Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Friedman made those comments during a briefing last week at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs under the headline: The Trump Plan: The New American Approach

In his speech, the US envoy shed light on how the Trump plan came about, what principles and considerations guided its architects, and what the lessons of past plans taught them 

Even though some like to dismiss Friedman as "the settlers' ambassador," it is clear from his comments that the Trump administration was keen on not being beholden to any particular party. Yes, Trump may be the most pro-Israel US president Israel has ever had, but he was not going to accept dictates. 

Friedman, who as a private individual is indeed very supportive of the settlement enterprise, knew from the get-go that he would not let his personal views play a role in doing his job in the administration. "Regardless of whether the settlements are just or not, they are a fact that exists," he has often said. He has never seen his role as ambassador as a means to promote the settlements.

The Trump plan is based on realism, Friedman insisted throughout his speech.

 "We start, we look at this issue with a great deal of humility, based upon the fact that we are not smart enough to know what's going to happen in this region tomorrow, a year from now, or 10 years from now," Friedman said. "In 2005, eight thousand Israelis who are living in the Gaza Strip, about as remote from central Israel as you can get, I've been to Israel at that point, I think, I don't know, maybe fifty times. I think I've been to Gush Katif once and those fifty times you would think if there's any place where you could easily evacuate eight thousand people it would be in Gaza. And it wasn't easy. It was the farthest thing from easy. I watched those videos of soldiers crying with the residents and the enormous strain it took upon the Israeli people. Why would we ever want to put Israel through that again? Especially on a level of a dimension far greater than ever happened in Gaza?"

Regarding the borders, the US team wanted to be realistic, and unlike what many have suggested, their point of reference was identical to that of previous administrations: that Israel should in principle withdraw from the territories it had captured. 

At the briefing last week, Friedman made it clear that the peace team understood that Israel had to make major concessions. 

"What we do accept is that there are several million people living in Judea and Samaria, who do not accept Israeli rule or claim not to accept Israeli rule, whose life is suboptimal given the challenges of security that exists and they deserve better ... But I would not underestimate the amount of courage it takes to put out a map of a Palestinian state. You know to those people who say well, you know, it's not big enough – it,s double the footprint, it,s double Gaza, it connects the two, and I can tell you plenty of people that saw this map on the Israeli side and when they first saw it, they gasped and asked what is that that you put there in the middle of Israel," Friedman said. 

"We've also said that there needs to be a system of laws in place that protects human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of the press – to create a real democratic society. Why? Because at the end of the day, those are the only societies that last," he continued. 

But the US peace team did not come to those conclusions on their own. Despite the many Jewish members on the team, most of them live in New York, and they don't live and breathe the complex reality of the Middle East. 

That is why right at the start of the process, the peace team realized it had to use local experts.

One of them, as Friedman revealed, was Gold, who served as Israel's UN ambassador, Foreign Ministry director general and as a close adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for many years, and today he is the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.  

Unlike the prevailing approach in the defense establishment and academia, in the JCPA, scholars have for years placed their focus on making sure that any peace deal would result in defensible borders for Israel.

Another focus, which has made Gold a world-renowned expert in his field, is Jerusalem. Gold's book, The Fight for Jerusalem discusses the effort undertaken by the Arab world to deny the ties of the Jewish people to their capital.

It has been translated into many languages, including Chinese. It became a bestseller in the United States, and every member of Congress received a copy. 

Gold turned the battle over Jerusalem to the battle of his life. He has crisscrossed the world to explain what the consequences of dividing Jerusalem would be, not just on Israel but also for Christian holy sites. Several years ago he added a PowerPoint presentation to the book tour, and this is how the ties to the peace team were forged.

Even before Trump was elected, Gold, as the director general of the Foreign Ministry, made initial contact with Friedman, who was advising the future president on Israel during the campaign. He secretly met with Friedman and showed him the two flagship documents : Defensible Borders for Israel and the Fight for Jerusalem. 

After Trump was elected and the peace team started working on the plan, the ties between the two became stronger. Only a handful of people close to Gold knew about the advice that he was dispensing to the administration. "He played a very important and significant role in this process and in one that I would say was irreplaceable. So Dore, you have mine and the United States' gratitude for all the work that you did," Friedman said at the briefing last week. 

In March 2018, Gold appeared before lawmakers in the US Capitol and displayed his presentation on Jerusalem. The event generated interest in the capital and ultimately resulted in Gold being invited to the White House.

At the request of two of the architects of the peace plan, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, he arrived at their offices the very same day to give the same presentation. The meeting lasted 90 minutes and spawned a long and secret relationship between the two sides until the peace plan was finally revealed.

Gold would occasionally brief Netanyahu on the content of the talks he was holding with the administration and got a green light from the prime minister to continue. 

"Most of the meetings were held in Israel, but quite a few were held at the White House," he said. 

Gold even introduced the peace team to a former senior Israeli official who helped them on various matters. Gold won't give away the name of the officer, and even today he says he will not divulge more than a small fraction of what unfolded in his talks with the US officials over the past three years. 

But even the little information he has provided Israel Hayom reveals a lot. As an expert on Wahhabism, the radical Islamic school of thought that has become dominant in Saudi Arabia, Gold told US officials that the focus on Jerusalem by Muslims is a consequence of "imitating Judaism."

Since the US peace team considers Saudi Arabia as one of the main players in implementing the peace plan, this was probably information that made their work easier

Gold further reveals that throughout the talks over the plan, there was the suggestion of placing the Mount of Olives under Palestinian sovereignty. "I told them that the Mount of Olives is not just an old Jewish cemetery but also a vibrant Christian site with great historical significance. Relinquishing that site could trigger widespread discontent among evangelical Christians, who are among Trump's most important voters," Gold said. 

When you pore over the details of the plan, it,s clear that the key themes articulated by Gold and his team at the JCPA were incorporated into the tenets of the Vision for Peace. 

The Trump plan focuses on an almost-forgotten paper called The Map of Israel's Interests. 

In a departure from former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, who both offered an almost total withdrawal to the Green Line, the map of interests that was devised by the IDF in the 1990s offers the Palestinians much less territory. This is very much what Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had in mind: the Jordan Valley and its surrounding area are to be annexed to Israel, as well as critical points in Judea and Samaria. 

"It was important for me to show them my approach, that security-critical areas had to be with Israeli sovereignty," Gold said. Judging from what emerged, Kushner and the others on the peace team accepted Gold's position in full.

Unlike other proposals, all the communities and security-critical zones are designated in the Trump plan as areas that are to come under full Israeli sovereignty. 

"We presented the Americans with what most Israelis believe in," Gold said. "For example, they read the book  Jerusalem: Delusions of Division by Israel Hayom columnist Nadav Shragai, which detailed the many dangers that the partition of the city would entail. It's not that they actually wanted to divide the city, but the book gave them the ammunition they needed and the rationale for why it would be problematic." 

"I felt like the librarian who had to find the Americans the relevant material so that they could make decisions. But I also felt that I was carrying out an important job and fulfilling my duty to my country and people." 

Even though he had the ability to influence the provisions of the plan, and even though its basic tenets match his worldview to a large degree, Gold makes it clear that not all of Israel's requests have been met.

He would have preferred that the plan gave the Palestinians less territory and he is less than thrilled about the prospect of establishing a Palestinians capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem. 

"This plan comes with costs, but we look at the cost-benefit analysis. Would anyone have imagined such a plan being rolled out by an American administration several years ago? And a plan that endorses Israeli sovereignty on the Jordan Valley? I would have preferred if we got this for free, but we have to be realistic." 

All other US peace plans were left on paper. Are you sure this plan will actually be implemented? 

"I am 100% certain that the plan will be implemented because the overarching principle of this administration is to deliver on promises, and Trump has done so time and again. Israelis will have a hard time getting over the legacy left behind by the posture of other administrations, from [from former secretaries of states] James Baker to John Kerry. But I believe that we can trust the people in the administration. I don't think the implementation will be different than what has been laid out in the Vision for Peace. 

Israel will extend sovereignty but a new US administration, in a year or in five years, may not recognize this. The what? 

"That's a possibility that always exists, but I hope this is irreversible. In practice, a new reality will have been formed, one that will not be easily undone. President Dwight Eisenhower didn't undo President Harry Truman's recognition of Israel."

Ambassador Friedman said that Israel would not take steps to extend its sovereignty before the March 2 election, and so has Jared Kushner. Do you think that Israel might still do something before then? 

"I think it is possible to take partial steps to apply sovereignty. The Americans will not go out against that if we do something in the near future."

The post 'We presented the Americans with what most Israelis believe in' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The event was hosted by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which presented its recent study delving into the legal, security and cultural implications of the crisis, titled "The Migration Wave into Europe: An Existential Dilemma."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Session chairwoman Fiamma Nirenstein, who edited the study, told Jewish News Syndicate that "the crisis is indeed existential for Europe, and this is precisely why ambassadors are searching for answers." The Jewish state, she said, "deals with many of the same challenges, yet has prevailed in maintaining a clear national identity," while at the same time securing its own security interests.

Nirenstein, a former Italian parliamentarian who immigrated to Israel in 2013 and is now a senior fellow at the JCPA, said that "Israel has proven that it can export its knowledge on how to deal with difficult problems such as terrorism. Europeans recognize this and are now inclined to hear whether Israel can provide useful insights into this new problem, which threatens the very nature of Europe as a continent with Western ideals."

Discussion at the event was comprehensive, but calm – unusually so for a topic that has become hyper-charged across the European Union. Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, director of JCPA's Project on Regional Middle East Developments and former head of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate's Research Division, addressed the security implications of the immigration wave.

Kuperwasser called out European governments for not properly dealing with the extremist organizations already operating in their countries, noting that indoctrination toward violent extremism is rampant in Islamic education in Europe, in the European prison system and among converts to Islam.

"We must improve intelligence and counterterrorism practices," he said, though noted that "much has been accomplished here already."

Kuperwasser also warned against turning a blind eye to what he called "soft" radicalism. Issues that might not seem problematic now, he said, could become much more so in the future.

"Europe must say that it rejects all forms of radicalism, whether terrorism or softer forms of radicalism," said the Mideast expert. As an example, Kuperwasser noted that many Muslims adhere to an Islamic doctrine that calls for them to be less aggressive while living under the sovereignty of non-Muslims, with the belief that they will later become rulers themselves.

"Just because they currently live as a minority in Europe," he said, "does not mean that Muslims have given up the idea that Islam should one day be in the majority."

Ethical principles at stake

Dr. Lars-Uwe Kettner, the legal counselor to the German Embassy to Israel, said that Germany's open policy on immigration is based on humanitarian considerations. "We took a strong stand towards human dignity," he said. He noted, however, that the challenges Germany's approach involves make it "very important that we stay in discussion with each other on these issues."

Germany has been among the most liberal European countries in its approach to immigration and has encouraged other European countries to share the immigration burden. This policy has angered many nations, particularly those in Eastern Europe who have been less eager to open their borders, and has led to political backlash.

Hungarian Ambassador to Israel Levente Benkő noted that this phenomenon can be seen all over Europe.

While it is difficult to maintain "politically correct discourse on this issue," he said, the inability of European governments to come up with suitable answers is giving rise to political extremism in Europe. This, he said, has been one of the unexpected byproducts of the immigration issue.

"There are parties coming out of nowhere with controversial answers that do not contribute positively to this problem. If the mainstream is unable to deal with this issue, that will give rise to parties on the extreme Left and the extreme Right," said Benkő.

Ambassador Martin Stropnicky of the Czech Republic said the problem is arising in large part not only because of the sheer number of migrants, but because "most of the people that are immigrating [to Europe] now do not want to accept our cultural milieu, but want us to accept theirs," he said. "And that is not acceptable."

According to Israel Prize laureate Professor Asa Kasher, co-author of the IDF Code of Ethics and a JCPA fellow, there is an ethical principle at stake when it comes to the preservation of national identity.

Kasher addressed the need to maintain "proportionality" when deciding how many migrants to accept. He insisted that nobody should be "indifferent to human suffering," including the suffering of migrants, yet at the same time, he said states have a national, cultural and sometimes religious identity that should be preserved.

"States have a right to maintain their identity," said Kasher. "That means they have a right to stop others from taking steps that jeopardize that identity."

Given that European countries cannot absorb unlimited numbers of refugees without jeopardizing their own identities, Kasher suggested that a more appropriate humanitarian approach might be to invest effort and money in the countries migrants are fleeing.

"We can spend a lot of money on naval forces stopping them from coming" to Europe, he said, "but maybe it is more effective to spend the money building a hospital or a school that will help encourage those who are suffering to stay and not to immigrate."

Sharing security concerns

From ethical and moral considerations, the discussion turned to the legal aspects of the crisis.

According to former legal adviser and director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry Alan Baker, while there may be moral and ethical reasons to accept migrants, there is "zero legal obligation" to do so under international law.

"There is a dichotomy between the legal obligations of sovereignty and the moral issue of permitting freedom of movement between one country and another," said Baker.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations and current JCPA president Dore Gold praised the working session, noting that issues such as terrorism and migration are "changing the way people look at the relations between the Middle East and Europe."

In particular, Gold noted that "Israel and Europe are now sharing the same set of security concerns they did not have before."

Superior Israeli intelligence on Islamic State, he added, as well as the natural-gas resources discovered off Israel's coast in recent years, are positively impacting the way European nations look to and rely on Israel.

"Israel must be prepared for a new paradigm of relations with Europe," said Gold.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post EU envoys seek insights from Israel on coping with migrant crisis appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The book reveals PACBI's intentions of political warfare against Israel, illustrated by the movement's links to terror groups, and calls out the movement for "masquerading as human rights."

According to Diker, project director for the Program to Counter Political Warfare and BDS at the JCPA, PACBI is an "anti-Semitic organization that sits with five designated terror organizations together on the BDS national committee in Ramallah."

PACBI, he explained, "exploits international figures, groups and activists to achieve its own Palestinian anti-Semitic and terror linked goals of destroying Israel."

While masquerading as a grassroots coalition of European and American pro-Palestinian organizations that rally for justice, equality and human rights, Diker told JNS, "in fact, PACBI is not pro-Palestinian at all." He said "their goal is not to establish two states but to replace Israel through non-military means, pursuing the same goals as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and accusing Israel of being an apartheid entity that should not exist."

According to Diker, the campaign is "a mere expression of a 50-year old political warfare strategy of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat."

Today, PACBI is largely orchestrated from Ramallah, and sits on committees together with Hamas and other Islamic movements, which are also constituent members of the BDS National Committee.

Even the Palestinian "March of Return," the weekly mass protest campaign along the Israel-Gaza border in which "Hamas operatives are sent to the fence to kidnap and kill Israelis," noted Diker, "is a PACBI strategy by steering committee member and well-known Hamas supporter Haidar Eid."

Those who care about human rights and academic freedom should not be fooled, warned Diker. "These boycotts violate the most sanctified principle of academia – namely, the free and civil exchange of ideas," he said. "And that is a privilege that Palestinian students enjoy in Israel."

Moreover, cautioned Diker, radicalizing student populations towards cultural boycotts, "thereby violating the very principle that they themselves enjoy on their universities," was a strategy employed by Nazis against Jews before it engaged in the Final Solution against the Jews.

"This incitement is the worst form of hatred, racism and collective anti-Semitism against the Jewish people," affirmed Diker. "And we are seeing this same strategy being used by NGOs against Israel in the name of human rights."

'The European state of mind'

While PACBI may be more successful among campus populations, where students do not yet understand that these boycotts are to "eradicate the Jewish collective," said Diker. In the case of Eurovision, PACBI was unsuccessful, as the Icelandic BDS-supporting team failed in their efforts of preventing and then disrupting the song contest in Tel Aviv.

Following Iceland's pro-Palestinian display of Palestinian flags at Eurovision, PACBI rejected their protest on Twitter, calling it a "fig-leaf gesture of solidarity from international artists crossing our peaceful picket line."

Diker viewed Iceland's display as "revealing PACBI's weakness in its international efforts to try to prevent and sabotage Eurovision" and applauded the European Broadcast Union for taking steps to "deter political acts" by warning participants of disqualification if they do not follow Eurovision's rules, thereby "underscoring its serious commitment to not politicize Eurovision."

Following Iceland's poor form, the European Broadcast Union does have the ability, as stated in its rulebook, to fine the Icelandic Broadcasting Authority and ban them from Eurovision. However, co-author Adam Shay posed expressed his skepticism that any further actions will be taken.

He told JNS, "the question relies on the current European state of mind," which would determine "if they want to kick up a fight on our behalf."

"When I ask myself this question, I come up with a negative answer," said Shay. "Taking any action may raise more of a kickback against the European Broadcast Union than they will want to deal with."

According to Diker, the ultimate deterrent against people boycotting Israel will occur when those "interested in human rights and creating a Palestinian sovereign entity recognize what we have exposed and magnified."

Unfortunately, and especially in academia, he maintained, "we are not quite there." While the administrations on American campuses often oppose academic and cultural boycotts, students, he said, are "being used as tools in the narrow political agenda of the PLO and Hamas-affiliates in Ramallah and Gaza."

Nevertheless, Diker is optimistic that after learning more about the topic – perhaps through JCPA's new book – "people" of good will in North America and on European campuses will reject PACBI, and understand and condemn this deception."

This article is reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post New book unmasks Ramallah and Gaza roots of Israel boycott movements appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.