While News Nosh's Israel editor is on vacation, we are publishing an abbreviated version produced in Washington and therefore it may be sent later in the day.
the Munich Agreement of 1938 to the Iran deal
PRINCETON – Those who lead Israel’s defense establishment often come to consider peace with the Palestinians a necessary condition for the country’s security. Being tasked with maintaining the territories Israel has occupied since the Six-Day War in 1967 evidently causes the military and security brass to support political measures that would end the occupation. And yet the government shows no interest in pursuing a permanent settlement.
To appreciate this divide, consider the late Meir Dagan, who served as Major General of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and then as Director of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency. Several years ago, I sat on a panel at a conference in Jerusalem convened by then-Israeli President Shimon Peres. To my right sat Dagan, who had just completed eight years as head of Mossad; to my left sat Dore Gold, a former academic and former Israeli ambassador.
The two men held very different views about how best to guarantee Israel’s security, and it is worth recapitulating their respective arguments.
Gold argued that returning to pre-1967 armistice lines would leave Israel without “defensible borders.” He insisted that Israel could guard against threats from the east only if it maintained a military presence in the West Bank and controlled the Jordan River – which runs along the border separating Jordan from Israel and the West Bank.
Dagan countered that the military’s role is to safeguard Israel’s borders, regardless of where those borders are drawn. While the IDF would certainly prefer to operate with the strategic advantages that holding more territory can confer, it would fulfill its mission under whatever conditions the Israeli government set for it.
But Dagan went further...
Read
more...
|
For the sixth in a series of ads from APN, this week's message is from Tzipi Livni.
From her origins in a prominent right-wing Zionist family, Livni has become one of the most prominent political
figures advocating for a two-state solution.
She is widely considered one of the most the most powerful women in Israeli politics, and has served in eight
different cabinet positions throughout her career, setting the record for most government roles ever held by an
Israeli woman. In 2011, she was named one of "150 Women Who Shake the World" by Newsweek and The Daily
Beast, and for three years, Forbes magazine placed her on its "List of 100 Most Powerful Women."
You can support additional ads by donating here.
On Thursday, August 4th, from 10-11:30am, APN is hosting a roundtable briefing with Israeli journalist Orly Halpern, editor of APN’s News Nosh
In a presentation titled "Is Netanyahu following in the footsteps of Erdogan and Putin?," Orly will address how the expanding hegemony of Israel’s right-wing is silencing dissent and seizing the public space.
Please join us from 10 to 11:30am at the Americans for Peace Now office at 2100 M Street NW, Suite 619. We look forward to seeing you.
As space is limited, please let us know as soon as you can whether you would like to attend by emailing asuskin@peacenow.org.
ORLY HALPERN is an independent freelance journalist based in Jerusalem who writes News Nosh, a daily summary of the news from Israel. News Nosh is a free service offered by Americans for Peace Now. To receive it daily in your inbox, click here.
We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.
Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"
“Legislation that bars BDS activity by private groups, whether corporations or universities, strikes at the heart of First Amendment-protected free speech, will be challenged in the courts and is likely to be struck down. A decision by a private body to boycott Israel, as despicable as it may be, is protected by our Constitution.”
They are likewise misguided, ineffective, and counterproductive. They play into the stereotype promoted by some BDS supporters of Israel and its supporters as aggressive violators of civil and human rights. Indeed, as Foxman also noted,
“in light of such legislation, BDS campaigners would undoubtedly portray themselves as victims of efforts to stifle their free expression which would likely win them more sympathy and support from students — even those who are not inclined to be hostile to Israel.”
There is a smarter approach to the challenge of BDS against Israel. This is one that does not conflict with constitutionally-protected rights, will not fuel a pro-BDS narrative, has a real chance of convincing a lot of people –those who are frustrated with Israeli policies but are neither anti-Israel nor anti-Semitic – to adopt a better kind of activism. APN supports such an approach, which includes:
We know that pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting policies that are irrational, reckless, and counter-productive. Pro-Israel means supporting policies that are consistent with Israel's interests and promote its survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
You've heard the arguments of the religious and political right-wing, and so have we. They've had their say. Now, we'll have ours.
Go HERE for all installments of APN's "They Say, We Say"