Schlaglicht Israel Nr. 11/09 Aktuelles aus israelischen Tageszeitungen 30. Juni – 13. Juli 2009 1. Die Zukunft der Siedlungen Seitdem US-Präsident Obama einen Stopp des Siedlungsbaus gefordert hat, wird in Israel die Zukunft der jüdischen Siedlungen im Westjordanland diskutiert. Während die USRegierung energischer denn je auf einem völligen Baustopp beharrt, beruft sich Israel auf„natürliches Wachstum“, um bestehende Siedlungen, in denen etwa 300 000 Israelis in dem seit 1967 besetzten Gebiet(ohne Ost-Jerusalem) leben, zu erweitern. Außerdem gibt die israelische Regierung an, mündliche Garantien der Bush-Administration erhalten zu haben. Demnach sei der Ausbau bereits bestehender Siedlungen erlaubt, solange kein weiteres Land enteignet werde. Washington bestreitet dies jedoch. Israelische Beamte deuteten indes an, ein befristeter Baustopp könne veranlasst werden, müsse jedoch im Rahmen von Friedensgesprächen mit der arabischen Seite stattfinden. Dass dies nicht genug ist, wurde deutlich, als auch der palästinensische Chefunterhändler Sajib Erekat einen sofortigen Siedlungsstopp als Voraussetzung für Verhandlungen mit Israel forderte. Outposts for blocs “The uncontrolled construction of mini-settlements in the last decade has fundamentally damaged national security. Instead of defining its just borders, Israel has entangled itself in a delusional and criminal settlement act. Consequently, even Israel's greatest friends have lost their patience. The illegal outposts robbing the Palestinians' lands are also robbing Israel of its legitimacy.[…] The sweeping American demand shows that after years of Israeli conniving and scheming, Washington has simply had enough. Thus, to avoid a head-on clash with its ally, Israel must change its ways immediately.[…] Israel must provide proof that the withdrawal is really beginning, and America must provide a preliminary commitment to the withdrawal's border. The new American-Israeli deal must be simple- outposts for blocs, i.e. evacuating the illegal outposts in exchange for recognition of the large settlement blocs.[…] If Benjamin Netanyahu insists on keeping the illegal outposts, he will be defending a criminal act of settlement as well as harming Israel's interests.” Ari Shavit, HAA 09.07.07 Gegenseitige Forderungen “Es gibt absolut keinen Grund, warum wir diejenigen sein sollen, auf deren Kosten der amerikanische Präsident einen Erfolg verbucht, der die kolossalen Misserfolge seiner abenteuerlichen Außenpolitik vertuschen soll.[…] Die USA haben zurzeit nichts anzubieten – nicht für die Palästinenser, die alle großzügigen Friedensinitiativen von Netanjahu zurückgewiesen haben, und nicht für Israel, das nur von Obamas groben Maßnahmen verletzt wurde.[…] Der Verteidigungsminister muss bei seinen Treffen erklären, dass Israel nicht tatenlos dasitzen wird, während die US-Regierung unverantwortliche Experiments in der Außenpolitik durchführt, und dass Israel nicht nur in ganz Judäa und Samaria weiterbauen wird, sondern auch den Iran angreifen wird[…], falls es sich bedroht fühlt.“ Assaf Golan, HZO 07.07.09 Give substance to the vision “Like it or not[…] the world's only superpower appears to have decided that Israel's best interests require it to freeze construction beyond the Green Line. Like it or not, the Obama administration- unmoved by Israel's entreaties and even by voices at home suggesting it is subverting its own interests in obsessing over a settlement freeze- appears convinced that this is the way to extract meaningful 1

steps toward normalization from a recalcitrant Arab world.[…] So if, as he now declares, the prime minister has a vision, let him urgently transform its sketched parameters into substance.[…] Let him take the challenge that previous governments have ducked for 42 years, and reconcile Israel's conflicting desires for normalization of ties and for retention of territory. Puncture the confusion; prioritize, allocate and relocate. Tell the residents of[the settlements] whether they sustain or undermine the Zionist enterprise. Tell them unequivocally, and tell the world, too. Set out our true needs, clearly and comprehensibly.[…] For if we don't make up our minds, if the prime minister doesn't make up his mind, the signs are multiplying that others are bent on making our minds up for us.” David Horowitz, JPO 09.07.09 Dealing with Obama „The right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria is a basic principle not subject to negotiations. There is more at stake here than mere rights to natural growth.[…] Succumbing to the pressure that is being applied on the settlement issue will only result in additional pressure on other issues, and before long Israel's position on matters of principle and substance will begin to crumble. This is not going to be easy, but Israel's staunch supporters in the U.S. will stand by it. It will be a test for the American Jewish leadership- and for the people of Israel.” Moshe Arens, HAA 30.06.09 Obama will not give in “President Obama will not give in to Israel when it comes to settlements. Both he, Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell have made it abundantly clear:‘not one more brick.’ Israel’s refusal of this demand could potentially lead to a level of tensions between Washington and Jerusalem that we have not seen in a long while. Israel should propose an alternative that will not only make the administration happy, but will also make real progress toward ending the Israeli-Arab conflict. This compromise is the‘Compensation Law.’ Instead of freezing settlements, Israel would open the way for settlers who wish to move back into Israel to do so, for the first time in over 40 years.” Micky Bergman, JED 07.07.09 Give us an inch, we’ll settle a mile “There's no need anymore to discuss whether we're going to hold onto the large settlement blocs, including the‘new’ neighborhoods of Jerusalem, in any final peace agreement. This is territory we've insisted on in the‘land swaps’ we've been negotiating with the Palestinians since Camp David. […] So why is Barack Obama and his team telling Israel to stop all settlement construction, even in the settlements everyone understands we're going to keep, and why does the peace camp say Obama is right? Because the peace camp knows, like Obama knows, like everyone in the world knows, that on the matter of settlements, if you give this country an inch, it will take a mile.[…] I know that in practice, we will not respect any[…] limits in building over the Green Line. Even if the Netanyahu government wanted to curtail settlement construction, which it doesn't, the settlers would flout the government's will as they always have and keep on building here, there, everywhere. So Obama should hang tough. The sad thing is that even if he doesn't give us an inch on the settlement freeze, we'll probably end up taking a mile anyway. If he caves in and agrees to give us that inch, we'll take two miles.” Larry Derfner, JPO 08.07.09 America’s double standard “Jews have a right to live in Judea and Samaria[…]. Anyone acquainted with the Bible or familiar with history knows that. Nevertheless, it is pointless to ignore the fact that over a million Palestinians currently live in these same territories and for decades have viewed the area as their home. It would also be senseless to disregard more than a quarter of a million Jews that live there and feel just as strongly. As a peace facilitator, there is logic behind the American demand to refrain from building new settlements that may jeopardize the final border to be drawn between Israel and its neighbors. But an honest broker would make that demand from both sides. If Jews are asked to stop building, Arabs should be asked to do the same.[…] Over the years Israel has made substantial concessions- many feel too many concessions including unilateral withdrawals and displacement of Israeli citizens. The Palestinians have done nothing.“ Ophir Falk, JED 05.07.09 2

2. Außenminister Avigdor Lieberman Der israelische Außenminister Avigdor Lieberman ist in Europa kein gern gesehener Verhandlungspartner. Dies wurde besonders deutlich, als der französische Präsident Nicolas Sarkozy Premierminister Netanjahu bei einem privaten Gespräch empfahl, Lieberman„loszuwerden“ und stattdessen die Oppositionsführerin Livni in die Regierung zu holen. Auch in den USA stößt der für seine anti-arabischen Aussprüche bekannte Vorsitzende der rechtsgerichteten Partei Israel Beitenu auf wenig Gegenliebe. Im Gegensatz zu anderen führenden israelischen Politikern war er nicht zu einem Gespräch mit Präsident Obama eingeladen worden. Den diplomatischen Verhandlungen über die Zukunft der Siedlungen auf palästinensischem Gebiet entzog Lieberman sich indes selbst. Als Bewohner einer solchen Siedlung gebe es einen Interessenkonflikt – dementsprechend übernimmt Verteidigungsminister Barak die Gespräche zu dem sensiblen Thema. Sarkozy is right – Lieberman must go “French President Nicolas Sarkozy's request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he replace Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman exposes a sad truth: At present Israel does not have a functioning foreign minister. The international community refuses to speak to a politician who is considered racist in the wake of the campaign conducted by his party, Yisrael Beiteinu, against Arab citizens during the recent Knesset election campaign.[…] France did not impose an official boycott on Lieberman, nor did Sarkozy condemn him publicly he only conveyed a message to Netanyahu in private. It is therefore difficult to maintain that Sarkozy behaved in an undiplomatic manner. It is more important to focus on the main thing, which is the ongoing damage to Israel's diplomatic interests resulting from Lieberman's tenure in the Foreign Ministry.[…] It is imperative to replace Lieberman with another foreign minister, who will benefit from an open door in the world's capitals.” HAA 01.07.09 Sarkozy, you are out of line “Honorable French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, you went way overboard. You really did go too far.[…] In the last election campaign in Israel, Avigdor Lieberman presented the clearest and sharpest platform.[…] Hundreds of thousands of[…] Israelis were drawn by Lieberman. In fact, Lieberman won so many Knesset seats to the point of removing any doubt that the people, or rather, these sections of the population that enjoy less media coverage usually, want to see Lieberman granted a very senior leadership position here in Israel. […] There is no intention here in Israel to dismiss Lieberman from his post as foreign minister.” Hanuch Daum, JED 05.07.09 Sarkozy’s sideshow “Netanyahu appointed a foreign minister with a notundeserved image problem.[…] [But] for all his bombast and past demagoguery, Lieberman is a pragmatic politician. Having made the appointment, Netanyahu ought to be emphatic that Lieberman is a‘fact on the ground’ - and he made a good beginning on this before the European ambassadorial delegation to Israel on Tuesday.[…] Israelis’ splenetic reaction to Sarkozy's meddling is understandable. Let it not distract us, however, from far more serious challenges. We need decisive, coherent foreign policy leadership at a time of acute sensitivity in the vital relationship between the US and Israel. And Netanyahu needs to work with Lieberman in formulating and articulating Israel's strategic positions- to the administration and beyond.” JPO 01.07.09 Lieberman has become irrelevant “Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's impact on foreign policy has been negligible. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have been handling ties with the U.S.; President Shimon Peres has been in charge of dealing with the Arab world and Lieberman and his office have faded into irrelevance.[…] Many diplomats who have met Lieberman got the feeling that there was no one to talk to and that he has no influence over the Israeli decision-making process.[…] When he arrived in the U.S. capital, he was not given an audience with U.S. President Barack Obama.[…] Meanwhile, Lieberman's vision of closer cooperation with Moscow is at an impasse. The Kremlin isn't particularly enthused by the idea and Russia's policies toward Israel have stiffened.” Barak Ravid, HAA 06.07.09 3

3. 100 Tage Netanjahu-Regierung „100 Tage, null Gewinn“, so kommentierte eine Kampagne der größten Oppositionspartei Kadima die ersten 100 Tage, die Netanjahus Koalition an der Regierung ist. Auch in den israelischen Medien überwogen kritische Einschätzungen der ersten drei Regierungsmonate unter der Führung des Likuds. Zu den Krisen, die Netanjahus Kabinett erschütterten, gehörten die Auseinandersetzungen mit Washington über die Zukunft der Siedlungen, die Ablehnung, auf die Außenminister Lieberman bei seinen europäischen Kollegen stieß, zähe Haushaltsverhandlungen, sowie der Streit um die Einführung einer Mehrwertsteuer für Obst und Gemüse. Premierminister Netanjahu wurde wiederholt Unentschlossenheit und Opportunismus vorgeworfen. Die israelische Bevölkerung schloss sich solch negativem Urteil jedoch nur bedingt an. Laut einer Umfrage der Zeitung Ha‘aretz waren 49% mit Netanyahu zufrieden, 52% hielten ihn für einen besseren Regierungschef als die KadimaVorsitzende Livni – allerdings gaben auch 40% an, er steuere Israel in die falsche Richtung. The Polishuk government „Bibi can continue the tradition from the previous time around and whine about the hostile media, but we haven't seen such sour‘100 days’ celebrations for quite some time. Netanyahu's second government is apparently his last and quite enough. For the first time in Israeli history there is a functioning, full-time shadow cabinet, a see-through government of featherweight Polishuks[…], a government without an agenda and without hope.[…] [T]he public couldn't care less about any of the ministers. It doesn't know most of them by name, and if one of their names does sound familiar, it can't remember from where.[…] Netanyahu wants ever so badly for us to think he is Winston Churchill's kid brother, but apart from the cigar there is no resemblance.[…] He does not know how to find the way and the direction, even when he takes the chair for the second time.” Eldad Yaniv, HAA 06.07.09 The man who could not decide “Both the opposition and coalition are in consensus over one thing: Benjamin Netanyahu’s first 100 days of premiership were officially dubbed‘100 days of zigzags.’[…] Ever since the government was formed, everyone – ministers, Knesset members, journalists and commentators – is attempting to figure out what’s going on in the government and at the PM’s Office.[…] Indeed, it is difficult to understand the prime minister’s decision-making process. He shifted from overwhelming objection to a Palestinian state only a few weeks ago to billing himself as the facilitator of the national consensus on the two-state solution. […] Next, Netanyahu shifted from leading the effort to tax fruit and vegetables to becoming a compassionate man attentive to the people. How did that happen? Again, because of the pressure, this time domestically – on the part of his coalition partners, Shas and Labor.[…] Yet despite all, Netanyahu can take comfort in the fact that for the time being at least, despite the zigzags and the embarrassment, his position as PM is secure.[…] We saw only 10 Likud members sign MK Tzipi Hotovely’s‘dramatic’ petition against the notion of a Palestinian state and a settlement freeze. Or in other words, out of 27 Likud Knesset members, a large majority has been able to digest Netanyahu’s new positions on the diplomatic front and maintain a quiet work environment. With or without zigzagging, this is precisely what Netanyahu needs to keep his job as PM.” Attila Somfalvi, JED 09.07.09 Credibility is key “Now the first-100-day criterion has come back to haunt Netanyahu, with Kadima opposition leader Tzipi Livni attacking his government for zigzagging, lack of direction, and failing to address the economic crisis.[…] Meanwhile, on the steadfast Right, Netanyahu is being pilloried for turning his back on what was understood to be his pledge to oppose a Palestinian state.[…] The criticism that Netanyahu has been zigzagging, on both foreign policy and domestic issues, is not without merit. He hesitated too long before making his Bar-Ilan speech articulating mainstream Israel's acquiescence in a demilitarized Palestinian state. He misguidedly enlarged Defense Minister[…] Ehud Barak's portfolio to make him de facto special envoy to the Obama administration. By sidelining Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu has been signaling a‘soft’ negotiating strategy when, arguably, a better bargaining approach[…] would have been to let the pragmatic but tough Lieberman play his scripted role.[…] 4

On the positive side, he's advocated a two-year budget process, which if implemented will promote fiscal stability.[…] At the end of the day,[…] Netanyahu needs to stop hemorrhaging his credibility if he is to provide the leadership these times demand.” JPO 09.07.09 Better a doormat “The prime minister will be judged by his results, not by his character or the route he takes to get there. Some who criticized Netanyahu's latest zigzag- the U-turn he did by canceling value-added tax on fruits and vegetables- admit that his decision may have been sound. Yet the most important thing, in their eyes, is that we not have a prime minister who surrenders, who yields, who folds with such ease. This logic is twisted. Instead, we ought to sing the praises of a prime minister who changes his mind, adjusts his views to prevailing circumstances and yields on issues to his and our benefit. Only such a Netanyahu can do well by us. Heaven forbid if he were to entrench himself in his positions. We would be better off having a doormat for prime minister than a hero. We have had more than enough of the latter.” Gideon Levy, HAA 09.07.09 Do what is right It appears to me that 100 days after the current government took office, we are seeing something important taking place here: The Right is starting to rule.[…] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his Bar-Ilan speech, did not shy away from expressing himself in a Zionist way[…]. This is a significant thing. Rightist governments did not do it in the past. They preferred not to get mixed up with the legal establishment, cultural junta, and the shapers of public opinion. Likud ministers always knew how to make political appointments, but not how to make ideological appointments. Yet it appears that all this is changing now.” Hanuch Daum, JED 13.07.09 Buckling under pressure “When under pressure, Netanyahu panics. Spooked by unflattering profiles of his first 100 days and Kadima's assault on his record, Netanyahu ordered his top advisers[…] to face the media in a hastily convened press conference in the Knesset to sing the government's praises.[…] His failure to prevent damaging leaks, such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy's undiplomatic(if understandable) comments about Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and the general atmosphere of chaos, are reminiscent of Netanyahu's first term in office.[…] Looking back over Netanyahu's first 100 days, it is hard to avoid the impression that what interests the prime minister is solely his survival in office and not ideology.[…] What does Netanyahu believe in? Before the elections one could have comfortably ticked off the following items: a free market, lower taxes, small government and no to a Palestinian state. Within 100 days he has restored the Histadrut to a position of power it has not held in decades, raised taxes, introduced a bloated government and signed up to Palestinian statehood.[…] Meanwhile, the two major problems facing Israel Iran and Israel's relations with Washington- are no nearer being solved than they were when Netanyahu took office.” Jeff Barak, JPO 13.07.09 HAA= Haaretz HZO= Ha Tzofe IHY= Israeli HaYom JED= Jedioth Ahronoth JPO= Jerusalem Post MAA= Maariv Die Artikel aus HZO und MAA wurden dem Medienspiegel der Deutschen Botschaft Israel entnommen. Veröffentlicht am: Juli 2009 Verantwortlich: Dr. Ralf Hexel, Leiter der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel Redaktion: Maike Harel Anita Haviv Homepage: www.fes.org.il Email: fes@fes.org.il 5