Israel plots ways to repel new Gaza flotilla

Israel's security cabinet was to convene on Monday for a second day of discussions on how to stave off an international flotilla intending to breach the naval blockade of Gaza, local media said. On Sunday, ministers in the forum were told of the military's preparations for the 10-ship convoy which is expected to set sail from Greece later this week.
"Yesterday, the ministers decided not to allow the ships to anchor in the Gaza Strip, although they will be

allowed to unload their cargo at (the Israeli port) of Ashdod or the Egyptian port of El-Arish," Israeli army radio said.
"If no weapons or ammunition are found, the cargo will be transferred in its entirety to Gaza."
Public radio said Cairo had already agreed to allow the ships to dock at El-Arish, a Mediterranean port which lies some 30 miles (50 kilometres) west of Egypt's border with Gaza.
So far, there has been no official Israeli statement on the closed-door ministerial deliberations.
The free-distribution daily Israel Hayom, considered close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted navy chief Eliezer Marom as telling ministers that his men were better prepared than they were last May, when marine commandos stormed the lead ship of a previous flotilla, killing nine Turks.
"Our forces are ready to stop the flotilla and not to allow the ships to reach Gaza," an unnamed political source told the paper.
About 350 pro-Palestinian activists from 22 countries are set to join the "Freedom Flotilla II" which is expected to comprise some 10 vessels.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and several international leaders have urged the flotilla not to set sail, and Washington has warned US nationals not to join the attempt to break the embargo.
Israel first imposed a blockade on Gaza in 2006 after militants there snatched Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in a deadly cross-border raid. He is still being held.
A ban on civilian goods and foodstuffs was eased last year but many restrictions remain in place.

Parties See Obama’s Israel Policy as Wedge for 2012

WASHINGTON — Few issues in American politics are as bipartisan as support for Israel. Yet the question of whether President Obama is supportive enough is behind some of the most partisan maneuvering since the Middle East ally was born six decades ago, and that angling has potential ramifications for the 2012 elections.

The visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in the past week captured just how aggressively Republicans are stoking doubts about Mr. Obama. Republican Congressional leaders and presidential aspirants lavished praise on Mr. Netanyahu as quickly as they had condemned Mr. Obama for proposing that Israel’s 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps, should be a basis for negotiating peace with the Palestinians.

Republicans do not suggest that they can soon break the Democratic Party’s long hold on the loyalty of Jewish-American voters; Mr. Obama got nearly 8 of 10 such voters in 2008. But what Republicans do see is the potential in 2012 to diminish the millions of dollars, volunteer activism and ultimately the votes that Mr. Obama and his party typically get from American Jews — support that is disproportionate to their numbers.

While Jewish Americans are just 2 percent of the electorate nationally, they are “strategically concentrated,” as Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, put it, in several swing states that are critical in presidential elections. Those states include Florida — which in 2000 illustrated the potentially decisive power of one state — Ohio and Nevada.

A test of Mr. Obama’s support will come June 20, when he will hold a fund-raiser for about 80 Jewish donors at a private dinner.

John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations and a possible Republican presidential candidate, argues that because of administration proposals, Republicans will be able to make gains not only among American Jews but also among evangelicals who are supportive of Israel on biblical grounds, and other voters.

Mr. Bolton said that he was on a cruise sponsored by the conservative magazine Weekly Standard last week in the Mediterranean, and that most of the people on the ship “reacted very strongly against” Mr. Obama’s speech outlining his Mideast vision. “As a Republican,” he said, “you can use this to show how radical the president’s policies are on a whole range of issues.”

The depth of Democrats’ worries was evident from the competition to out-applaud Republicans on Tuesday during Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress and from the speed with which Congressional Democrats led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, distanced themselves from Mr. Obama on Israel.

“Are there questions in the American-Jewish community? I think the answer is yes,” said Mr. Mellman, who is Jewish and has polled the community for Democrats in the past. “Has Obama been branded as not pro-Israel or anti-Israel? Not at all.”

“I think he is strongly pro-Israel, in fact,” he added. “But that is the political struggle in which the Republicans are engaged, which is to get him branded as not pro-Israel. And to the extent they’re successful in that, the likelihood is they would have some meaningful impact on the Jewish vote.”

J Street, the left-leaning alternative to the more established American Israel Public Affairs Committee, put out a statement of support for Mr. Obama on Wednesday. “To oppose the president without laying out a credible alternative basis for a two-state solution is to embrace a status quo leading to the eventual loss of Israel as we know and love it,” its statement said.

Mr. Obama’s proposal, the group said, is supported by many Jews in the United States and Israel. It is “the path that most of Israel’s recent prime ministers have attempted to blaze, from Rabin to Barak to Olmert.”

Republicans, however, are confident that their emphasis on unconditional support for Israel holds appeal both for many Jews and for conservative Christians.

Yet it is the Republican Party’s close identification with evangelical Christians in recent years that is perhaps its biggest hurdle to winning over significant numbers of Jewish voters and donors. On issues that are crucial to the conservative Republican base — like opposition to abortion, gay rights, liberalized immigration and much government spending — most American Jews are on the other side, and strongly so.

“If Republicans can mischaracterize this president as anti-Israel, they can distract from the fact that on every other issue their party is in disagreement with the American-Jewish community,” said David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council, a group of Jewish-American Democratic activists.

Mr. Netanyahu on Monday experienced first-hand the tension arising from that complaint among Democrats, and Republicans’ rejection of it, in a private meeting he held with representatives of the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Republican Jewish Coalition to underscore American Jews’ bipartisan consensus on Israel.

A partisan argument ensued after Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, whom Mr. Obama recently named as chairman of the Democratic Party, suggested they agree not to make support for Israel an election issue. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican group, objected, accusing her of proposing a “gag order.”

Livni: Netanyahu isolating Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will have to choose between Israel and Hamas, Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated that Israel will not hold negotiation with a Fatah-Hamas government, but while Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni (Kadima) seems to echo this firm stance, she says Netanyahu is responsible for the rough political waters Israel finds itself in.

"Netanyahu is not only failing to exercise damage control, or finding an alternative, he continues to derail Israel," she told Ynet Sunday.

"Leadership should have an impact. It is not too late, but Netanyahu is not doing anything. Talking about threats is not enough, you have to offer solutions. This is what we have been talking about for two years. The government should present a policy, but there is a global lack of faith in the prime minister.

  "Israel has to present a policy that the world will believe in. You can't simply keep saying the world is against us," she said.

Livni, like Netanyahu and Barak, does not see Hamas as a negotiating partner: "Hamas is a very problematic organization, so any arrangement between Fatah and Hamas is cause for concern.

"The burden of proof lies with the new (Palestinian) government – if there is one – while Israel's test is to make sure that the Palestinian government follows the terms set by the Quartet – recognizing Israel, abandoning terror and abiding by previous agreements."

After the 2006 Palestinian elections, she added, the Kadima government demanded the world's support against Hamas. "The world knew the choice was between Israel, Fatah and a viable peace process, and Hamas and Iran. This is not happening today, because Netanyahu fails to present any alternative."

Livni, however, has only a vague answer to the question of "What now?" The opposition chairwoman said that back in 2006, the Kadima government "counted to 10" vis-à-vis Hamas' rise to power: "We called everyone and explained that Hamas was impossible to talk with. We created the Quartet's conditions, while simultaneously launching talks with the moderates.

"There are no negotiations today. Both Netanyahu and Abbas are standing on the edge of opposite icebergs, yelling at each other while actually only talking to their respective people. The icebergs are melting and the water is cold. This is his responsibility."

Failing policies

Netanyahu's initial reaction to the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation was "very bad" according to Livni. "The Israeli response not only discourages any future development, it seemingly jumps at the opportunity to say 'We told you so – this is another proof that we don't have a peace partner.'

"A Palestinian reconciliation prior to their statehood declaration in September is a very bad situation for Israel. Netanyahu is going to be the prime minister during whose term a Palestinian state was formed. Gaza will become Hamastan and this is a result of his inability to change the international trend."

Livni paints a bleak picture: "Netanyahu speaks aggressively against Hamas, but in reality, Hamas is gaining global legitimacy. The Gaza blockade is lifting slowly and Israel is getting weaker. The prime minister's response, saying nothing has a chance any more, will not make the world stand by us in the fight against Hamas. It will only isolate us further.

"Saying there is no partner is easy, but it does not work on a political level, no matter how many times Netanyahu says it," she added.

As for recent reports of the possibility the government will expand to include Kadima, Livni said that her party will not join a Netanyahu-led coalition, not even for September's "political tsunami," as Barak called it.

"Since this government came to be we have learned – every day – that there is no common denominator between Netanyahu and me. Netanyahu does not know how to make decisions and so he preserves a status quo that is detrimental to Israel. There is no reason for unity.

"Even facing a 'political tsunami' requires talking about a mutual path, not simply cowering in a corner in a manner that harms Israel and weakens it. Our situation has worsened over the past two years and Netanyahu cannot influence the international trends."

Livni vowed "to do everything possible against the Palestinians unilateral ambition. It is bad for Israel, but there is a difference between defending Israel and aiding the survival of a prime minister that only damages the country. I will not defend his policy, which prevents Israel from securing the world's support."