• The new ghetto  - Yossi Beilin
Israel's leaders believe in the path they have chosen: none are prepared to pay the price for peace.

• Israeli isolation cannot be sustained anymore  - Mustafa Kibaroglu
Israel must take steps to integrate itself more with the rest of the world.

• Isolation as political warfare  - Gerald M. Steinberg
The need for an effective Israeli counter-strategy has finally been recognized.

• A necessary prelude to peace?  - Ghada Karmi
Where Israel was once seen as the victim, it has now become the bully.

The new ghetto
 Yossi Beilin

Political Zionism led by Theodor Herzl would not have come into existence were it not for anti-Semitism in Europe, pogroms in Russia and a fear lest the emergence of the Jews from the ghetto and their integration into the economic, political, media and academic systems of the day provoke a sharp and violent reaction against them. There were alternative Jewish movements aimed at reaching the Land of Israel on the basis of religious motives or in order to build a new society founded on agricultural settlement and social justice. But that was not the Zionist movement as established in 1897.

The real dream of most of those who established Zionism at the end of the nineteenth century was to integrate into Europe. Since they concluded that this was not practical, and considering that a return to religious life in the ghetto was not desirable, they adopted a fallback option whereby the Jewish people would move to a state full of Jews that by definition could not be anti-Semitic. The awful failure of the Zionist vision was that it was realized after and not before the Holocaust. The existence of a nascent Jewish "Yishuv" in the Land of Israel saved a few hundred thousand Jews from the Nazi destruction machine but not the millions for whom the gates of the world were locked. The main importance of Israel in my view is that it is the only place in the world that is unconditionally open to Jews wishing to come.

Herzl's vision described a country with a fully empowered Arab minority living in amity with the Jewish majority, a country living at peace with the world and accepted by it. In the prevailing reality prior to the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, Israel was a foreign implant in the region, living by its sword, boycotted by the entire Arab world. This was the exact opposite of the original vision.

But Israel of the 1990s was the Jewish state closest to the vision of Herzl and his colleagues: the Arabs living in Israel enjoyed relative prosperity and a far higher level of equality, the Arab boycott was partially abandoned and 13 Arab states engaged in discussion with Israel concerning regional development (in the multilateral talks on water, economic cooperation, refugee rehabilitation, environment and arms control). The peace process encouraged many countries to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, and Israelis were proudly welcomed by the world in view of their rapid economic development and scientific and other achievements. The original Zionist dream, which delegated to Israel a global mission in the fields of international law, human rights, aid to developing countries, etc., was very close to realization. Our status in the United Nations and in other international organizations was never better.

The past ten years were ones of dramatic reversal of Israel's global status. Without asking whether this is exclusively Israel's fault (I don't think so), the facts speak for themselves. Against the backdrop of the violent clashes of the second intifada, the Second Lebanon War, Operation Cast Lead in Gaza and, most recently, the events surrounding the Gaza flotilla, Israel finds itself in a situation reminiscent of the 1970s, when the UN adopted the insane decision (rescinded only 17 years later) to define Zionism as a racist movement.

Israel of today has been pushed almost completely out of the Arab world, the Arab boycott has returned to its earlier dimensions and formerly friendly countries are turning their backs. Various parties in international academia and the trade union movement are passing resolutions to boycott their Israeli colleagues, and representatives of the government of Israel have a hard time completing their prepared remarks even in American universities.

There is little the current Israeli government can do to change the world's attitude, combat the boycott efforts and neutralize the attempts to turn the country into a new ghetto--one from which it is inconvenient and even embarrassing to depart. The country is led by an extreme right-wing coalition most of whose spokespersons are busy vindicating the arguments of our international critics. Israel's number one diplomat, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is perceived as a fascist-leaning racist. He cannot hold an intimate conversation with a single serious actor anywhere in the world.

In order to extricate itself from this new ghetto, Israel needs to change its policy. Were the present government to do so, Israel would be forgiven the composition of its leadership. But the likelihood of this happening is slim because Israel's leaders believe in the path they have chosen: some of them suffice with lip service to peace while others don't even bother with lip service and state openly that they don't believe in peace. None are prepared to pay the price for peace.

In this reality, the only possibilities for change are a strong American policy that leads both sides to peace, or waiting for the next elections. Meanwhile, Israel will continue to pay an unbearable price of isolation from the world.- Published 5/8/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org

Yossi Beilin, a former minister of justice, currently chairs the Geneva initiative and is president of Beilink.

Whether or not it was a deliberate choice of its founding fathers, isolation was both an unavoidable outcome of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and a state policy that long served Israel's interest to deter its enemies.

When David Ben Gurion made the decision to pursue the nuclear option, at least as a project, together with Ernst David Bergmann and Shimon Peres, it was because the triumvirate knew perfectly well that Israel would be isolated or at least that its enemies would try to achieve that result.

Against all odds, Israel managed to deal with the negative implications of isolation, first by developing highly sophisticated and powerful military capabilities including the "nuclear option", and secondly, maybe more importantly, thanks to developing strategic partnership relations with the United States as well as advanced relations with leading European states such as the United Kingdom.

In the same vein, the official recognition of Israel in 1949 by Turkey as a "Muslim nation" was highly valued by Israeli statesmen. Ben Gurion, in particular, paid close attention to the establishment of comprehensive political, economic and especially military relations between Israel and Turkey.

His Turkish counterpart Adnan Menderes, who served as prime minister from 1950 to 1960, did not seem equally enthusiastic in entering into an elaborate relationship with Israel. Yet Turkish-Israeli relations grew steadily over the following decades, though at a slower pace than one might have expected in view of the two peoples' highly cherished historic relations. This helped break Israel's isolation in the region.

All in all, throughout the Cold War years and thanks to its credible deterrent capability, Israel did not have to mind too much if it received recognition from its Arab or non-Arab Middle Eastern neighbors or if they tried to isolate it in the region.

Nevertheless, much has changed since the end of the Cold War, especially since the September 11 attacks. Not least, in the view of many scholars and experts, the world has entered a new era known as the "clash of civilizations".

One fundamental characteristic of this new world is the perceived antagonism among the three big monotheist religions, namely Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Another important characteristic of the new international system with respect to what came before is the hostility between the proponents of these cultures and their consequent acts of aggression, which have reached the point of forcing governments to take, among other actions, elaborate military countermeasures.

In the face of the threats and challenges that are posed by the newly emerged so-called "non-state actors", many governments feel the need to revise their security and defense policies and to reassess the credibility of their deterrent capabilities so as to effectively protect their people and their strategic assets.

In this context, Israel is one country where the perceived degree of threat is much higher than most other states. The new international system is marked by the formation of alliances among members of like-minded cultures. Israel, with its Jewish nature, is being antagonized mainly by members of Muslim communities, some of whom have established networks of anti-Semitic organizations.

The dynamics of the current international order, however, cannot be compared to the dynamics of the previous order where the actors that were part of the system (i.e., states), and who were presumed to act "rationally" in their decisions, could be effectively deterred in most cases.

In today's world, the concept of deterrence, no matter how sound it may be at face value, is no longer a panacea to the security problems of states. And some non-state actors, whose threats can by no means be undermined due to the capabilities they have indigenously developed, seem determined to cause the utmost damage to Israel and its population.

Hence, unlike the previous world order where Israeli statesmen didn't have to bother much about whether their state was isolated, today and in the future Israel must take steps to integrate itself more with the rest of the world. This will not be an easy goal to achieve, but it is worth trying in good faith. No feasible alternative exists to better provide security to Israel and the Jewish population worldwide.

Should the Israeli authorities and Israel's politicians, intellectuals and scholars desire to approach the Muslim world with a new mindset, the first step in that direction must be the restoration of good relations with Turkey. A secular state by constitution, Turkey cannot and does not assign a significant role to religion in its foreign relations even if Turkey's Islamic character has become a significant "soft power" factor in its relations with the Muslim word.

The recent tragic incident in the high seas of the eastern Mediterranean also showed that a rift between the two former allies may have serious repercussions in their respective hinterlands, namely the Muslim communities and the Jewish lobbies. Lessons can be drawn from this event in order to reverse the course of action. A possible (and desired) Turkish-Israeli rapprochement may set a formidable example for acting with wisdom rather than fervor in international relations.- Published 5/8/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroglu teaches courses on arms control and disarmament in the Department of International Relations at Bilkent University in Ankara.

Since 1948, Israel has been relatively isolated. In contrast to the Arab League, there is no "Jewish" League, and alliances depend on shared interests and values. European support has generally been problematic, and close cooperation with the United States only developed after 1967, with periodic friction, particularly during the Carter presidency (1977-1981). In the region, informal security links with Iran, Turkey and Jordan and the 1979 treaty with Egypt were exceptions.

The 1993 Oslo declaration opened many doors, and the era of Israel's isolation appeared to be over. But the Oslo process' violent end and other changes in the region reversed much of this progress. European governments became more distant again, and tentative ties with some Gulf countries and North Africa were reversed. However, cooperation with the US during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations remained very strong and Israelis were able to ignore the wider isolation.

The Obama administration has different priorities and perceptions, and relations have cooled considerably. Friction over Jerusalem construction, and images of humiliation during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's March 2010 visit to the White House, suggested a major crisis. Conflict with Europe over the peace process and demands for Israeli concessions also expanded. In the region, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reversed years of close ties, instead forming alliances with Syria and Iran and joining in their support for Hamas and Hizballah.

In parallel, a different form of isolation grew out of campaigns based on accusations of "war crimes", opposition to settlements and acceptance of a version of history that argues that Israel, as a Jewish homeland, has no right to exist. The NGO Forum of the 2001 UN Durban Conference on Racism, in which 1500 organizations participated, called for promoting "a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state . . . [and] the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes . . . between all states and Israel". The text highlighted alleged Israeli "racist crimes against humanity, including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide."

This strategy has been quite successful, generating momentum from the Jenin "massacre" myth (2002) through the "apartheid wall" (2004-5), Lebanon (2006) and Gaza. The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHR Council after 2006), dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, provides the base for this political warfare. In each round, the OIC and its non-governmental organization allies have established a committee to condemn Israel for alleged "disproportionate force" and "violations of international law".

The 2009 Goldstone report on the Gaza conflict, which quoted many NGO publications, has been the most effective, reflecting Judge Richard Goldstone's reputation and Jewish background. Goldstone's recommendations are addressed to the UN Security Council and include the threat of proceedings in the International Criminal Court.

These accusations also propel the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, designed to promote political, economic and cultural isolation. The 2002 British academic boycott campaign was followed by church-led divestment efforts and other forms of economic warfare. The BDS movement, like other aspects of the Durban strategy, is aimed at reversing Israel's acceptance as the Jewish national homeland.

In parallel, a number of NGOs have initiated highly publicized legal cases against Israeli military officers and political leaders, using universal jurisdiction statutes as a means of waging "lawfare". In 2002 political NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, launched such a case in Belgium against then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This tactic has since been used against Israeli firms and officials, including Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former foreign minister (and current opposition leader) Tzipi Livni. All these cases were eventually dismissed, but the main purpose has been to add to the isolation and demonization, as articulated in the Durban strategy.

In general, the Israel Defense Forces and government of Israel have downplayed the implications of media spin, NGO claims and UN inquiries, while the Palestinian and Hizballah leadership give these dimensions priority. Videos disproving some key allegations against IDF forces were not released for months after the events, and suggestions for policy changes, particularly regarding non-cooperation with UN investigations, were rejected. At the civilian level, until very recently, no Israeli government ministry devoted resources to respond to academic and other forms of anti-Israel boycotts.

However, as the threats from this form of isolation have increased, including boycotts, lawfare, ICC involvement and possible arms embargoes, the need for an effective Israeli counter-strategy has finally been recognized. A concerted effort prevented the convening of another NGO forum at the UN's 2009 Durban Review Conference. Israeli policies that contributed to this isolation have been changed, including an end to the prohibition on transfer of civilian goods into Hamas-controlled Gaza. The publication of detailed reports on the Gaza war, as well as prosecutions resulting from human rights violations, suggest that Israel has begun to implement a strategy aimed at preventing ICC involvement resulting from the Goldstone report.

Most importantly, the relationship between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama appears to have warmed, at least for now. As a result, European leaders are less likely to shun Israel, while some of the sharper aspects of conflict with Turkey are easing. Although Israel is unlikely to win political popularity contests regardless of developments, the threat of complete isolation has receded.- Published 5/8/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org

Gerald M. Steinberg is the founder and president of NGO Monitor and professor of political science at Bar Ilan University.

Can Israel survive its recent battering in public opinion? Many believe that this may be a defining moment in a long history of Israeli impunity. Hitherto, Israel's record of recovery from international censure has been impressive. A string of past misdeeds--the 1982 Lebanon invasion and siege of Beirut, the Sabra and Shatila camp massacres, the 2006 Lebanon War, the interminable occupation of Arab land, even the 2008-9 war on Gaza that should have been decisive--failed to tarnish Israel's reputation irreparably. Despite strong international condemnation each time, Israel was always able to shrug off its critics.

The Israeli attack on the Gaza freedom flotilla on May 31 is the current object of international censure. But, going by the past, there is no reason to suppose this time will be different. Speculation about a growing international isolation that will damage Israel may be just that. This May, Israel gained membership in the prestigious OECD, unprecedented for a state of its size. An upgrade of relations with Europe, already most favorable to Israel, is delayed but not cancelled. The fuss over the Gaza flotilla assault is already fading, and Israel may feel it has succeeded in facing down international condemnation yet again.

Yet it may not turn out so well this time. Bravado, the flaunting of Israeli power over the US Congress and the recent success in apparently restoring cordial relations with the US president cannot disguise a tide of rising panic among Israelis. For a state so wedded to the idea of itself as legitimate, reputable and a worthy member of the world community, the battering this image has received in recent months must be worrying. The international climate of opinion has never been so hostile toward Israel. The savage assault on Gaza between the end of 2008 and early 2009 had a powerful impact on international public opinion, further aggravated by the recent assault on the Gaza freedom flotilla, in which nine Turkish humanitarian activists were killed. Israel's stock invocation of anti-Semitism and security threats is not working. Its partial easing of the blockade on Gaza has also failed to stem the tide of criticism.

Last month Israel's only Islamic ally, Turkey, announced a suspension of all military cooperation with Israel, worth $7.5 billion. Turkish airspace has been closed to Israeli military aircraft. Fear of reprisals has kept Israeli tourists out of Turkey, and Israeli army officers have been instructed not to visit there. The United Nations has insisted on an independent inquiry into events around the Gaza flotilla, and not the one Israel proposes. Israel's hitherto unfettered control over Gaza is further under threat by the European Union's call for an end to the Gaza blockade and its intention to set up a monitoring mechanism of Gaza's land and sea crossings so that more humanitarian aid can enter the Strip unimpeded. Even Israel's staunchest ally, the United States, has called the Gaza siege "unacceptable".

Relations between Israel and several western states have been strained since January. Britain and Australia both expelled Israeli diplomats in reaction to the illegal use by Mossad agents of their passports in the Mahmoud al-Mabhouh killing in Dubai. The Polish authorities arrested a Mossad agent accused of involvement in the killing. Britain, France, Spain and Italy have demanded firm action over the flotilla attack. On June 14, Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, cancelled a trip to the Paris Arms Show, having been warned that pro-Palestinian groups would seek his arrest.

Meanwhile, the boycott movement against Israel, already active, has gained astonishing momentum. Israeli officials are now frequently targeted at universities in Europe and America, forcing them to cancel lectures. This week 76 distinguished Indian academics, including the writer Arundhati Roy, signed a call for the cultural and academic boycott of Israel. They have joined the well-established British academic boycott of Israel movement, BRICUP, and a growing US academic boycott group. A cultural boycott of Israel movement is also developing; the Pixies, Klaxons and Gorillaz recently cancelled concerts in Israel. Prominent writers Alice Walker and Iain Banks are also boycotting Israel. Banks has refused to have his books translated into Hebrew, as has Jordan's Queen Rania whose book for children has just been published.

Dockworkers in Sweden, Norway, India and South Africa are refusing to handle Israeli ships. In San Francisco, bay dockworkers delayed Israeli ships for 24 hours, unheard of in the US. Britain's Unite union has resolved to boycott Israeli companies, and there is a mounting movement in Europe and the US for divestment from companies such as Caterpillar, which work to support Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Individually none of these acts is likely to threaten Israel. It is their collectivity and the speed with which they are spreading and increasing that is important. Beneath the official level of western governmental support for Israel, there is private disquiet about Israeli conduct. And at the popular level, there is a sea change in opinion: where Israel was once seen as the victim, it has now become the bully. In Britain, for example, the strength of popular sympathy for Palestinians is striking. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the same is happening elsewhere.

If this trend continues and Israel's isolation worsens it will be no bad thing. It may be the only way for Israelis to grasp that endless aggression comes at a price and that peace is not made through the barrel of a gun.- Published 5/8/2010 © bitterlemons-international.org

Ghada Karmi is a member of BRICUP and author of "Married to another man: Israel's dilemma in Palestine".