The defense establishment is concerned at intensifying legal campaigns in foreign courts that aim to deter Israel from using force against Hamas and Hizbullah.

Reeling from four damning reports in one week from human rights organizations about the IDF’s conduct in Operation Cast Lead, the sense among senior defense officials is that the “legal front” against Israel is growing at an alarming rate.

There is also a palpable urgency within the legal and defense establishments to thoroughly and professionally investigate allegations of war crimes against the IDF, not only because this has been standard practice, but also in an effort to ward off foreign lawsuits, investigations and arrest warrants against officers.

Officials are calling for an increased appreciation throughout the government of the complexities of fighting and winning asymmetric wars within the boundaries of international humanitarian law. There is also a certain level of frustration within the defense establishment at the disconnect between what is believed here to have been a carefully thought-out operation, where huge efforts were invested in minimizing harm to Palestinian civilians, and the growing tide of international accusations of war crimes emanating from the offensive against Hamas six months ago.

“There is a war being waged against us in the legal sphere. Its aim is to delegitimize Israel and to create deterrence against a possible use of force in Gaza and Lebanon again,” a senior defense official told The Jerusalem Post.

The Post has also learned that, increasingly, legal officers, as well as soldiers from the IDF Spokesman’s Office, are taking part in operational planning for possible future conflicts, at the highest levels.

“The last Gaza war is not over yet. It is being fought on another front for now. It is not just in Spain, England and Belgium. Lawyers and jurists in many countries, some of them Arab, some Jewish, are using legal means to attack Israel.

“There are hundreds of petitions, cases, legal opinions and actions cropping up across the world. The phenomenon is very wide and growing. The other side has a lot of money that comes from countries and people not friendly to Israel. This is another front in the war, and if we don’t realize it we’ll have a problem,” the senior defense source said.

To counter this legal offensive, the IDF Military Prosecutor’s unit has steadily increased its involvement across all levels of the army, in an attempt to give commanders the tools to be able to win wars while staying within the bounds of international humanitarian law. Legal officers have been attached to commanders from the Brigade level up and are present when the target banks are drawn up, where questions are asked about whether the target is purely military or has a dual purpose.

Legal officers work closely with commanders to give “dynamic interpretations” of international humanitarian law during combat. That means they need to get as close as possible to commanders, but to also take care not to get in their way too much. It’s a delicate but crucial balance. The final decisions are still in the hands of the commanders, sources said.

“The best way to deal with the legal onslaught is to check every complaint and investigate every accusation. There is no need to be afraid of the truth. If someone did commit a crime, he will pay for it, and it’s best he pays for it here in Israel rather than abroad, where he could be at the mercy of legal systems hijacked by political activists,” the official said.

This week, Spain’s highest court rejected a petition by a local judge to investigate senior Israeli officials involved in the targeted killing of Salah Shehadeh, the commander of Hamas’s military wing, in 2002. The court found that the Israeli probe into the attack, which killed Shehadeh, his deputy and 13 civilians, was sufficiently serious – planners had been given intelligence that only Shehadeh and his wife were at home – and that there was no need for the Spanish legal system to get involved.

The ruling is seen in Israel as first and foremost a victory for Spain, which has been increasingly embarrassed by the activism of some of its judges. It is also, however, being seen here as a warning that pro-Palestinian groups across the EU are finding attentive ears among the judiciaries of certain European countries. Furthermore, because of the makeup of the EU, there is now the possibility of issuing a continent-wide arrest warrant. So it is quite possible that someone on a private trip in Czechoslovakia may be picked up for an arrest warrant issued in Spain. There is the potential of widespread abuse of universal jurisdiction by anti-Israeli activists, the defense official warned.

The IDF has faced a barrage of war crimes allegations and potential charges this week. Former Hague court judge Richard Goldstone started off the week by collecting evidence in Gaza against Israel for the UN Human Rights Council. Next, a Gisha report slammed Israel’s policy of not allowing Palestinians to exit the Gaza Strip. Then the Red Cross criticized Israel for the continued blockade of Gaza.

The next day, a Free Gaza ship tried to run the blockade and was apprehended by Israel Navy commandos. The activists onboard the Spirit of Humanity said that Israel was violating international humanitarian law by not allowing them to deliver medicine and toys to Gazans. That same day, Human Rights Watch slammed Israel for the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza through the use of airborne drones.

And finally, on Thursday, Amnesty International released a mammoth 117-page report accusing Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.

The problem with these and other reports, according to defense officials, is that they group all of the IDF’s actions in Gaza into one bundle, which paints a grim picture of alleged disproportionate use of force, instead of investigating alleged incidents one by one.

“There was absolutely no policy to break international law during the fighting in Gaza. There was a policy to operate within the boundaries of the law,” the official said.

There are dozens of internal IDF probes into Cast Lead that are still to be completed, but the sense in the defense establishment is that even if there were individuals who acted in unlawful ways, there are no recorded or proven instances of war crimes.

“This approach puts all of the IDF’s actions together in one picture and argues that there are 1,400 people killed on the other side, with just under one third being civilians, a few hundred people [figures that Israel vehemently disputes, insisting that most of the dead were combatants] while Israel lost in total 13 people, most of them soldiers in friendly-fire incidents, so this is not proportional. In addition, look at all the devastation you left there. This approach has many proponents.

“This approach also says that because Israelis are in trauma over seeing soldiers return in body bags, the IDF exaggerates its use of force in order to protect its soldiers. This is what we’re fighting against. We think it is more fair to check individual instances to see whether or not we behaved according to the rules,” the official said.

“It is untenable, in this day and age, to be ostracized, to be like al-Qaida, to have no alliances and no friends. In the past it was harder to explain this to officers in the field. Since the Second Lebanon War, and especially since Operation Cast Lead, the penny has dropped.

“In legal terms, nothing has changed. The IDF has always operated according to international law. What has changed is that now even a company commander is aware of the legal implications of his actions. Officers are sent to the school for military law where they are taught the dos and don’ts of war.

“Just as officers are taught to navigate, to attack, to use weapons, they are also taught to fight within the bounds of international law. This is part of modern warfare, a language that the whole world speaks in, except for certain groups in the Arab world,” the senior official said.

“For Hamas and Hizbullah, who fight within their civilian populations, it’s a win-win situation: Either you don’t attack them and they win, or you do attack them, their civilians are killed, they reap the dividends in the realm of public opinion, your legitimacy is eroded, and that makes it harder for you to continue fighting. After Kafr Kana II [when Israel killed civilians in an errant strike in south Lebanon in 2006], US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice effectively grounded the IAF for 48 hours,” the official said.

Honored guests,

Citizens of Israel.

Peace has always been our people’s most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.

We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.

Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilize Israel’s economy. We passed a two year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.

And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.

I share the President’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.

I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem.

I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximize its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.

The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.

Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan.

There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to cooperate and to develop it.

I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let’s begin
negotiations immediately without preconditions.

Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.

We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbors. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realize that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in plowshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.

I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.

If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education – most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquility, creativity, opportunity and hope.

If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?

In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?

In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home “This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms.” Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.

Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.

The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.

The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.

All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria .

Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.

Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.

We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.

We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.

The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hezbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to “liberate” the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa.

Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.

Achieving peace will require courage and candor from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side.

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.”

I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.

The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries.

Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.

So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognize our rights. In am moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognize their rights.

But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust – a suffering which has no parallel in human history.

There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occurred.

This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense.

But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged.

As Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence: “The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books.”

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us.

I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.

This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognize this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel.

I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel.

Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza.

We don’t want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.

In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.

It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.

On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.

Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.

Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem.

And here is the substance that I now state clearly:

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.

But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbors. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.

If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel – we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.

Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction.

Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.

With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.

Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.

Our microchips are powering the world’s computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.

If only our neighbors would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.

I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realize the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: “nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more.”

With God’s help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.

At his speech at Bar Ilan University tonight Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Here is a list of other countries without armies:

Andorra – Defended by France and Spain.

Costa Rica – A standing military is prohibited byt the constitution, however the National Guard has military units within it.

Haiti – Does not have an army but the rebels have demanded its reestablishment. The National Police maintains some military units.

Iceland – Iceland is defended by the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force

Kiribati – Defence assisted by Australia and New Zealand.

Liechtenstein – Defence and Foreign Affairs by Switzerland.

Monaco – Defence by France.

Nauru – Defence by Australia.

Palau – Defence by United States of America.

Panama – Panamanian National Police has military units with defence guaranteed by the United States by treaty.

San Marino – Defence by Italy

Vatican City – Defence by Italy, ceremonial Swiss Guard has some modern weapons but acts as a security police force.

Here is a more exhaustive list.

A link to my LiveTweet on Netanyahu’s speech

http://twitter.com/Forecasthighs

In May 2002 Netanyahu gave a speech to the Likud Central Committee. Half of the speech was devoted to the issue of a Palestinian state. You can read the whole speech here. I’m copying just the section that deals with the issue of a Palestinian state. It will be interesting to compare this speech with what Bibi says next Sunday.

“We are promising Palestinian terror the greatest prize of all – the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Today most of the Israeli public realizes that a Palestinian state under Arafat would be a bastion of terror directed at the destruction of the State of Israel.

But what about a Palestinian state without Arafat, under different leadership, after the Tanzim and the Al-Aqsa Brigaes have seemingly undergone reforms and become transparent, more responsible, under a different command?

What will happen then? Okay – let’s talk about this latest illusion.

The question is whether in a future settlement, the Palestinians would indeed enjoy self-rule. I, for one, have no desire whatever to rule over even a single Palestinian.

The question is whether we can agree that they have sovereign authority, power that goes beyond self-rule, which every country has. This power would include:

the right to have full control over borders, through which they could import unlimited arms and solders. States control their own air space – a Palestinian state would have the right to shoot down any Israeli plane overflying it without permission. States have the right to make military alliances with other countries – a Palestinian state would have the right to make such alliances with Syria, Iraq, Libya, ets. States control the water sources underground – a Palestinian state would have the right to control the mountain aquifer which supplies about 30 percent of Israel’s water and most of our drinking water. Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state are unwilling under any circumstances to give this power to the Palestinians. But the moment we agree to give them a state, that is exactly what we would be giving them!

It must be understood that sovereignty has its own power. Even if an agreement limiting certain sovereign rights were signed, within a short time, this Palestinian state would demand to have all these rights and would realize them, whether we agreed or not.

The world would not stand in the way of allowing the Palestinian state to appropriate all this authority, which would give it the power to destroy the State of Israel, but it would stand in our way if we tried to prevent it from realizing these rights.

Already today, under Arafat’s limited regime, the Palestinian are in wholesale violation of the restrictions they committed to in the Oslo agreements. They are smuggling weapons, polluting water sources, building an army, creating military ties with Iran, and instead of fighting against terror – they are the ones creating it and intensifying it.

And when we enter Area A to fight against terror, as is our right according to the agreements, the entire world is scandalized (Look what happened in Jenin!). Now imagine what would happen if there were a state there, that we agreed to, a state whose borders the entire world recognized.

If we agreed to such a state, we would be shackeling the Israeli army in iron chains of our own making, thus creating a danger to our very existence.

The danger posed to Israel by a Palestinian state has been defined precisely by Arafat himself. This is what Arafat said in the Arab-language media on the day he signed the Declaration of Principles of the Oslo agreement on the White House lawn, and I quote:

“Because we cannot defeat Israel in war – we must do so in phases. We will take any Palestinian territory we can lay our hands on and establish our sovereignty on it. Then we will use it as a jumping board for other conquests. And when the time comes, we will persuade the Arab countries to join us in delivering a mortal blow to Israel.”

That is what Arafat said.

In any future agreement, if and when we get that far, I see self-rule in which the Palestinians will have the freedom to rule themselves. But to establish a state, with everything that that concept entails, with all the powers I have enumerated, which would endanger Israel’s existence – that no.

Not under Arafat or under any other leadership. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The Palestinians can have full rights – with the exception of one: the right to destroy the State of Israel!

Self-rule – yes! A state – no!

We are told that a Palestinian state is the vision of the future. Okay, our nation also has a vision for the future: “And the wolf will lie down with the lamb” and when that vision is realized in the Middle East, we will be willing to discuss the subject once again.

I would like to read to you something that was said by a person who understood well and profoundly analyzed the danger posed to the survival of the State of Israel by a Palestinian state. This person was not a member of Moledet or the National Religious Party or the Likud. He was not even a member of the Labor party.

He was the leader of Mapam, the forerunner of today’s Meretz, the late Yaakov Hazan, who made the following comments in 1978, when minds in Israel had not yet been brainwashed by the sweeping propaganda of the proponents of Oslo. And this is what Yaakov Hazan said, and I quote:

“Guaranteeing our national survival requires that we fight against the establishment of another Arab state on the West Bank. The entire essence of such a state would be directed against the existence of the State of Israel. No agreements or contracts would do any good – nor would peace treaties. Life is stronger than any of these.

“Squeezed in between two states – Jordan on the east and Israel on the West – this state would be a pressure cooker, always on the verge of bursting, with the explosion directed first of all westward – against us.

“It would be a state that would not be able or want to control the ‘dissidents’ among it, with the excuse that it is too weak to do so. It would become the most dangerous of jumping boards for terror directed against us. And ultimately, when we once again would be required to take matters into our own hands – and to fight with one raid following on the heels of another, we would appear in the eyes of the world to be conspiring against the existence of a young state that had just been born.”

Some might say that reality has changed since them. Indeed it has – exactly as Yaakov Hazan expected it would. And if we continue on this path and enable the establishment of a Palestinian state, his prophetic words will come true in their entirety.

That is the reason I objected so firmly to the establishment of a Palestinian state when I was prime minister. The Oslo agreement was still in force then, before Arafat completely voided it. We did what we could then to keep the damage caused by the agreement to a minimum by insisting on the principle of reciprocity and reducing terror by directly threatening Arafat’s regime. And indeed, the level of terror dropped drastically.

As a result, the government that I headed, with the participation of then foreign minister Ariel Sharon, halted the withdrawal to the ’67 lines and during the three years I was in office, gave the Palestinians only 2 percent of the territory that was under our complete control. Arafat did not keep any of his other commitments, and consequently did not get even another inch of territory.

And I never at any time agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

When Arafat threatened to declare a state in the United Nations in 1999, I made it clear from the UN podium that in response, Israel would seize considerable areas in Judea, Samaria and Gaza – and Arafat backed off.

The Likud has always been firmly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of our homeland. This opposition has appeared in every Likud platform in election campaigns, including the most recent one.

That is what we went to the voters with, and that is what we got their mandate for. And all Likud leaders are committed to that mandate.

And now suddenly, without anyone authorizing it, without any democratic process, neither in the movement, the government, the Knesset and certainly not in general elections – by making uncalled for statements – one of the cornerstones of our platform and our national security has been undermined.

And in this way, the position of the left, which supports the establishment of a Palestinian state – the position held by Yossi Sarid and Shimon Peres – has suddenly become the official policy, as it were, of the State of Israel.

And as a result of this, it quickly became the official policy of the United States as well. Because if we support it, who can we expect from the Americans? That they be holier than the Pope?

This is not a minor change in some marginal section – it is one of our most basic positions, one that touches on our very survival.

Should we allow life or death decisions to be made in this way?

Whoever tells you that this is not on the agenda is either mistaken or misleading. Just today we have heard that Peres met with Mohammed Rashid to discuss the reforms needed over there in order to establish a Palestinian state. We have been told that we must not tie the government’s hands – and I say to you that on this crucial matter, we must halt the danger.

There is no question here of international “sensitivity,” of seemingly “complex” matters, or of damaging the prime minister’s stature. The only question that should concern us is that of the survival of our nation, and it is only that survival that we must safeguard.

Dear friends, let me say this once again loud and clear: There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan.

If we leave here tonight without making a decision on this matter, if we waffle or waver, not only will we not stop the rushing train of the Palestinian state, we will be stoking its fires and increasing its speed.

Because such an outcome would have only one interpretation: that the Likud has backed off from its own positions and given in to the dictate of the establishment a Palestinian state.

That must not happen.

From here, we must send out a message loud and clear to the entire world.

We must vote as one in favor of the proposal opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

We must not be frightened if the international community does not see eye to eye with us on these matters. Did the international community foresee the danger of the Holocaust? And when it finally opened its eyes, did it do anything to stop it? Did it as much as lift a finger?

Did it see the danger posed to our survival from the atomic reactor in Iraq? And when it did, did it not condemn us when Menachem Begin’s Likud government bombed that destructive facility from the air?

On matters vital to our survival, we have always taken resolute steps, and we have always spoken clearly, even when many others in the world did not agree with us.

Because, ultimately, the historical accounts are clear: Yes to a Palestinian state means no to a Jewish one. And yes to a Jewish state means no to a Palestinian one.

Some thoughts on the situation:

Bibi’s upcoming speech at Bar Ilan: Obama gave a big speech that almost everyone in the world loved. Obama’s Cairo University speech was seen live by hundreds of millions of people. How many people will watch Bibi live? Bibi is to deliver his speech at Bar Ilan University’s BESA Center in Ramat Gan. Bar Ilan University is the bastion of the center right, and Bibi should find an adoring audience there, just as Obama found in Cairo. Bibi will be tailoring his message to the Likud, Bar Ilan is closely associated with the Likud, with the moderate National Religious and secular Right. He wants to be interrupted by applause – when he says Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, but a peace that will not jeopardize Israeli security. He doesn’t want to be interrupted by catcalls from the Knesset plenum. In Bibi’s mind, if anyone can match Obama for rhetorical prowess, for delivery, it’s Bibi. All that’s necessary is a solid stage, a sturdy podium, good air conditioning [that he doesn't sweat], and a receptive audience [definitely not the Knesset]. In 2002 Netanyahu gave a speech to the Likud half of which was devoted to the issue of a Palestinian state. You can read it here. It will be interesting to compare that speech with what Bibi says next Sunday.

America – Israel relations: Now we begin to feel what it’s like to not have everything our way. Obama inherited from George Bush a hated empire, drowning in bloody battles across the world. Hated mostly by Arabs and Muslims. Drowned in wars exclusively with Arabs and Muslims. To improve US relations with the Arab and Muslim world, to extricate his empire, Obama needs to be seen as an honest broker by the Arabs, so he’s squeezing Israel on the settlements and the Gaza blockade.

The more Obama[and Hilary Clinton] squeezes, the better America looks in the eyes of the Arabs. The better Obama looks in the eyes of the Arabs, the worse he looks in Israel, and he runs the risk of pushing Bibi too far away, making the Israeli prime minister popular for standing up to the powerful American president. Obama is already gaining a bad rep here in Israel. His approval ratings in the Arab world go up when they go down in Israel. If American pressure for a two-state solution becomes intolerable, Bibi might ditch some of his right wing coalition partners and team up with Livni and Kadima, but that would really be a worst-case option for Bibi, and he will want to avoid that as much as he can. I wonder if even a Bibi-Livni-Barak coalition would accept the current line on natural growth in the settlements coming out of Washington. And if Bibi creates this kind of coalition, will everyone in his Likud stay, or will they break away, or will he, like Ariel Sharon did to form Kadima?

Gaza: In his Cairo speech, Obama said the situation in Gaza is intolerable, and that the closure is not in Israel’s security interests. So then Netanyahu ordered a discussion on lifting the blockade. But Obama might be a bit naïve over Gaza, as the Army of Islam showed this morning that it is still trying to snatch soldiers. The IDF thwarted a 10-man commando raid whose aim was to kidnap Israeli soldiers. In a firefight 4 gunmen are killed. The army shuts down all the crossings. So is Hamas in control of Gaza? Or are other armed groups, with masters further afield [like Tehran] running around the Gaza Strip plotting their own wars? If Israel lifts the blockade of Gaza and lets in reconstruction aid, Hamas will recover fully from the last war, strengthen its hold of the Strip and Gaza will never go back to the control of the PA. Then what happens with the two-state solution?

Bibi’s plan: Bibi is being dragged into a diplomatic plan, he’s not initiating one. Bibi said he would present a plan to Obama when the two met in DC last month. The two met and no plan was presented. So in the absence of an Israeli plan, Obama embarked on his plan: improve America’s relations with the Arab world. A big part of that plan is to get a final status deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. And for that to happen, the Israelis need to be leaned on.

Lebanese elections: Just a matter of time until the Shiite majority is translated into electoral power; for now, the Christians balked at the last minute and didn’t want to hand over the country to Hizbullah; technically nothing changes Hizbullah will still be part of the government, but it is a defeat for the Iranian camp.

Meet America’s first black female rabbi, Alysa Stanton.

CINCINNATI (AP) — Describing herself as the “new face of Judaism,” Alysa Stanton became the first black female rabbi in the country during an ordination in Cincinnati.

Stanton, of Blue Ash, was among 14 rabbis ordained Saturday at the Plum Street Temple. She will serve as rabbi of the predominantly white Congregation Bayt Shalom in Greenville, N.C., beginning this summer.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on its Web site that Stanton said her goals are to break down barriers, build bridges and provide hope.

A native of Cleveland, she studied at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the oldest institution of higher Jewish education of Reform Judaism in the United States.

This is shocking:

The bad news is that this video is rising meteorically in the ranks on YouTube and blogs – so I can safely say this is officially “bad for the Jews”.

Ben Hartman of Haaretz has a thoughtful analysis of the scene:

“Not to excuse the behavior of those in the video, I don’t believe this idiocy reflects the values of young American Jews or their opinions on Obama, but rather the way that Israel, in particular Jerusalem, can radicalize the young to the left or the right. It also proves (once again), that fools and alcohol and camcorders do not make a good match.”

Remarks of President Barack Obama

A New Beginning

Cairo, Egypt

June 4, 2009

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

Maybe if they’d posted billboards showing Iranian missiles on parade with the headline: “Coming to your neighborhood soon. Do you know where your shelter is?” someone here would have paid attention to the siren. Maybe if IDF Homefront Command opened a shiny new store, placed naked mannequins wearing only gas masks behind its windows, and handed out flyers advertising a party-in-a-bomb shelter, it may have gotten people to ask directions to ‘the bomb shelter’. Had it said that the party in the shelter, to be held on Tuesday June 2 at 11:00 sharp, would be kicked off by a specially arranged nation-wide siren followed immediately by the internationally renowned DJ Kid Koala, the IDF would have passed the Sheinkin Street test.

But as it happened, almost nobody on Sheinkin Street paid any attention to Tuesday’s siren marking the highlight of Operation Turning Point 3. Eleven o’clock came and then it went. The siren wailed – audible faintly over the sounds of Pink Floyd in one café, and loud, hard techno in the adjacent clothing store. For the duration of the siren, café customers continued sipping cappuccinos, window-shoppers continued staring at windows, whilst inside, others were trying on new shirts. One storeowner did go outside and stood bizarrely at attention, perhaps thinking for a moment that it was Remembrance Day, or some other solemn day, while shooting puzzled looks at passersby who obviously had no respect for such things.

Why is the Sheinkin Street test important?

Seeing as the stated purpose of Tuesday’s nationwide drill was to get the entire populace to practice taking cover in shelters when the siren went off, or, at the least, to identify where the shelters were, the IDF Homefront Command failed miserably. If the army could get people on Sheinkin Street to stop for a few minutes and seriously consider the threats this country faces, the rest of the nation would take it seriously too. If ‘Sheinkinaim’ could put aside all the distractions the Street has to offer, for only a few minutes, and prepare themselves for a future attack, the IDF could be confident that it has everybody’s attention, that its means of communicating to the public are effective.

But the information that there was an important drill coming up simply didn’t get through to most people here. And if it did, they didn’t seem to care. The very real and growing threat posed by Iran’s Shihabs, Syria’s Scuds, Hizbullah’s Fajars, and even Hamas’ Katyushas – was simply not effectively communicated to the residents of this neighborhood, this bubble of bubbles in Tel-Aviv. For some ‘Sheinkinaim’, the drill was really just a nuisance, not different from any other; a fatalistic attitude not uncommon in other parts of the country – but perhaps distinctly pronounced in this laid-back neighborhood. The gulf between how seriously Homefront Command and Sheinkin Street took this drill couldn’t have been wider.

To be fair to the army and Ministry of Defense, this neighborhood is probably the hardest nut to crack in terms of preparing its residents for war. The story of the menacing Middle East simply doesn’t sell well here. Drawing attention to bad news of looming war has little or no chance of a captive audience on a street packed tight with designer clothing outlets, accessory stores, book stores, electronic stores, music stores, tattoo parlors, organic supermarkets, chic restaurants, food stands, fruit shake stands, and trendy cafes. Who’s got time to look for a bomb shelter when Camper’s is having a sale? Almost every store is currently advertising a sale, in large type on its front windows. The soap store has up to 70 percent off everything. Nike has up to 40%, and Steimatzky is having a sale on non-fiction books. In between the stores and cafes, the walls of Sheinkin St. are covered with large posters heralding musicals, concerts, dance performances, plays, yoga classes, lost cat notices, and, of course, the upcoming tour of DJ Kid Koala. Competing for the attention of people who live on this street – flooded as they are with the brightest colors, latest sounds, and exotic tastes – is no easy task. Small, old-style IDF pamphlets with font designs harking back to the 80s, or even the 90s, stuck in between large colorful posters of international DJs is just not going to do it. Not that there were any pamphlets or signs pointing out bomb shelters. If you live in the neighborhood, you might know that the school on Balfour Street has a bomb shelter. On the other hand, you might not know that.

Charley Cohen, owner of Sheinkin’s Siah [Discourse] Café puts it this way: “When a new store opens, everyone hears about it. The message gets out loudly and in many different ways. You see pamphlets, people talk about it – you can’t escape it. When Yoplait [yoghurt] has a new flavor, it’s all over the TV, radio and in the newspapers – you can’t escape it, they go all out. But for this drill, we didn’t even get a little pamphlet stuck to our window.” Cohen is being disingenuous, of course, as all newspapers and TV stations have carried stories about the drill for weeks. But to catch people’s attention on this street, and there are always many people on this street, one has to come up with creative and effective communication, with new messages that hit the mark. Cohen’s customers, before, during and after Tuesday’s drill, said they were simply not interested in the exercise. It just wasn’t exciting or important enough to get them to find a nearby bomb shelter, or even consider moving to the back of the café, away from the windows. On Sheinkin Street, you can’t be seen taking this sort of thing seriously, it’s just not cool.

And talking about bomb shelters, several people in cafés and on the street pointed this reporter to about 3 different bomb shelters in the neighborhood, only one of which actually existed. Some people gave different directions to the same non-existent shelter. Others had heard there was a public bomb shelter in Sheinkin Park, entirely convinced that’s where they would run to if the real thing happened. On closer inspection, one finds there is no public bomb shelter in Sheinkin Park. There are public toilets, but no bomb shelter. There is one inside Beit Tami, a city-run community center straddling the small park, but almost nobody on Sheinkin Street knew that.

Journalist and blogger Lisa Goldman points out that Sheinkin has seen quite a few incarnations over the last 60 years. “Now it’s roughly equivalent to – oh, West Broadway in Manhattan, Notting Hill in London or Queen Street West in Toronto. Briefly edgy but now mainstream trendy and somewhat commercialized.”

If it wants to breach this bubble in the future, to get through to the people living on this street and the thousands who visit it daily, the IDF Homefront Command is going to have to put up some billboards pointing out where the bomb shelters are. Tuesday morning’s drill caught Sheinkin Street unprepared, but also during a relative quiet time. On Fridays, Sheinkin is flooded with tens of thousands of people. If a siren goes off on a Friday afternoon, pandemonium is sure to ensue.