asked the UN Security Council to impose a nine-month period of negotiations, during which the core issues will be discussed based on the 1967 borders, without security arrangements and with a solution to the refugee problem.

If Israel refuses to accept these conditions – and there is not a single Israeli government, even a left-wing one, which will be prepared to accept them – Abbas will turn to the International Criminal Court in order to impose sanctions on Israel as an occupying force of a UN member state.

Abbas' plan will be submitted to the Security Council and may be approved there as well, at least partially. Such a move has far-reaching consequences: The international community may impose boycotts on Israel which will inflict heavy damage on the economy and on Israelis' ability to travel around the world.

It's important to understand that these sanctions are not aimed at achieving better starting point for future negotiations – but at putting an end to the Zionist enterprise.

Although this move is a strategic threat to Israel, this doesn’t mean we don't possess the tools to deal with it. We must not sit idly by the in face of the strategic danger posed by Abbas. Just like the PA chairman is creating a route bypassing negotiations, through which he is forcing Israel to defend itself to the world, Israel must create, through an active move of its own, a route bypassing Abbas.

As part of this move, Israel will promote a political initiative which will maintain its vital interests and set borders which will secure our future and identity as a democratic and Jewish state. Leaving an open door for future negotiations over permanent agreements with the Palestinians will be possible – but only when there is a responsible Palestinian leadership which is willing to reach an agreement and capable of doing so.

We must not forget that we are not operating in a void. The United States and President Barack Obama are currently dealing with significant threats in our region, led by ISIS. When Obama said in his UN address that the establishment of a Palestinian state was part of the war on ISIS, he was basically demonstrating how the regional challenges are only increasing the pressure on Israel.

All this highlights the need for Israel to take action in the diplomatic arena as soon as possible. From my talks with senior US Congress members and top European diplomats, I believe that such an initiative will be received with a lot of interest – and will even gain support.

We must not wait for the point in which we have lost control over our future. The Zionist approach is to initiate for our future.

Michael Oren served as Israel's ambassador to the United States.

Israel Has Launched Long-Shot Attacks Before Iran should take heed: In 1967, a pre-emptive strike on Egypt seemed impossible too.

Last week, Israel's outgoing ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, sought to settle a long-running debate regarding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's willingness to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"Certainly," Mr. Oren told daily newspaper Haaretz, "[Mr. Netanyahu] was the one who succeeded in drawing the world's attention to the threat. . . . But this success is not enough. The question he faces is similar to the question that [former Prime Minister Levi] Eshkol faced in May 1967."

As a close confidant to the prime minister and an award-winning historian of the Six Day War, Mr. Oren's comparison of Mr. Netanyahu to Eshkol is an ominous one that shouldn't be ignored.

Throughout its short history, the state of Israel has repeatedly shocked the world with bold military operations previously considered impossible, unthinkable, or borderline suicidal. On June 5, 1967, Eshkol sent most of Israel's air force into Egypt for a surprise preemptive attack, which left less than a dozen warplanes to defend the entire homeland. In the six days that followed, Israel defeated multiple threatening Arab armies, changing the face of the Middle East to this day.

Since the Six Day War, successive Israeli leaders have signed off on daring operations that have entered the annals of history: the 1976 hostage rescue in Entebbe, Uganda, the bombing of Saddam Hussein's Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981 and the sneak attack to spoil Bashar al-Assad's own nuclear ambitions in 2007, to name a few. Premiers like Eshkol, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert embarked on each of these operations after becoming convinced that even their staunchest allies would not come to Israel's assistance.

In the face of such choices, forget the intelligence estimates and risk assessments. It ultimately takes a do-or-die, all-or-nothing mindset to make a decision which could either bring complete victory, or considerable military defeat and diplomatic isolation. In this context, Mr. Netanyahu not only views Iran as an existential threat comparable to the Nazi Holocaust—he also wishes to be remembered as the one who personally delivered its demise. On this point, sources close to the prime minister assert that he keeps in his desk drawer World War II-era letters from the U.S. War Department, which decline requests by the World Jewish Congress to bomb gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Amid turmoil now in Egypt, bedlam in Syria and musings of reform from Iran's newly elected President Hassan Rouhani, Mr. Netanyahu now fears that his campaign to stop Iran from going nuclear has been put on the international community's back burner. Israel's ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor, has repeatedly warned the Security Council that Iran's nuclear program is racing forward like an express train, passing diplomatic efforts that lag behind on the local route. Recent statements by the Netanyahu administration indicate they believe that Iran's nuclear train will arrive at its final destination by Nov. 2013 unless the international community intervenes.

Last month, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Yuval Steinitz revealed Israel's assessment that Iran is close to stockpiling 200 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium and repeated that acquiring 250 kilograms would constitute Mr. Netanyahu's so-called "red line." His assessment is in line with th International Atomic Energy Agency's May 2013 report, which alleges that Iran possessed approximately 182 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium. With Iran's current ability to stockpile roughly 15 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium per month, Iran could trigger a preemptive Israeli strike in less than four months.

Meanwhile, while Mr. Netanyahu may have faced resistance in the past to launching a preventative strike, current conditions at home and across the region may be the most optimal he has ever had. Since Jan. 2013, Israel has provoked Iran and its allies (at least) three times with airstrikes against weapons convoys destined to Hezbollah in Syria, albeit without any reaction. The incidents, which served to reduce fears of a regional conflagration, have clearly resonated with Israel's various security chiefs, who have refrained from voicing any concerns about a strike on Iran, unlike their predecessors.

On July 14, Mr. Netanyahu commenced a widespread public and back-channel diplomacy campaign to re-rally Israel's allies to commit to both a convincing military threat and additional economic sanctions against Iran. His hope is that such a stance by the world community would deter Iran's decision makers from taking advantage of Mr. Rouhani's transition period to advance the nuclear program beyond the point of no return. Iranian officials, meanwhile, have stated that nuclear negotiations with the West should be put on hold until after Mr. Rouhani's cabinet is inaugurated in August. It is Jerusalem's fear that by the time Iran and its negotiating partners agree on a timetable and venue for new talks, it may be too late.

Many Israeli pundits, as well as Ambassador Oren himself, have compared Mr. Netanyahu's diplomatic push to Eshkol's last-ditch efforts to convince Washington of the existential threats posed by Arab nations in the weeks before June 5, 1967. As in 1967, this is a conflict that Israel has been anticipating for years, building previously unused military capability and practicing its strategy in preparation for another surprise feat, which may ultimately shock the world once again.

Having recently announced its willingness to negotiate with President-elect Rouhani, the Obama administration should heed this history lesson, lest the U.S. and the international community be caught off guard by another Israeli-induced regional earthquake.

JEWISH PRESS: Ambassador Oren: Samantha Really, Really Cares about Israel Michael Oren knows his job. Never agitate the US. Don’t say Israel’s right when the US “knows” it’s wrong. It’s no wonder he praises Samantha Power, but must he say she “really cares” about Israel?

Samantha Power really cares about Israel, says Ambassador Michael Oren.
Photo Credit: White House video screen shot

Samantha Power, President Obama’s nominee to replace Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations, “cares deeply” about Israel’s security needs, Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren recently told The New York Times.

“Samantha Power and I have worked closely over the last four years on issues vital to Israel’s security,” he said. “She thoroughly understands those issues and cares deeply about them.”

Oren is as much a politician as he is a diplomat. He admitted he usually does not comment on presidential nominees until they are confirmed by the Senate.

So why did he have to go out of his way and tell The New York Times, Obama’s unofficial press agent, that Power is such a great fan of Israel, where 11 years ago she advocated calling for US troops to act as policemen?

Oren saw the need to defend the President and score points if she is confirmed by the Senate, even though the nomination of Power has left many Jewish groups and leaders on different sides of the fence.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) did not surprise anyone by strongly opposing her nomination, while the Conservative Jewish movement came out in favor of her, as did the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

The American Jewish Committee had no comment, and B’nai Brith said it was withholding approval of Power’s nomination until she addressed her earlier remarks under oath during Senate confirmation hearings.

“Israel has few real friends at the United Nations and at the top of the list is the United States, and it is really incumbent on the representative to be prepared, willing and able to rebuff and repel that kind of language,” said the group’s executive vice president, Daniel Mariaschin.

Power’s supporters have pointed out that she was on the front lines to work against anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations, particularly the Palestinian Authority attempt to win United Nations Security Council approval for becoming a full-fledged member of the United Nations. The Obama administration threatened to cast a veto, which in the end was not necessary because the PA was lacking one vote to win the necessary two-thirds approval for the motion to move to the floor of the General Assembly.

Power may “deeply care” about Israel. Every US political leader is “Pro-Israel” because every one of them knows what is good for Israel, much better than the dumb Israelis. The American government also knows what is good for Iraq, Egypt, Syria and almost every other place in the universe, including the moon.

Being “pro-Israel” is not a condition to be the American Ambassador to the United Nations. First and foremost, the Ambassador must be pro-United States.

But that is like being pro-Israel. Every one has his or her own meaning of what is good for America.

Samantha Power obviously thinks Obama is good for America, as did most of the electorate. She was one of his strongest supporters even before anyone heard of his becoming a presidential candidate in 2008.

She also thinks “engaging enemies’ is good for the United States. It is the “engagement” policy that helped bring then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare, two months after the beginning of the Arab Spring protests in Syria, that Assad is a “reformer.”

By the way, it was the same Clinton, when she campaigned against Obama for the Democratic party’s nomination for its presidential candidate, whom Power called a “monster.”

Power also has mouthed off at people whom she thinks are violating human rights.

She once not only called Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon violators of human rights, she also put them on the same level in her declaration against “Sharafat.”

When Power hears of human rights violations, she goes bonkers and always assumes the “other side” is to blame. That is why she backed the Muslims against the Buddhists in Burma.

The Canada Free Press wrote, “In her 2004 review of a book by the radical leftist Noam Chomsky, Ms. Power agreed with many of his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and expressed her own concerns about what she called the ‘sins of our allies in the war on terror,’ lumping Israel with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and Uzbekistan.

In 2007, she stated, the American government’s relationship with Israel “has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics….”

The problem with Power is not just her “invade Israel” policy that she advocated in her 2002 interview with a professor from, naturally, the University of California at Berkeley.

She is pro-American just like she is pro-Israel.

Anti-Americanism proves that the United States is wrong, in her opinion. Power stated in a New Republic article in 2003, “Much anti-Americanism derives from the role U.S. political, economic, and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others… We need a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States.”

She is a fighter for human rights, so much so that she likes the idea of using the American military to police Israel, the Balkans and Libya.

Interestingly, she never has said that the U.S. Army should patrol the streets of Iran.

Or Syria.

Or Saudi Arabia.

Stephen Colbert’s ‘chosen ally’Ambassador Michael Oren tries to hold his own during an appearance on the Report

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, played a good natured foil to Stephen Colbert’s over-the-top zingers during a Tuesday night appearance on the satirical faux-news program the Colbert Report.

Colbert opened the segment with a monologue castigating US President Barack Obama for failing to visit Israel.

“He can’t keep putting it off by saying ‘next year in Jerusalem’ at his annual Passover Seder… Obama thinks he can wipe out his shameful recording of never visiting Israel… by visiting Israel. It’s a shanda,” Colbert said, using the Yiddish word for embarrassment or scandal and referring to the president’s scheduled March 20 visit.

Among many jokes, Colbert said that Obama was scheduled to receive the Israel Medal of Distinction from President Shimon Peres during his visit, “but it’s not that great, once you eat the chocolate.”

After wondering, “Will Obama insult the Palestinians by eating the Israeli delicacy falafel, or will he insult the Israelis by eating the Palestiniandelicacy falafel?” Colbert introduced Ambassador Oren, who said, “Israel’s great!”

Oren then proceeded to solve (or create) some Jewish identity issues by replying to a “chosen people” comment by saying that “the chosen people is from the Bible, the Jews,” but Israel is the “chosen ally, the ultimate ally” of the United States in the Middle East.

The ambassador outlined the issues facing Israel — Syria, peace talks with Palestinians, Iran’s nuclear ambitions — and said they would be addressed in serious discussions between Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem.

Colbert said it must be “awkward” for Netanyahu, since he “wanted the other guy,” a reference to Netanyahu’s ostensible endorsement of Mitt Romney for president, but Oren replied that “Israel doesn’t get involved” in internal US politics and then defended Obama’s secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel as a “friend of Israel.”

When asked point-blank by Colbert, “What about Iran, when do you guys start bombing?” Oren ably deflected the question by stating, “No country has a greater interest than Israel in resolving the situation through diplomatic means.”

“If you do attack Iran, the Colbert Nation is right behind you, with just as many nuclear weapons as you admit to having,” Colbert said to close out the interview.

WSJ: The Iron Dome Military Revolution Historically, defensive measures lag behind offensive capabilities. Not so with Israel's new antimissile system. by Michael Oren

Two hundred years ago, during the War of 1812, British cannonballs slammed into the hull of the USS Constitution—and bounced off. "Huzzah," an American sailor shouted, "Her hull is made of iron!" In fact, "Old Ironsides" was constructed of sturdy pine and oak, and real ironclad ships didn't appear until a half-century later, when the Confederate Merrimack battled the Union's Monitor to a stalemate. Not even the most powerful shell could penetrate either warship's armor—a breakthrough in defensive technology.

Such revolutions are rare. Throughout the ages, defense has lagged behind offense. Medieval rulers thickened and angled their castles' walls to withstand and deflect artillery, but the walls inevitably crumbled. Knights tempered their armor only to be felled by crossbows and muskets. Allied tanks subdued German trenches in World War I, and German tanks in World War II outflanked France's Maginot Line.

Defenders were especially helpless against rockets, from the Nazi V-1s and V-2s to Iraqi scuds. When Iranian-backed terrorists in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip started firing thousands of rockets at Israel, the Israeli military was forced to mount costly counterstrikes in 2006 and 2008.

But today, the attacked in Israel are now trumping their attackers. That is because, in the spirit of Old Ironsides and the ironclads, Israel developed the Iron Dome antimissile system.

From drawing board to deployment in 2011, Israel completed the Iron Dome in a mere three years. The first two batteries—developed and financed entirely by Israel—took down dozens of Hamas rockets, making Iron Dome the first antimissile system ever to succeed in combat. The generous support of President Obama and the U.S. Congress enabled the construction of four additional batteries. Ultimately, 10 to 13 batteries and a full complement of interceptors will be needed to defend the entire country.

Intercepting supersonic projectiles in midflight is literally rocket science. Israeli engineers pulled off the feat by combining cutting-edge tracking radar with electro-optic sensors and mounting them on highly mobile, all-weather air-defense systems. Iron Dome can hit multiple types of rockets and missiles at ranges of up to 75 kilometers. It can also be relocated swiftly to new sites and radically different terrain. (As part of our vast alliance with the United States, we have offered to share this pioneering technology.)

Most ingeniously, the Iron Dome determines within split seconds whether an incoming rocket is headed for an open space or a populated area—and saves its fire for the latter case. Millions of Israelis live within the terrorists' range, with as little as 15 seconds to reach a bomb shelter.

By neutralizing most rockets headed for populated areas, the Iron Dome gives decision makers invaluable time to find diplomatic solutions. If salvos of rockets were pummeling Israeli homes, hospitals and schools, Israeli leaders would be under immense pressure to order ground operations that could yield significant casualties. By denying the terrorists a decisive offensive advantage, Iron Dome will save lives and prevent wars.

Before Israel's recent Operation Pillar of Defense, Gaza terrorists fired some 700 rockets and mortars at southern Israel, many of which were taken out by Iron Dome. Still Israel was forced to take action, mounting precise sorties against terrorists and launch sites. In turn the terrorists fired 1,500 rockets, some aimed at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These might have inflicted severe human and material loss, but Iron Dome downed nearly 85% of those headed toward populated areas.

Combined with Israel's world-class civil-defense system, Iron Dome thwarted the terrorists' aim to wreak intolerable damage. Consequently, Israeli leaders had the time and space needed to join with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in working out a cease-fire. More than 50,000 Israeli reservists who had assembled on Gaza's border returned peacefully to their families.

Iron Dome is thus a game-changer, but it isn't a game-ender. Terrorists on our borders have more than 70,000 rockets, and 15 of every 100 fired can still get through the Iron Dome. The danger even of conventional warheads is unacceptable, but nuclear warheads would pose an existential threat. That is why, together with the U.S., Israel has developed the Arrow to intercept orbital and suborbital ballistic missiles, and we have successfully tested David's Sling, a long-range rocket-defense system.

These innovations will not only protect Israel but enhance security for America and its allies world-wide. Yet no air-defense system is foolproof, and robust offensive capabilities remain necessary to protect Israelis from harm. Iron hulls once made war ships invulnerable, but the skies cannot be armored. At least Iron Dome, along with Arrow and David's Sling, makes them safer.

Mr. Oren is Israel's ambassador to the United States.

Michael Oren: The World Talks as Iran Acts to Destroy Israel The world wasted 10 years of Israeli warnings on Iran’s nuke program and another eight years before imposing belated sanctions, says Oren.

The world wasted 10 years of Israeli warnings on Iran’s nuclear program and another eight years before imposing belated sanctions, says Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States.

His op-ed article in The Wall StreetJournal was another implied hint that Israel cannot wait much longer before trying to delay Iran’s nuclear program with a military attack, and such articles by the ambassador to the United States presumably are coordinated with Israel's highest officials.

“Historically, Israel has exercised that right [to defend itself] only after exhausting all reasonable diplomatic means,” he wrote. “But as the repeated attempts to negotiate with Iran have demonstrated, neither diplomacy nor sanctions has removed the threat.”

Oren noted that Israel exposed to the world in 2002 that Iran built a secret nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz. Since then, “The ayatollahs systematically lied about their nuclear operations, installing more than 10,000 centrifuges, a significant number of them in a once-secret underground facility at Qom.

“Iran is also the world's leading state sponsor of terror. It has supplied more than 70,000 rockets to terrorist organizations deployed on Israel's borders and has tried to murder civilians across five continents and 25 countries, including in the United States… By providing fighters and funds, Iran is enabling Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to massacre his own people.”

Oren underscored that Iran has become a global terror threat even without nuclear weapons, and if they are acquired, it will be easier for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to carry out his policy stated last week that "the annihilation of the Zionist regime is the key for solving the world problems."

The Israelis ambassador, a native of the United States, said that Iran’s rhetoric makes it clear it has no plans for forfeiting its nuclear ambitions.   

“Iran will continue to drag out the negotiations while installing more centrifuges. These, according to the IAEA, are spinning even faster. The sanctions, which have dealt a blow to Iran's economy, have not affected the nuclear program. Meanwhile, more of Iran's expanding stockpile will be hidden in fortified bunkers beyond Israel's reach.”

Oren diplomatically wrote that Israel appreciates “the determination of President Obama and the U.S. Congress to advance the sanctions and their pledge to keep alloptions on the table” and reminded readers that “the president has affirmed Israel's right "to defend itself, by itself, against any threat," and "to make its own decision about what is required to meet its security needs."

Oren said that sanctions along with “a credible military threat—a threat that the ayatollahs still do not believe today – may yet convince Iran to relinquish its nuclear dreams. But time is dwindling and, with each passing day, the lives of eight million Israelis grow increasingly imperiled.

“The window that opened 20 years ago is now almost shut.”

M.Oren - What Happened to Israel's Reputation? How in 40 years the Jewish state went from inspiring underdog to supposed oppressor. MICHAEL OREN

This year Israel is celebrating . . . a series of accomplishments that have surely exceeded the expectations of its most visionary founders. It is one of the most powerful small nations in history. . . . [It] has tamed an arid wilderness [and] welcomed 1.25 million immigrants. . . . The Israelis themselves did the fighting, the struggling, the sacrificing in order to perform the greatest feat of all—forging a new society . . . in which pride and confidence have replaced the despair engendered by age-long suffering and persecution.

So Life magazine described Israel on the occasion of its 25th birthday in May 1973. In a 92-page special issue, "The Spirit of Israel," the magazine extolled the Jewish state as enlightened, robustly democratic and hip, a land of "astonishing achievement" that dared "to dream the dream and make that dream come alive."

Life told the story of Israel's birth from the Bible through the Holocaust and the battle for independence. "The Arabs' bloodthirsty threats," the editors wrote, "lend a deadly seriousness to the vow: Never Again." Four pages documented "Arab terrorist attacks" and the three paragraphs on the West Bank commended Israeli administrators for respecting "Arab community leaders" and hiring "tens of thousands of Arabs." The word "Palestinian" scarcely appeared.

There was a panoramic portrayal of Jerusalem, described as "the focus of Jewish prayers for 2,000 years" and the nucleus of new Jewish neighborhoods. Life emphasized that in its pre-1967 borders, Israel was "a tiny, parched, scarcely defensible toe-hold." The edition's opening photo shows a father embracing his Israeli-born daughter on an early "settlement," a testament to Israel's birthright to the land.

Would a mainstream magazine depict the Jewish state like this today, during the week of its 64th birthday?

Unlikely. Rather, readers would learn about Israel's overwhelming military might, brutal conduct in warfare and eroding democratic values—plus the Palestinians' plight and Israeli intransigence. The photographs would show not cool students and cutting-edge artists but soldiers at checkpoints and religious radicals.

Why has Israel's image deteriorated? After all, Israel today is more democratic and—despite all the threats it faces—even more committed to peace.

Some claim that Israel today is a Middle Eastern power that threatens its neighbors, and that conservative immigrants and extremists have pushed Israel rightward. Most damaging, they contend, are Israel's policies toward the territories it captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, toward the peace process and the Palestinians, and toward the construction of settlements.

Israel may seem like Goliath vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but in a regional context it is David. Gaza is host to 10,000 rockets, many of which can hit Tel Aviv, and Hezbollah in Lebanon has 50,000 missiles that place all of Israel within range. Throughout the Middle East, countries with massive arsenals are in upheaval. And Iran, which regularly pledges to wipe Israel off the map, is developing nuclear weapons. Israel remains the world's only state that is threatened with annihilation.

Whether in Lebanon, the West Bank or Gaza, Israel has acted in self-defense after suffering thousands of rocket and suicide attacks against our civilians. Few countries have fought with clearer justification, fewer still with greater restraint, and none with a lower civilian-to-militant casualty ratio. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza to advance peace only to receive war in return.

Whereas Israelis in 1973 viewed the creation of a Palestinian state as a mortal threat, it is now the official policy of the Israeli government. Jewish men of European backgrounds once dominated Israel, but today Sephardic Jews, Arabs and women are prominent in every facet of society. This is a country where a Supreme Court panel of two women and an Arab convicted a former president of sexual offenses. It is the sole Middle Eastern country with a growing Christian population. Even in the face of immense security pressures, Israel has never known a second of nondemocratic rule.

In 1967, Israel offered to exchange newly captured territories for peace treaties with Egypt and Syria. The Arab states refused. Israel later evacuated the Sinai, an area 3.5 times its size, for peace with Egypt, and it conceded land and water resources for peace with Jordan.

In 1993, Israel recognized the Palestinian people ignored by Life magazine, along with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the perpetrator of those "Arab terrorist attacks." Israel facilitated the creation of a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza and armed its security forces. Twice, in 2000 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians a state in Gaza, virtually all of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. In both cases, the Palestinians refused. Astonishingly, in spite of the Palestinian Authority's praise for terror, a solid majority of Israelis still support the two-state solution.

Israel has built settlements (some before 1973), and it has removed some to promote peace, including 7,000 settlers to fulfill the treaty with Egypt. Palestinians have rebuffed Israel's peace offers not because of the settlements—most of which would have remained in Israel anyway, and which account for less than 2% of the West Bank—but because they reject the Jewish state. When Israel removed all settlements from Gaza, including their 9,000 residents, the result was a terrorist ministate run by Hamas, an organization dedicated to killing Jews world-wide.

Nevertheless, Israeli governments have transferred large areas to the Palestinian Authority and much security responsibility to Palestinian police. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has removed hundreds of checkpoints, eased the Gaza land blockade and joined President Obama in calling for the resumption of direct peace talks without preconditions. Addressing Congress, Mr. Netanyahu declared that the emergence of a Palestinian state would leave some settlements beyond Israel's borders and that "with creativity and with good will a solution can be found" for Jerusalem.

Given all this, why have anti-Israel libels once consigned to hate groups become media mainstays? How can we explain the assertion that an insidious "Israel Lobby" purchases votes in Congress, or that Israel oppresses Christians? Why is Israel's record on gay rights dismissed as camouflage for discrimination against others?

The answer lies in the systematic delegitimization of the Jewish state. Having failed to destroy Israel by conventional arms and terrorism, Israel's enemies alit on a subtler and more sinister tactic that hampers Israel's ability to defend itself, even to justify its existence.

It began with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's 1974 speech to the U.N., when he received a standing ovation for equating Zionism with racism—a view the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the following year. It gained credibility on college campuses through anti-Israel courses and "Israel Apartheid Weeks." It burgeoned through the boycott of Israeli scholars, artists and athletes, and the embargo of Israeli products. It was perpetuated by journalists who published doctored photos and false Palestinian accounts of Israeli massacres.

Israel must confront the acute dangers of delegitimization as it did armies and bombers in the past. Along with celebrating our technology, pioneering science and medicine, we need to stand by the facts of our past. "The Spirit of Israel" has not diminished since 1973—on the contrary, it has flourished. The state that Life once lionized lives even more vibrantly today.

'American Jews boycotting Israeli settlements is terribly wrong'

"Sometimes it seems that we, Israelis and American Jews, not only inhabit different countries but different universes, different realities," Israel Ambassador to U.S. Michael Oren says • "At stake is nothing less than the unity of a Jewish people."

Israel Hayom Staff

Ambassador Michael Oren. [Archive]  |  Photo credit: AP

The divide separating American and Israeli Jews is growing, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren said on Sunday, adding that the unity of the Jewish people should be a primary concern for all Jews.

Speaking at the Jewish Council for Public Affairs Plenum in Detroit on Sunday, Oren discussed his three children — Yoav, Lia and Noam — and described himself as an Israeli father shocked that American Jews would consider boycotting Israel while his own children were looking for bomb shelters and managing recruits in the Israel Defense Forces.

"There are American Jewish concerns such as ensuring Jewish continuity, maintaining Jewish institutions, affording a Jewish education. All are genuinely serious concerns, and not just for American Jewish kids," Oren told the audience in Detroit, made up of leaders from all walks of Jewish life. "I was shocked, then, that on the very day that I spoke with my kids about their concerns in Israel, some American Jews were discussing a call to boycott products made by Israeli settlements in the West Bank."

Oren said that he followed the issue because it was his duty to do so as an ambassador, but that he reacted to it as an Israeli father with genuine Israeli concerns.

"Something is wrong here. Terribly wrong," Oren said of the growing distance between Israeli and American Jews. "No doubt, a majority of American Jews care deeply about the security of Israel and oppose those seeking to undermine it. And even some of those calling for boycotts do so out of a sense of caring — I’d say misplaced sense of caring — about Israel."

If Jews do not join together as brothers and sisters, Oren added, the issue will become much bigger than questions of politics or free speech.

"Let me be clear: At stake is not merely Israel’s policies or rights of American Jews to criticize them. At stake is nothing less than the unity of the Jewish people," he said. "Israel is our state, a work in progress in which every Jew can play a part. Of course, sovereignty is messy, and Jews can and will disagree about Israeli policies without necessarily loving Israel any less. Still, people often ask me, 'how do you define pro-Israel?' I have some elementary answers."

Oren then described for the audience what it meant to be "pro-Israel." A pro-Israel person, he said, "recalls what Jewish life was like without a Jewish state and works to ensure that there always will be a Jewish state." A pro-Israel person is also "grateful every day that he or she lives in a time in Jewish history when there is a proud and independent Jewish state."

But there is more to being pro-Israel, Oren added. A pro-Israel person sees Israel's flaws and conundrums and thinks critically about them, but nevertheless, Oren says, "the pro-Israel person also asks, 'how can I contribute to Israel, how can I enrich it and be enriched by it?'"

Three other stipulations make a person pro-Israel, Oren said. First, a pro-Israel person is aware that Israel is a tiny country living under a massive, deafening threat. Second, a pro-Israel person knows that making peace with the Palestinians constitutes a very real risk that the West Bank will devolve into a terror haven, just as Gaza did. Third, and finally, Oren said "a pro-Israel person takes pride in Israel’s incalculable successes."

The secret to the Jewish people's success, Oren stressed repeatedly during his speech, is the unity of the Jewish people. That means that the Jewish State of Israel and the broader, farther-flung tribe that is the Jewish people, must work together, not against each other, to be each other's lifelines.

"We are a small people, but we face big problems. We are a small people, with immense achievements. But we are a people. And because we are people, we have been able to overcome adversity. Peoplehood is the secret to our success," he said. "That's why the great task of our generation is to preserve our unity."

Students walking out Amb. Michael Oren's lecture

CBS & Simon - DOUBLE-SPEAK......

When the venerable CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” aired a segment critical of the Israeli treatment of Palestinian Christians last week, correspondent Bob Simon repeatedly suggested that Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren had crossed a line by contacting the network's top executive in advance to complain of a coming “hatchet job.”

"We didn't realize it would become so controversial,” Simon said in his introduction to the story, which featured an on-air clash between him and Oren. "I've never gotten a reaction before from a story that hasn't been broadcast yet," Simon told the ambassador during the segment.
But Simon’s apparent shock — and high dudgeon — at Oren’s conduct were nowhere to be found in a letter he wrote the ambassador before the taping, and which was provided to BuzzFeed by a political operative not party to the dispute who said he shared it because he thought it illustrated CBS doubletalk.
“Fortunately, we are still in the process of reporting the story, so [CBS News Chairman Jeff] Fager and I want to give you an opportunity to express your views and correct any misrepresentations or omissions which you apparently believe might have occurred,” Simon wrote, in a courteous missive on personalized “60 Minutes” letterhead, dated January 4. “Thank you and best wishes.”
Oren responded to Simon on January 11 with an equally courteous letter, saying he was “indeed concerned” about the planned segment and that he would like to “respond to the allegations raised” once he knew what they were.
All this is fairly common in the dance between reporters and sources. It’s not unusual for reporters to seek difficult interviews with innocuous correspondence. Less common is the theatrical outrage Simon expressed on air, but not in the letter, at Oren’s interest in shaping a story about his country.
And the courteous tone broke down during the taping of the interview in early February. As the tape ran, Simon confronted Oren with his complaints to Fager. Oren said the segment’s topic was “outrageous” and “incomprehensible” in the context of violence against Christians elsewhere in the region, and that Simon’s questions had "confirmed" his fears.
"Nothing's been confirmed by the interview, Mr. Ambassador, because you don't know what's going to be put on air," Simon responded.
And Oren dropped any hope that he could shape the segment in a February 13 letter CBS, also provided to BuzzFeed, written after the confrontational interview but before the episode aired.
“The interview not only confirmed my concerns about the segment but deepened them,” he wrote, calling Simon’s approach “a feebly disguised attempt to exploit Christians—and inflame religious tensions” without any “historical or diplomatic context."
Oren blasted “Mr. Simon’s lack of understanding of – or genuine interest in – the basic facts regarding Christians in the Holy Land,” and anticipated the segment “would be irresponsible, unfair, and beneath the standards of your program.”
Rather than blaming Israel, he wrote, CBS should have blamed the local Palestinian administration, which has control of major West Bank cities, and the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza. Israel’s critics respond that the Palestinian authorities are under ultimate Israeli control, and Palestinian Christian voices in the “60 Minutes” segment blamed Israel for their hardship.
And the policy argument aside, the story, when aired, did confirm the Israelis’ fears: It blamed the departure of Christians from the Holy Land primarily on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, not on Islamist movements there and across the Arab world.
And the segment proved as controversial as Simon teased in its opening, drawing praise from Israel’s critics and outrage from its government and its American allies.
The segment also made much of Oren’s concern, and infuriated the Israelis by, in particular, suggesting that Israelis are “very sensitive” on the subject of Christians because “tourism is a multi-billion dollar business there” and most tourists are Christian.
“The suggestion made by Mr. Simon on air that Israel's concern stemmed from a possible loss if tourism profits was deeply offensive and reminiscent of the basest cultural stereotypes,” said an Israeli embassy official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, who also defended Oren’s approach to the network.
“The Embassy fulfilled its fundamental duty to respond to credible information that the segment would be, like recent 60 Minutes reporting on Israel, extremely biased,” the embassy official told BuzzFeed. “In addition, 60 Minutes had not contacted a single Israeli official regarding the report on Christians.”
A “60 Minutes” spokesman, Kevin Tedesco, declined to comment on the correspondence between Oren and Simon, which can be seen below.

Israeli ambassador to the US on Israel's Christians

Here's Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren talking about Israel's Christians. Let's go to the videotape.

In WSJ, False Pro-Palestinian Letters Assail Ambassador Oren

Sometimes the importance of an argument can be seen in the ferocity of the distorted attack against it.

 

A few days after The Wall Street Journal published an Op-Ed entitled  "Israel and the Plight of Middle East Christians" (March 9, 2012) by Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, a deluge of irate  and distorted rejoinders by Palestinians and their partisan supporters filled the letters page -- with not one letter underscoring the merit of his important arguments.

 

Oren had simply stated the obvious -- that Israel treats its Christians with greater respect than any other country in the Middle East, but he was accused of all manner of sins. His detractors charged him with fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment, presuming to speak on behalf of people for whom he had no right to advocate, distorting the facts about Palestinian Christians and ignoring the discrimination Christians endure in Israel.

 

Not only were the attacks false, many of them were irrelevant. Christians aresafer in Israel than they are in any other country in the Middle East. That is an undeniable fact.

 

If Oren's decision to make this point offends Palestinians and their supporters in the U.S., perhaps they should rethink their strategy of using Palestinian Christians as a symbol to lambaste Israel. Now that the world has witnessed some clarifying catastrophes in Egypt and Iraq where Christians have been brutally murdered and driven from their homelands, it is clear this strategy has backfired. The chickens have come home to roost and none of the letters written in response to Oren's op-ed can shoo them away

.

 

There is no falsehood about Israeli policy that can stand in the face of the truth: that Christians have been beaten and run over by military vehicles in Egypt, arrested in Saudi Arabia for praying, and sentenced to death in Iran.  There can be no denying the firebombing of churches throughout the Arab and Muslim world.  The facts prove that for Christians, Israel is an island of tolerance in a turbulant sea of persecution.

---

Ambassador Oren reported that Christians are leaving Egypt and Iraq to avoid beatings and massacres inflicted on them by Muslim extremists. He reported that in Iran, conversion to Christianity is a capital offense and that Saudi Arabia "outlaws private Christian prayer."

 

All true.

 

He then made some other obvious points:

1. "As 800,000 Jews were once expelled from Arab countries, so are Christians being forced from lands they've inhabited for centuries."

 

2. "The only place in the Middle East where Christians are not endangered but flourishing is Israel. Since Israel's founding in 1948, its Christian communities (including Russian and Greek orthodox, Catholics and Protestants) have expanded more than 1,000%."

Oren then talked about Arab Christians serving in the Israeli government and in the military. He also noted that Israeli Arab Christians "are on average more affluent than Israeli Jews and better educated, even scoring higher on their SATs."

 

The ambassador then acknowledged that Israeli Christians do encounter intolerance in Israel, but he contrasted this intolerance with the hostility directed at Christians throughout the rest of the Middle East "where hatred of Christians is ignored or encouraged."

 

This is all true.  In contrast, four letters written in response were full of distortions, they included:

 

1. The PLO Response

 

The letter submitted by PLO representative Maen Rashid Areikat accuses Oren of presenting a "distorted and inaccurate account of Christians in Palestine" and of omitting Israeli violations against the Palestinian Christian community. His first gambit is to condemn Israel for revoking the residency rights of Palestinians living in Jerusalem.

 

While it is true that Arabs, regardless of their religion, can and do lose their right to live in Jerusalem after being away from the city for extended periods of time, they can easily avoid this problem by applying for Israeli citizenship. In fact, there is an increase in such applications whenever it looks like East Jerusalem may become part of a Palestinian state.

 

In January, 2008, McClatchy Newspapers reported an increase in the number of applications for Israeli citizenship on the part of Arabs living in Jerusalem.McClatchy told the story of Salim Shabane, a Palestinian living in Jerusalem who applied for Israeli citizenship. McClatchy reported:

In 2007, according to the Israeli Interior Ministry, Shabane and 500 other residents of East Jerusalem requested Israeli passports, up from 200 in each of the previous three years.

 

Shabane's decision to seek full Israeli citizenship reflects the awkward reality for Arabs in Jerusalem: Though many want to see an independent Palestinian state, they don't want to be part of it.

 

"My work and my life are inside Israel," Shabane said. "I am very proud to be an Arab and Palestinian, but for practical reasons I'm not able to be part of the Palestinian Authority."

 

Though the number of Arabs seeking passports is relatively small, there's an uncomfortable acknowledgement, especially among the Arab middle class in Jerusalem, that their lives could get substantially worse under Palestinian rule."

For more information about this phenomenon, go here and here.

 

Areikat also condemns Israel for imposing "an onerous permit system to access the Holy Selpucher in Jerusalem or the baptism site on the River Jordan. Even family visitations between Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem are heavily restricted."

 

Does Areikat truly expect Israel to give Palestinians living in Gaza, a territory controlled by Hamas -- a terror group that denies Israel's right to exist and which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis -- free and unfettered access to the West Bank and Jerusalem? Gaza is a regular source of rocket attacks that terrorize Israeli citizens.  Even this very day.

 

And does he really expect Israel to allow Palestinians living in the West Bank free and unfettered access to Jerusalem in light of the ongoing hostility between Israel and the Palestinians? This is simply ludicrous. In times and areas of conflict, checkpoints and permit systems are simply a lamentable fact of life.

 

Areikat also invokes the vandal attacks on Christian properties in Israel to prove the state does not respect the rights of Christians. Such attacks were detailed in the Jerusalem Post a leading Israeli paper, which reported the following:

In comments made to The Jerusalem Post, a spokesman for Interior Minister Eli Yishai said the minister views any harm inflicted on the different religious congregations in the country, "and certainly on the Christian community," very seriously.

 

He added that Yishai will not allow such incidents to become routine and will act together with relevant ministry and government officials, as well as law enforcement authorities, "to eradicate the phenomenon and bring the criminals responsible to justice."

Such attacks are despicable and the Israeli government must do all it can to catch the perpetrators -- whoever they are. But for Areikat to invoke them as if they are evidence of an indifference toward Christian well-being in Israel is the height of hypocrisy.

 

Does Areikat think we have forgotten what has happened to churches andChristians in the Gaza Strip under Hamas control? Does he think we do not know that the constitution of the Palestinian Authority states "The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be the main source of legislation" and that Shariah requires Christians to behave in a subordinate to Muslims?

 

To top it off, Areikat asserts that there has been "a long history and deeply rooted culture of tolerance and integration in Palestine." This is tenable if one ignores the anti-Jewish riots of 1929 and 1936 and the ongoing hostility directed at Christians in Palestinian society documented by Justus Reid Weiner and the violence directed at the First Church of Bethlehem during the First Intifada.

 

This church, which was recently visited by officials from the Palestinian Authority who said it was not a recognized legitimate church, was subject to 14 firebomb attacks in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In addition to guiding people to their seats for worship, ushers in this church became adept at extinguishing firebombs with buckets of water kept in the sanctuary just for that purpose. Its pastor has been shot at, and hit once in the shoulder. If this is tolerance, then what does intolerance look like?

 

The evidence of anti-Christian hostility in Palestinian society is simply overwhelming. Just how stupid does Areikat think we are?

 

2. Reverand Robert O. Smith's Response

 

Another letter, this one submitted by Rev. Robert O. Smith, a high-ranking official from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), came close to rivaling Areikat's letter in its deceptiveness. (Note: Rev. Smith was writing as a private citizen and not as a representative from ELCA). In his letter, Smith wrote that Oren's letter "stands in sharp disagreement with the perspectives shared by those he presumably wants to protect. Mr. Oren seeks to speak for Palestinian Christians before he has spoken with them."

 

Clearly, Rev. Smith did not read Oren's piece very closely. It begins with a description of a conversation Oren had with Christians in Bethlehem about the fear they had of Hamas. Oren has spoken with Christians in the West Bank.

 

And when Smith says that Oren's piece "stands in sharp disagreement with the perspectives shared by" Palestinian Christians, he is simply being disingenuous. The fact is Palestinian Christians do speak about fears of Muslim oppression.

 

For example, at the recent Christ at the Checkpoint Conference organized by Bethlehem Bible College, Pastor Nihad Salman testified to the concerns Christians in the West Bank have regarding Muslim hostility toward Christians. After speaking about the impact of high unemployment on Christians in the West Bank, he said that because Christians comprise only one or two percent of the population in the territory, they are affected psychologically.

You are afraid. And we have many times when people are afraid of what is happening in the Arabic Spring. Will the Muslims you know, take over? If it is true or not true. Whatever the outcome of that... what will happen? Will after Saturday come Sunday? So this is the type of thing that makes Christians want to run away.

The reference to Saturday and Sunday is to a well known proverb in the Middle East about Muslim hostility toward Jews (whose day of rest is on Saturday) and Christians (whose day of rest is on Sunday).  The question Pastor Salman is asking is, given that Islamist groups are coming to power across the region ("Arabic Spring") and having already persecuted and expelled their Jews ("Saturday"), will these Arab countries now increase their persecution of Christians ("Sunday")?

 

Also at this conference, another Pastor, Labeeb Madanat said, "There are pressures. There is discrimination. The dhimma system is a system of discrimination. We do not deny that."

 

How exactly does this testimony offered by Palestinian Christians -- at an event they organized -- contradict what Oren stated? And does their testimony foment anti-Muslim sentiment the way Rev. Smith said Oren's piece does?

 

What is so alarming for Rev. Smith, who has worked assiduously to use Christian suffering as a symbol to focus attention on Israel is that Christians from the Middle East have become increasingly vocal about the suffering they endure under Muslim rule.

 

For example, at a recent conference about Christians in the Middle East(organized by CAMERA), Juliana Taimoorazy, founder of the Iraqi Christian Relief Council reported stated that since June 2004, churches in Iraq have been bombed more than 80 times. Sometimes, multiple churches would be bombed at the same time as part of a coordinated attack. "Most of these attacks happened on Fridays, marking the day of Islamic prayer," she said. Clergy have been routinely kidnapped and killed on a regular basis. Even children have been killed by Islamists, Taimoorazy reported.

 

And at a recent prayer event held at a Coptic Church in Rhode Island, Dinaa Girgis called detailed the suffering Christians endure in Egypt. An article about the event, written by this analyst states the following:

Dr. Douaa Girgis, who described the events in Egypt before, during and after the Jan. 25 uprising. After describing the attack on the church in Alexandria that took place on Dec. 31, 2010, Girgis told the audience, that attacks against Christians are a common thing in Egypt.
"It happens pretty much on a weekly basis," he said.
Girgis told the audience about young girls who are kidnapped, isolated from their families and forced to convert to Islam. The government, she said, is purposefully not prosecuting the perpetrators of kidnappings.
She told the audience about the discrimination that Christians endure in Egypt. Christian physicians are not allowed to practice certain specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology because Muslim law prohibits Christians from touching Muslim women.
Discrimination and regular attacks against Christians have prompted 100,000 Copts to leave Egypt in the past year, she said. Things are likely to get worse in light of recent parliamentary elections in which the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists won approximately 75 percent of the seats. With this victory, Christians could be forced to pay discriminatory taxes, otherwise known as the jizya.

All of this testimony supports Oren's premise.

 

3. Arab Christian Response from Bethlehem 

 

And the distortions just keep on coming. Fr. Jamal Khader, a Catholic priest living in Bethlehem (and signer of the dishonest Kairos 

 

Perhaps this is true.  And if it is, it is unacceptable.  But discrimination in Israel is certainly not state policy.  Racism and xenophobia exist everywhere in the world.  They are regrettable elements of human nature and should be combated.  However, Israeli law does not condone discrimination.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the laws of many neighboring states.

 

It is also important to acknowledge the factors that contribute to Israeli fear of Arabs. Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab countries who refuse to recognize the Jewish state. This reality must have an undeniable impact on attitudes toward Arabs in Israel. In the long run, the best hopes for good relations between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs (of all faiths), is for Arabs and Muslim leaders to make peace with the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

 

Conclusion

 

There are two points on which Ambassador Oren may have misstated statistics, though neither instance alters the overall accuracy of the individual point or the larger argument.

 

It appears the number of Coptic Christians who have fled Egypt may be lower than he stated. He wrote that 200,000 Christians have fled the country, butrecent estimates put that figure at approximately 100,000 since Mubarak's ouster. An NGO report issued in September 2011 stated that this number could reach 250,000 by the end of the year. Thus, there's no doubt Coptic Christians have faced intense persecution and have fled in substantial numbers.

 

Secondly, he states that "the West Bank is hemorrhaging Christians." In fact, the population of Christians in the West Bank has risen from approximately 40,000 in 1968 to approximately 60,000 today. It should also be noted that in the late 1940s, there were approximately 60,000 Christians living in the West Bank and that this population declined to approximately 40,000 just prior to the Six Day War in 1967. This decline in absolute numbers took place under Jordanian, not Israeli rule. This indicates that Israeli control of the West Bank has actually made life safer for Christians in that territory, a point that affirms Oren's basic point.

 

Despite these minor distractions, Oren's premise was unassailable. This may help explain why it prompted such an angry reaction. The Wall Street Journal publishedfour letters in response to Oren's piece. It seems there was an organized letter-writing campaign against him.  Now there must be a campaign of truth.