Imagine that. A country that is prepared to stand up for itself and proudly declare its willingness to be "an insuperable obstacle" over a matter of principle! If only Israel and its leadership would learn from Greece's example.
With Israel coming under increasing pressure to make additional, far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians, the question has arisen once again of whether the Jewish state is capable of standing up for itself and its interests.

Interestingly, there is another small Mediterranean state - namely Greece - that recently created a major diplomatic furor, all because of a question of semantics.

And as I argue in the column below, Israel would do well to learn from their example.
 
thanks, and Happy Passover,
 
Michael Freund

It's Greek to me

By Michael Freund 

Once upon a time, and it seems like it was truly a very long time ago, Israel knew how to stand on principle.

Attacks on our citizens were met with swift and forceful retaliation. Talk of surrender alluded to our foes, rather than to official Israeli government policy, and we didn't hesitate to defy the world when necessary in order to defend ourselves.

The spirit of Entebbe, Osirak and yes, the Six Day War, sparked our imagination, filling us with pride at the valor and heroism of the modern-day Jewish warrior. Our lives had meaning, our society had a purpose, and the nation's overriding goal was to build the land, rather than withdraw from it.

But all that appears to have changed. Our leadership's infatuation with retreat has become an obsession. Yesterday's trial balloons have become today's diplomatic agenda, and what was once considered unthinkable, such as the division of Jerusalem, is now suddenly looming over the horizon.

How did we reach this point? How could we sink so low so swiftly?

Well, you might be saying to yourself, we don't have a choice. We're a small country, with limited resources. What else can we do? Do you really think we can stand up to the rest of the world?

Heck yes.

If you think this is naïve, just take a look at Greece, which recently stared down the entire Western alliance over an issue of semantics.

EARLIER THIS month, at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Greece singlehandedly caused a major diplomatic imbroglio, scuttling the expansion of NATO and defying the will of nearly all of its friends and allies, for the simple reason that it objected to the name of its neighbor, Macedonia.

Macedonia, which used to be part of Yugoslavia, had been hoping to receive a formal invitation to join the trans-Atlantic coalition, as a means of further deepening its integration into the West.

"But Athens blocked the invitation," the Associated Press reported on Monday, "to protest Macedonia's name, saying it implies a claim to a northern region of Greece also called Macedonia."

As the Greek Foreign Ministry Web site explains, "The choice of the name Macedonia directly raises the issue of usurpation of the cultural heritage of a neighboring country. The name constitutes the basis for staking an exclusive rights claim over the entire geographical area of Macedonia."

In other words, Greece is willing to risk the wrath of the United States, Britain and the rest of the NATO coalition, merely because they believe that Macedonia's choice of name masks expansionist ambitions that threaten to undermine their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The boldness of Athens's position becomes even more apparent when one considers that over 100 countries formally recognize Macedonia as Macedonia. Nonetheless, Greece stubbornly continues to insist that it be referred to as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia," or FYROM.

There are those who will look at the Greek position with raised eyebrows, wondering what all the fuss is about. After all, who cares about names?

But I applaud their resolute determination to stand firm and defend what they consider to be their national interests, even at the risk of international opprobrium.

Indeed, Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakovannis didn't hesitate to announce publicly in March that "as regards the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia… the policy followed by our neighboring country in its relations with Greece, on the one side with intransigence and on the other with a logic of nationalist and irredentist actions tightly connected with the naming issue, does not allow us to maintain a positive stance."

"As long as there is no such solution," she added, "Greece will remain an insuperable obstacle to the European and Euro-Atlantic ambition of FYROM."

Imagine that. A country that is prepared to stand up for itself and proudly declare its willingness to be "an insuperable obstacle" over a matter of principle!

If only Israel and its leadership would learn from Greece's example.

Instead, we are being led by the nose inexorably towards catastrophe, unwilling to buck international pressure even when it threatens to undermine our very existence.

There is, of course, an expression that something "looks like Greek to me" when we can not begin to fathom what it says.

But this is one case where Israel would do well to start deciphering the words. And fast.

--- from the April 23rd Jerusalem Post

ever since he was tossed out of office in 1980, Carter has devoted much of his time to undermining his own country’s foreign policy, coddling its foes and seeking to impose solutions on it from the outside
Just when we thought we'd heard the last of America's worst president of the past century, along comes Jimmy Carter to stir up some waves in the Middle East.

Not content with making a few headlines and then quietly going on his merry way, Mr. Carter has instead taken upon himself a new cause: to legitimize the Hamas terrorist group by meeting with its leadership.

Of course, ever since he was tossed out of office in 1980, Carter has devoted much of his time to undermining his own country’s foreign policy, coddling its foes and seeking to impose solutions on it from the outside. So it should come as no surprise that he is now doing the same thing to Israel, which has always been his favorite "whipping boy".

But Carter's embrace of Hamas represents a new low for the farmer peanut farmer, as he unashamedly seeks to confer legitimacy on those who kill Jews for a living.

On Tuesday, Carter met with former Hamas deputy prime minister Nasser Eddin Shaer and reportedly hugged him. Less than 24 hours later, Hamas terrorists shot and killed 3 Israeli soldiers.

Coincidence? Hardly.

The former president has foolishly emboldened the terrorist group still further, and for that he deserves nothing but condemnation.

It's no wonder the American people denied Mr. Carter a second term nearly three decades ago. Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent him from continuing to bring shame upon the office he once held.

He is the Prime Minister of the country, and he is suspected of corruption.

Police believe he took cash in exchange for favors, using his governmental post to line his own pockets.

He has not been charged with any crime - at least not yet - but a cloud of suspicion hangs heavily over his name and his reputation.

Sound familiar? Well, the person in question is actually not Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, but Bertie Ahern, Prime Minister of Ireland.

But there is, however, one major difference between the two: Ahern had the decency to announce his resignation.

Speaking at a surprise press conference on Wednesday morning, Ahern said, "While I will be the first to admit that I've made mistakes in my life and in my career, one mistake I've never made was to enrich myself by misusing the trust of the people. I have never received a corrupt payment and I've never done anything to dishonour any office that I've ever held."

Nonetheless, despite professing his innocence, Ahern decided to fall on his political sword, realizing that his service to his nation could not continue under the circumstances.

Would that our own leaders in Israel would watch and learn from his example.

Sadly, though, American officials seem to have been spending more time rifling through mini-bars in Ramallah hotel rooms in between meetings with Palestinians, than in tackling the growing spread of nuclear ambition in the Middle East
Condoleezza Rice is due here in Israel again on Sunday, in yet another attempt to push Israel into making a dangerous deal with the Palestinians.

There is something obsessive about the manner in which the Bush Administration is devoting so much time and resources to trying to create a Palestinian state.

A direct result of this mindset is that other, far more important issues, such as Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons and the nuclearization of the Middle East, are not getting the attention that they deserve. As I argue in the column below, this is a dangerous development, and warrants a major "re-think" in Washington's entire approach to the region.

The Price of Washington's Obsession with the Palestinians
By Michael Freund

While the West fiddles, the Middle East threatens to burn. Recent months have seen a renewed surge in American efforts to jump-start the political process between Israel and the Palestinians, as a stream of high-level officials have made their way to the region. We've had visits by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice looks set to be upgraded to "platinum" in whatever frequent flyer program she takes part in. The Secretary of State has already been to Israel twice this year, and it's only March.
Of course, these labors have thus far failed to achieve anything, other than to send a message to the Palestinians that they can continue to use violence against the Jewish state while hoping to wring out still more concessions at the negotiating table.
But there is a much deeper, and even greater, cost involved in all the American time and energy that are being expended on cajoling the recalcitrant Palestinian leadership.
For just as there are a finite number of hours in the day, so too there are a finite number of issues that senior US diplomats can grapple with. And the more time they spend banging their heads against the Palestinian wall, the less they have to devote to a far more pressing matter, one which threatens to shake the foundations of the entire region - the growing danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Indeed, by focusing so incessantly on the Palestinian issue, American officials seem to have dropped the ball on containing Iran's drive toward nuclear supremacy, and this is having far-reaching consequences.
Make no mistake. The West's failure to shut down Iran's nuclear program has sent shudders throughout the neighborhood, prompting Arab states from the Persian Gulf to North Africa to begin to seek ways of maintaining strategic parity. Whether you are a Bahraini living in Teheran's shadow, or a Moroccan policymaker in Rabat, the very thought of the ayatollahs with their fingers on the trigger is nothing less than a nightmare scenario.
THE ARAB leadership knows full well that an atomic Iran would transform the strategic dynamic in the region, further boosting radical Shi'ite fundamentalism and revolutionary triumphalism. It would give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unprecedented leverage with which to threaten the entire Middle East.
Moreover, if Iran does become a nuclear power, it will compel the Arab states to adopt even more extreme anti-Israel and anti-Western positions, as they seek to placate the ayatollahs.
Fearful that America and the West do not have the will to stop Iran, the Arab states, as expected, are now embarking on nuclear programs of their own.
Several have already announced plans to build nuclear power plants, and others will undoubtedly do so as well out of fear of being left behind.
Take, for example, Egypt, whose president, Hosni Mubarak is in Moscow this week, where he is expected to sign a bilateral deal that would pave the way for Russia to construct nuclear reactors for Cairo. The Egyptian government is currently facing violent unrest at home, as they can not afford to provide enough subsidized bread to feed the poor. But that isn't stopping them from proceeding down the costly road to nuclear power out of fear of Iran.
Likewise, on Monday, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced that it was establishing a government agency, the Nuclear Energy Implementation Organization, to look into developing nuclear assets. And in an interview earlier this month with the Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud boasted of the "eagerness" of various Gulf Arab states, including his own, to make use of nuclear energy.
All told, 11 Arab countries have declared an interest in nuclear technology. They are: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Jordan and Egypt.
HOW'S THAT for a threat to the stability of the region? Sadly, though, American officials seem to have been spending more time rifling through mini-bars in Ramallah hotel rooms in between meetings with Palestinians, than in tackling the growing spread of nuclear ambition in the Middle East.
Sure, the Arab states all say that their intentions are "peaceful," and that they seek nuclear power only for the sake of generating cheaper electricity.
But this excuse is as transparent as it is feeble. We all know from the case of Iran just how easy it is to keep one's nuclear progress, and intentions, under wraps. After all, Teheran's nuclear program was revealed in 2002 only after an Iranian exile group held a press conference and disseminated photographs and data regarding the country's covert nuclear installations.
It turned out that Iran had been working in secret for 18 years (!!!) on its nuclear program, which it had concealed from the international community and repeatedly lied about its existence.
What would stop a tightly-controlled dictatorship such as Riyadh from doing the same? Moreover, there is little reason to believe that oil-rich Arab states awash in petrodollars are truly in need of finding cheaper sources of electricity.
It is not too late to stop this regional rush toward nuclear proliferation, which is still in its initial stages. Tackle the Iranian threat head-on, strip them of their nuclear program, and the Arab states' "excuse" to pursue atomic energy fizzles away.
But if the Bush administration continues to fritter away its remaining months in office, instead expending precious political and diplomatic capital on the bleak prospects of a Palestinian about-face, it runs the risk of turning this region into a dangerous nuclear powder-keg.
So the choice before Washington is really very simple. Keep focusing on the Palestinians if you wish, but then don't be surprised if you wake up one day to discover a nuclear Middle East.
--- from the March 26 Jerusalem Post

despite the Palestinian failure to halt anti-Israel violence, the Bush Administration is pressing Israel to allow the transfer of still more weapons, ammunition and accessories to the Palestinian security forces
Well, here is a news-flash that you probably won't be reading all that much about in the Western press.

Guess what? The Palestinian Authority is not living up to its obligations to fight terrorism against Israel.

So concluded the American officials responsible for monitoring Palestinian compliance with the Road Map peace plan, according to the Ha'aretz newspaper.

The paper reports that, "Specifically, the Americans are concerned that the PA does not engage in the full spectrum of counterterrorism activities, including arrests, interrogation and trial, as it would if it were trying to eradicate the armed wings of Islamic terrorist organizations. Instead, it makes do with trying to "contain" terror - to prevent specific attacks, and to keep Hamas from growing strong enough to threaten Fatah's rule in the West Bank."

Nonetheless, despite the Palestinian failure to halt anti-Israel violence, the Bush Administration is pressing Israel to allow the transfer of still more weapons, ammunition and accessories to the Palestinian security forces!

Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, the US security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinians, is reportedly set to submit a formal request to this effect to Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the coming days, and Barak is said to be ready to agree to it.

Sound absurd? Well - it most definitely is. The Palestinians are allowing terror against Israel to continue - so how do the US and Israel respond? By giving them still more weapons.