Camp David has historically been used for major national security and diplomatic discussions.

By Vered Weiss, World Israel News

President Donald Trump is scheduled to convene a rare meeting of Cabinet members and senior officials at Camp David as negotiations aimed at ending the conflict in Iran continue, while the United States carried out what it described as “self-defense” strikes against targets in southern Iran.

The meeting, first reported by the New York Post and confirmed by Fox News, is expected to include all Cabinet members.

Trump has said in recent days that negotiations may be approaching a breakthrough, although Iranian officials have publicly disputed suggestions that an agreement is close.

Camp David has historically been used for major national security and diplomatic discussions. During his first term, Trump hosted 15 meetings at the presidential retreat.

According to a White House official quoted by the Post, Tuesday’s discussions are expected to focus on “recent successes of the administration, including economy and small business wins, Task Force to Eliminate Fraud highlights, and foreign policy updates.”

The gathering comes after Trump previously hosted Cabinet members and senior officials at Camp David on June 8, 2025, for talks related to Iran and Gaza. Weeks later, on June 22, 2025, Trump ordered US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Separately on Tuesday, the United States launched strikes in southern Iran targeting missile launch sites and boats that American officials said were attempting to lay mines.

The action took place as Iranian negotiators arrived in Qatar for talks intended to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for US Central Command, said the operation was carried out in response to threats against approximately 20 US warships operating in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, including two aircraft carriers and accompanying vessels.

“US Central Command continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing cease-fire,” Hawkins said.

Iranian officials attending the talks in Qatar have continued to reject public suggestions from Washington that a diplomatic agreement is imminent.

The post Trump to hold rare Camp David meeting as Iran talks drag on appeared first on World Israel News.

Cairo warns Israeli redeployment in Rafah risks national security, peace accords.

By David Brummer, World Israel News

Egypt has issued a stern warning to Israel over its military redeployment plan in Gaza, cautioning that it could jeopardize the decades-old peace agreement between the two countries.

An Egyptian official involved in the ongoing Israel-Hamas negotiations, mediated by Egypt and Qatar, voiced strong opposition to Israel’s reported intentions.

Speaking to the Al-Araby Al-Jadeed newspaper, the official said Cairo rejects Israel’s plan to maintain a military presence across the Rafah region and to establish a large refugee camp near the border.

“This would create a human bomb at the Egyptian border, which would pose a clear threat to Egypt’s national security,” the official said.

Israel’s operations in Gaza, particularly in Rafah, have strained regional ties.

Egypt views any Israeli entrenchment near its borders as a direct risk to its sovereignty and internal stability.

The Egyptian official stressed that Cairo has repeatedly warned Israel about potential violations of the Camp David Accords.

He noted that, in response to Israel’s actions, Egypt has already reinforced its military presence in Zone C of the Sinai Peninsula — an area where, under the peace treaty, Egyptian military activity is heavily restricted.

These deployments include heavy weaponry and enhanced troop numbers, which the official described as a direct reaction to Israeli maneuvers.

He said the buildup is meant to send a clear signal to Israel about the seriousness of Egypt’s security concerns.

According to Egyptian sources, the map leaked to the media leaves Israel with military control of 40% of the Gaza Strip and forces hundreds of thousands of displaced people to concentrate near the border with Egypt. According to them, Such a situation is expected to place… https://t.co/Zf5xQIhklT

— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) July 13, 2025

Egypt has reportedly communicated that if Israel proceeds with unilateral steps that undermine Egyptian security, Cairo might have to reevaluate its commitment to the peace treaty signed in 1979.

The official warned that any definitive threat stemming from Israeli actions could compel Egypt to reassess the agreement’s relevance.

The Camp David Accords, brokered by the United States, led to the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation.

It has been a cornerstone of regional stability for more than four decades.

This latest diplomatic rift emerges amid continued efforts by Egypt and Qatar to mediate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as fighting in Gaza persists.

Cairo’s central role as mediator has been complicated by rising tensions along its northeastern frontier.

Israeli officials have yet to publicly respond to Egypt’s statements.

However, any erosion of the Israel-Egypt peace agreement could have far-reaching implications for the region.

The post Egypt threatens to reconsider peace deal over Israel’s Gaza plan appeared first on World Israel News.

Ten days ago, Egypt released a video showing its army’s military capabilities, which includes hundreds of tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, and navy vessels.

By Hugh Fitzgerald, Frontpage Magazine

Ever since the 1979 Camp David Accords, Israel and Egypt have officially been at peace.

As a result of those accords, Israel agreed to return to Egypt, for the second time (the first time was in 1957, after the Sinai Campaign) the entire Sinai, together with several oilfields Israel had discovered and several airbases it had built, along with the tourist city of Sharm el Sheikh.

The handover of the Sinai took place in three tranches, and was completed in 1982. Ever since then, Egypt and Israel have had a “cold peace.” The friendly relations Israel had hoped for never developed.

No Egyptian leader, save Hosni Mubarak, has in the past 45 years ever visited the Jewish state, and he did so only to attend the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, as a private citizen, at the request of Rabin’s widow.

Nor has any Israel leader ever been invited to visit Egypt.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian media have never stopped printing or broadcasting calumnies against the Jewish state, including such absurdities as the claim that Israel wants to expand “from the Nile to the Euphrates.”

The anti-Israel animus frequently degrades into outright antisemitism. Israel has a handful of defenders, and hundreds of enemies, in the Egyptian media.

Egyptian schoolbooks, though not nearly as bad as the UNRWA texts, continue to contain the most unflattering depictions of the Jewish state and its inhabitants, including claims about the Jewish “love of money.”

The 1948 war is depicted as having been started not by the five Arab armies that invaded Israel, but by Israel, and the same topsy-turvy version is provided for the 1967 war, with Israel presented as the aggressor even though it was Nasser who, beginning in mid-May 1967, demanded that UN Secretary-General U Thant remove the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai.

Nasser announced that he was blockading the Straits of Tiran and moved 100,000 troops into the northern Sinai, approaching ever closer to the border with Israel.

Was the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel a success?

Certainly, it was for Egypt, which not only got back the entire Sinai with oilfields, airbases, and the resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh, but also has received from the United States since 1979, in economic and military aid, the astounding sum of $90 billion.

But Israel lost those airbases, those oilfields, and that tourist destination of Sharm el-Sheikh. It also had its hopes dashed for closer relations with Egypt. The Egyptians have made no efforts to warm up that “cold peace.”

Now there are new Israeli worries about Egypt, because of the significant expansion of Egypt’s military, despite the fact that Egypt is not threatened by any of its neighbors.

This buildup is mainly in offensive weapons, such as tanks, and fighter jets, and not in defensive weaponry such as anti-missile batteries.

Most worrisome of all, Egypt has been building military bases in the Sinai that are suited only to house offensive weapons.

More on Egypt’s military buildup, and those bases it has built in the Sinai that violate the terms of the Camp David Accords, can be found here:

“Violation of peace deal? Israel’s US envoy warns Egypt is ‘reinforcing Sinai bases,’” Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2025:

Egypt has built military bases in Sinai “that can only be used for offensive operations, for offensive weapons,” Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, highlighted on Sunday.

Leiter called it a “clear violation of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel – after some 45 years.”

He also noted that the Israeli government will present Cairo’s military buildup in Sinai “very soon.”

Leiter first said this in a meeting with American Jewish organizations on January 28, however the recording of this was just shared online by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations in America on Friday, according to the Jewish News Syndicate.

Ten days ago, Egypt released a video showing its army’s military capabilities, which includes hundreds of tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, and navy vessels.

These tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, and ships are all offensive weapons. There was no video of anti-missile or anti-drone systems.

Last May, retired Lt. Col. Eli Dekel, who has been researching Egypt for 60 years, claimed that Egypt had increased its armored forces by hundreds of tanks.

“I did not find an explanation in the media for why Egypt increased its armored forces by 700 tanks. They call it a cold peace, but that’s not what this is,” he told Maariv.

No, this is much worse than a “cold peace.” An increase of seven hundred new tanks can only be understood as preparations for war. And the only conceivable enemy, as far as Egypt is concerned, is Israel.

The ambassador pointed out the violations in the Sinai Peninsula are “a subject that is bound to come up because it is unacceptable.”

According to the Camp David Accords, most of the Sinai was to have been demilitarized to various degrees. The Egypt–Israel peace treaty set a limit to the amount of forces Egypt could place in the Sinai Peninsula, especially within 20–40 kilometers (12–25 miles) of the border with Israel.

For a while, Israel allowed Egyptian forces to send troops further north in the Sinai than was allowed under the peace treaty. This was done because the Egyptian army was fighting ISIS forces in the Sinai.

Israel expected that once ISIS was crushed, the Egyptian army would pull back to the lines set out in the Camp David Accords. ISIS was crushed, but not only did the Egyptian army not withdraw, but sent even more troops into the northern Sinai.

At the same time, it has turned civilian structures, including 37 schools, into military bases. Egypt has built several large military bases in central and northern Sinai that are an express violation of the peace treaty with Israel.

The post Egypt’s arms buildup: Was the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel a success? – analysis appeared first on World Israel News.

“You did something really holy: this was the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state,” Herzog told Carter.

By World Israel News Staff

President Isaac Herzog spoke over the phone on Friday with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on the occasion of the 48th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War and the one-year anniversary of the Abraham Accords, a statement by the Israeli president read.

Today I called former President Jimmy Carter. As we mark 48 years since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, I thanked him for brokering Israel-Egypt peace, saving so many lives and ultimately paving the way for the Abraham Accords a year ago. Wished #39 a happy 97th birthday coming up soon! pic.twitter.com/eSxYNNW5SD

— יצחק הרצוג Isaac Herzog (@Isaac_Herzog) September 17, 2021

President Herzog said that he was thinking of President Carter on this important anniversary and thanked him for brokering the world’s first Arab-Israeli peace deal: the 1978 Camp David Accords between the late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

President Herzog praised this ground-breaking diplomatic achievement for saving countless lives in the Middle East and ultimately paving the way for other peace agreements, all the way to the Abraham Accords last year.

“You did something really holy: this was the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state, which led all the way to the agreements we had last year with the Gulf states,” Herzog told Carter.

President Herzog also congratulated President Carter ahead of his upcoming 97th birthday, celebrated on October 1 and wished him good health.

The post Herzog thanks former US President Carter for ‘holy’ peace agreement with Egypt appeared first on World Israel News.

The famous photo op on the White House Lawn in September 1993 is still celebrated by some as a historic triumph, despite the catastrophic consequences of that agreement.

By Jonathan S. Tobin, JNS

It’s one anniversary that no one is celebrating. Twenty years ago this month, President Bill Clinton welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to a peace summit at Camp David.

Looking back on it now, even Clinton administration veterans understand that it was an act of monumental folly. As former State Department Middle East peace processor Aaron David Miller wrote, the effort was doomed even before it began.

The problem is that even those who have, in retrospect, acknowledged that they were mistaken still cling to the delusion that smarter diplomacy and different American, Israeli and Palestinian leaders might still produce a different outcome.

Even those who are striving to be self-critical about being, as Miller noted, “lost in the woods” at Camp David in July 2000, are only gradually coming to grips with the fact that some problems have no solution.

Even worse, some of those who followed them, like White House senior adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was in charge of President Donald Trump’s Mideast peace efforts, seem to have failed to learn all of the appropriate lessons from the Camp David fiasco, even as he strove to do better than his predecessors.

Unlike the backdrop to the signing of the Oslo Accords seven years earlier, the circumstances that led the events of July 2000 are no longer much discussed. The famous photo op on the White House Lawn in September 1993 is still celebrated by some as a historic triumph, despite the catastrophic consequences of that agreement.

But the ignominious conclusion to the 2000 summit has largely been thrown down the Orwellian memory hold by the foreign-policy establishment and the mainstream media.

They don’t want to draw appropriate conclusions from these events because the conclave exploded the entire concept behind the Oslo process from which it sprang as based on a myth.

The assumption on the part of all those involved in that effort was that the divide between Israelis and Palestinians could be bridged by painful compromises and smart, patient diplomacy based on developing relationships.

They all believed that if the Israelis were willing to make the tangible concessions in terms of territory and endangering their security — and the Palestinians were truly willing to finally accept that the long war against Zionism was over — then two states coexisting in peace alongside each other was possible.

By the summer of 2000, sensible observers had already figured out that the Palestinians had no such intentions. Arafat was not interested in, as the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin hoped he would be, fighting the terrorists who threatened peace.

He was still planning and paying for terrorism, while both the American and Israeli governments ignored or covered up the truth about his actions and non-compliance with the terms of the accords because they thought doing so would harm the cause of peace.

Even worse, Barak was a man in a hurry. After a failed attempt to trade in the Golan Heights to the Hafez Assad regime in Syria (a stroke of luck for Israel considering the chaos and bloodshed that has destroyed that country since then), Barak turned to Arafat.

Throwing caution to the winds, he discarded the red lines that had guided both Rabin and Benjamin Netanyahu (who is often wrongly blamed for the failure of a peace process he actually tried to advance during his term of prime minister from 1996 to 1999) by offering to divide Jerusalem and hand over almost all of the Judea and Samaria and Gaza to create a Palestinian state.

But not even this grandiose gesture was enough to tempt Arafat.

The veteran terrorist walked away from an offer that gave him more or less everything Palestinian advocates said they wanted. Two months later, convinced of Barak’s weakness and thinking bloody attacks on Israel would produce even more such suicidal concessions, he launched a terror war of attrition known as the Second Intifada.

That traumatic conflict, which took the lives of more than 1,000 Israelis and many more Palestinians, blew up any remaining support for Oslo. It set in place a broad consensus among Israelis —further reinforced by the disastrous results of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, which led to a Hamas-run terrorist state in the strip, as well as the refusals of Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate in good faith — that peace is out of reach in the foreseeable future.

As Miller now concedes, the summit didn’t have any of the elements that could lead to success, such as “strong leaders,” a “workable deal” and “effective U.S. mediation.” Barak’s desperation and the Clinton administration’s poor planning made things worse.

He is also correct in pointing out that Clinton’s belief that trying and failing was better than not trying at all was horribly wrong. The consequences of his hubris were paid in the blood of those slaughtered in Arafat’s intifada.

Nevertheless, Miller still holds onto the delusion that more American pressure on the Jewish state, coupled with a set of parameters for a deal that would have given the Israelis no wriggle room on Jerusalem and other intractable issues, might have made a difference.

He disdains the efforts of the Trump administration to advance peace, thinking its leaders are far too close to Israel. But although Kushner seems to have tried to avoid making the same mistakes as Clinton, he, too, doesn’t seem to fully understand why even his more realistic “Prosperity to Peace” vision had as little chance of achieving an agreement as the 2000 summit.

In an interview with Newsweek, he exhibited some magical thinking of his own. Kushner believes that the key to peace was pushing the Arab states closer to Israel. Doing so is a good thing in and of itself, but like every other formula for a settlement, it failed because the Palestinians just aren’t interested.

The lessons of the Camp David Summit rest on understanding that better diplomacy, planning and help from outside parties is never going to be enough. Until the Palestinians give up their vision of a world without a State of Israel — one that is now sadly shared by Jews like Peter Beinart, who think the failure to make peace means that the Zionist project should be discarded in favor of a dangerous utopian vision that will lead to far more bloodshed than any intifada — no peace process, no matter how skillfully conducted will ever succeed.

Most Israelis understand this bitter truth and have adjusted their expectations accordingly. It is to be hoped that future American governments, including a putative one led by former Vice President Joe Biden, which will likely be staffed by Clinton and Obama administration veterans, will be capable of understanding that in the absence of a sea change in Palestinian political culture, further negotiations are simply a waste of everyone’s time.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

The post Jonathan Tobin: Camp David 20 years later – still holding onto the Oslo delusion appeared first on World Israel News.

Meretz party’s Arab parliamentarian says that Barak’s apology is an “opening” to future cooperation.

By World Israel News Staff 

Former prime minister Ehud Barak, who has returned to politics and is running in the September 17 Knesset election, has issued an apology for the deaths of 13 Israeli Arabs in October 2000, when he served as premier and defense minister.

It was a volatile period after the failure of the Camp David summit of the summer of 2000. The 13 Arabs died during violent clashes with Israeli police.

According to American and Israeli accounts, Barak offered to divide sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem and hand over nearly all of Judea and Samaria to a Palestinian state, but his offer was not accepted. Instead, the Second Intifada broke out.

“I express regret and an apology to the families and the [Arab] society,” Barak said on Tuesday in an interview with Kan public radio. “There is no place for demonstrators getting killed by the fire of security forces,” he said.

The violence marked the beginning of what became known as the Second Intifada (Uprising). Between 2000 and 2005, some one thousand Israelis were murdered in Palestinian terror attacks.

In 2001, Sharon defeated Barak in an election for prime minister.

After a break of several years from political life, Barak announced in June that he would be running in the upcoming parliamentary election, stressing the need to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu, who has served as prime minister since 2009, including a period when Barak returned to the post of defense minister.

Barak is hoping to be a part of a center-left bloc that could create a governing majority in the next Knesset that would end Netanyahu’s reign, which has also included a term from 1996 to 1999, as longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history. Among the parties that would be a part of such a coalition is Meretz.

MK Issawi Frej, a Meretz Arab parliamentarian, said that Barak’s apology on Tuesday was an “opening” to future cooperation.

The post Aiming to unite with left, Barak apologizes for deaths of Arab rioters in October 2000 appeared first on World Israel News.

In an exclusive interview, Yair Shamir clarifies why acting Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz was out of context when he quoted his father, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, and reveals some new information about the late Israeli leader.

By Avrohom Shmuel Lewin, JNS

Acting Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz caused an uproar last week during an interview with Israeli TV when he quoted former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir as having said, “the Poles suckle anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk.”

As a result, Poland and Czechoslovakia cancelled their participation in a meeting of European Union members in Israel that was to have been taking place the following day. Ultimately, the meeting was canceled all together.

In an exclusive interview in Tel Aviv with JNS, Yair Shamir, 73, a former agriculture minister who also served as chairman of El Al Airlines and of Israel Aerospace Industries, spoke of his father’s remarks about the Poles and why Katz’s statement was out of place. He also expressed trepidation about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s performance and revealed things about his father that were never disclosed.

Yair Shamir: My father’s parents lived in a town in Poland that had a mixed population of Jews and non-Jews, and my father’s father (my grandfather) served as head of the population of both the Jews and non-Jews. The non-Jews would also come to him to settle disputes that would arise among themselves, or between them and other Jews. He worked in the lumber industry, owning several forests, and most of his employees were Poles.

When the war broke out, his employees helped him build a shelter and hiding place; it was like a bunker, where he stored food, beds and blankets, and everything you would need. He brought his family to live in this bunker—my father’s sisters, their husbands and children. But those same employees who helped him build the bunker later murdered him and the entire family, and took all of their belongings.

My father wasn’t there because he had immigrated to Eretz Israel [the Land of Israel] in 1935. He repeatedly wrote and pleaded with them to leave Poland and come to Israel to join him, but his father kept pushing him off, saying “maybe next year.”

‘Katz missed the context’

So you can understand why my father spoke in such a way about the Poles. However, Katz missed the context in which he said it. There was Yitzhak Shamir the private citizen and then there was Yitzhak Shamir the foreign minister or the prime minister representing the State of Israel. As a private citizen, he would say things like “the Poles suckle anti-Semitism with their mothers’ milk” or “my foot will never step on Polish soil.” He would never even speak their language. As far as he personally was concerned, he was “finished with them.”

Then there was Yitzhak Shamir the foreign minister. As such, he realized that Poland was an important country and it was imperative to forge good diplomatic relations with it; therefore, he would contain his emotions. Katz did not make that differentiation and caused an outcry.

Q: What is your take on the upcoming elections in Israel? Is there a threat to Netanyahu’s leadership?

YS: This election will be interesting. The small parties will dissipate. Only two blocs will remain, and the people will have to choose either here or there; there’s no ambiguity. I think in the end, Bibi [Netanyahu] will take the election, but if he would not have run at all, the Likud would take the election without any doubt. People are fed up with Bibi.

On the one hand, Bibi is showing more maturity than before; he is taking more risks and is doing things that he didn’t do before, like developing ties with the Arab world. And he is trying to get more votes for the Likud by steering the Likud more to the center of the political spectrum than to the right. But as far as the “grand plan” for Israel is concerned, I see an erosion; I don’t see him showing any strength in that area.

Q: If, as you say, he is developing ties with the Arab world, where do you see an erosion? What grand plan are you talking about?

YS: I mean in the area of Eretz Israel. He is ready to make territorial concessions because when he meets with Arab leaders, what can he offer them besides territory? Of course, there’s the common enemy that brings Bibi together with the Arab world: Iran. But, in the end, at some stage, they will demand more Israeli concessions in exchange for any relations.

Q: One can say the same thing about your father when he went to meet with the Arab world in Madrid?

Netanyahu ‘remains ambiguous’

YS: When he went to Madrid, my father made a condition loud and clear that he is going only to negotiate peace for peace, but if you want to negotiate land for peace, then forget about it. “I’m not coming,” he said. Bibi is not saying that.

Another thing, Bibi never retracted his speech that he made at Bar-Ilan University in favor of a two-state solution, nor did he cancel the Oslo accords. He remains ambiguous about these issues.

Q: Is that why he is not promoting settlement activity in Judea and Samaria?

YS: I think he knows details of Trump’s peace plan, that it will demand territorial concessions there. He is interested in that plan being delayed as much as possible. Therefore, he feels that any action in Judea and Samaria will accelerate the announcement of the peace plan. He is very careful and never took concrete action to promote settlement activity in Judea and Samaria.

I think this reflects his true opinion, as stated in his speech at Bar-Ilan; therefore, he is leaving all the doors open in Judea and Samaria. That’s not good. On the one hand, the Jewish population is growing there, and at the same time, the security situation has weakened there. The Arabs have become more brazen because they feel the world has their back.

In Gaza, the situation is worse than in Judea and Samaria because in Judea and Samaria they know that the IDF will enter whenever they want. In Gaza, however, they use civilians as human shields, so it is much more difficult. They know how to play with human lives very well.

Q: Have you missed being out of politics?

YS: Not at all, and I have no desire to return. There is no one to talk to; there is no common ground; it’s all about extreme egotism and personal interests. There is no ideology, no vision, no goal. When I joined the Yisrael Beiteinu party, I thought I could make a difference, and although I did make some changes, they were minor. In order to make a significant change, you have to have partners, and I don’t feel there are partners there today.

In my opinion, the only one in the Knesset today that is ideologically inclined and doesn’t have only personal interests in mind is Ayelet Shaked. She has proven to be a very capable, clever and eloquent politician with integrity. If she were in Likud, she would be a real threat to Bibi.

By the way, after I was sworn in as agriculture minister six years ago, she came over to me and, after introducing herself, said that she entered politics because of my father. She said that when she was an elementary student in the eighth grade, my father once came to speak before her class. She was so impressed and taken by his integrity, honesty and conviction that when she came home that day after school, she told her parents: “I want to be a politician like Yitzhak Shamir when I grow up.”

Liberman ‘was a disappointment’

Q: Do you think your colleague Avigdor Liberman was qualified to be defense minister, and should he have resigned as he did?

YS: At first, I thought he was qualified, but after watching him perform, I realized that I was wrong. He was a disappointment; he could have done more if he wanted. A defense minister of Israel is supposed to transcend petty politics. When a defense minister of Israel resigns, it should cause an “earthquake,” not be viewed as a political move. But it passed without any outcry, as if it were a minor minister who resigns for political reasons.

Defense is Israel’s lifeline. His resignation was met with total apathy because he didn’t do anything during the time he was on the job, and so the people felt that nothing was lost by his resignation.

Q: Uri Ariel succeeded you in the agricultural ministry. Has he made any significant changes?

YS: I hear there is more infighting in the office since I left. That weakens the ministry significantly, and as a result, the agricultural industry in Israel is in retreat.

Q: Much has been written about your father in the course of the years. Can you tell us something about him that was not mentioned?

YS: I can tell you something personal in how he related to me that was not written anywhere. When I was training in the air force, I wrote him a letter that I was working to become an officer. At that time, my father was working for the Mossad in Europe. He wrote me back: “If you are going to lead others, always remember the biblical verse, Tzedek tzedek tirdof (Justice, justice shall you pursue).

At that time, I thought that he was telling me to be honest and act fairly with those under my command. Once, when I was older, I asked him why does it say tzedek twice? He replied, “Go study.” That was his standard reply whenever I would ask him something: “Go and find out for yourself.”

I searched and found that the first tzedek is to judge according to the law. The second is to have mercy—to take into account the circumstances facing the person in front of you and not to judge him only according to the law.

Another thing people don’t know about my father is that he loved chazzanut (cantorial music). He could sit and listen to it for hours. Over the weekend, there would be a two-hour radio program of chazzanut; we knew during that time that we couldn’t interrupt him.

Q: Did he have a favorite chazzan (cantor)?

YS: Yes, Cantor Shmuel Malavsky and family. I love chazzanut and opera too. I also have all the albums of Chassidic singers like Mordechai Ben David, Yaakov Shweky, Avraham Fried. My favorite is Avraham Fried. Whenever I’m depressed, I’ll listen to songs by Avraham Fried.

Q: When they asked your father to succeed Menachem Begin, did it come as a surprise to your family?

YS: Look, Begin stopped functioning quite a long time before he resigned. My father was foreign minister, and Ariel Sharon was defense minister. Sharon tried to implement all kinds of moves that he would not dare have tried when Begin was strong. But now Begin was weak and could not interfere, and  Sharon posed a problem. Finally, Begin announced he can’t lead anymore, and a struggle for the leadership ensued between my father and David Levy. Although my father was not the type to fight for leadership, he felt that for the sake of the country he has to prevent Levy from taking charge. He felt Levy was not qualified to be prime minister.

Opposed to peace deal with Egypt

Q: How did your father view Sadat coming to Jerusalem and the Camp David Accords?

YS: Generally, he supported forging ties with Egypt, which at that time was the biggest Arab country. What bothered him most was the price Israel had to pay for it—that we agreed to uproot settlements. He was adamantly opposed to that because he felt that was a precedent and would repeat itself later. I asked him why, when the vote for the peace deal with Egypt came up, he abstained. He said the clause in the agreement about uprooting settlements bothered him very much.

Q: Why abstain and not vote against it?

YS: I imagine because he was Speaker of the House and didn’t want to embarrass Begin. The deal would have passed anyway with an overwhelming majority, even if my father would have voted against it.

Q: At first, your father was reluctant to attend the Madrid peace conference in 1991, but in the end he did attend. What made him change his mind?

YS: There was tremendous pressure from the United States, and there were very hard and intense negotiations beforehand. In the end, all of my father’s conditions were met. Land for peace was not on the agenda. There was no independent representation of the PLO; they came as part of the Jordanian delegation. All the Arab states attended.

There is another condition that was never made known; I myself heard it from somebody else, not from my father. My father never spoke of it with us. He made a condition that a number of Jewish families should be allowed to leave Syria and unite with their families in Israel. That condition was met as well.

Q: Finally, what was it like being the son of the prime minister?

YS: Well, when my father became prime minister, I was 37 years old. I had already been a military officer, so it wasn’t as big a deal as it would have been for a kid whose father became prime minister.

The post Yitzhak Shamir’s son: Katz took father’s ‘Poles suckle anti-Semitism’ words out of context appeared first on World Israel News.

The coalition passed a law requiring a two-thirds-majority vote before parts of Jerusalem can be given away in a peace agreement.  At the same time, the door is now open to tampering with the city’s municipal boundaries in order to ensure a large Jewish majority.

By Steve Leibowitz, World Israel News

The ‘Unified Jerusalem’ law was passed in the Knesset late Monday night as an amendment to ‘Basic Law: Jerusalem.’ Driven by Education Minister Naftali Bennett and his Habayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) party, the new law requires that any decision on the status of Jerusalem must receive an 80-Knesset-member (two-thirds) majority.

Bennett welcomed the law’s passage, tweeting, “We’ve assured Jerusalem’s unity. The law safeguards Jerusalem, whose status will not be changed unless an enormous 80-MK majority is reached. The Mount of Olives, the Old City, the Temple Mount and the City of David will remain ours forever. No political stunts will rip our capital apart.”

While it’s true that the new law now requires a two-thirds majority for any decision to be taken on Jerusalem’s status, the law itself can be changed with a bare majority of 61 MKs in favor. At the same time, along with the law’s passage, an article was changed in ‘Basic Law: Jerusalem’ removing the prohibition on making changes to the city’s municipal boundaries. In other words, areas currently part of the Jerusalem municipality may be removed from the city and placed “in a separate authority” with Israeli sovereignty still applying to them. That means the door has been opened to tampering with Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries in order to ensure a large Jewish majority in the Israeli capital.

Bennett continued tweeting, “Our capital city was saved twice from the catastrophe of partition efforts led by former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, when they held a fleeting Knesset majority. That is now over. The ‘Unified Jerusalem Law’ prevents any possibility of partition, strengthens our international standing and prevents future pressures on Israel.”

‘A new precedent’

Hebrew University Prof. Moshe Amirav was an aide to Barak at the Camp David talks when Israel made an offer to the Palestinians to divide Jerusalem. Amirav told World Israel News (WIN), “This is a new precedent. Many Knesset members are not aware that in June 1967, when Jerusalem was captured, a decision was taken to include all surrounding areas into the municipality. The pre-1967 Israeli side of Jerusalem was only about 30 square kilometers in size. We added over 100 square kilometers, including an assortment of Jordanian villages that had no connection to east Jerusalem on the Jordanian side. This was supposed to be a temporary solution. We knew then and know now that sooner or later Jerusalem must rid itself of these Arab neighborhoods. Of course this does not apply to the one square kilometer that includes the Temple Mount and the Western Wall in the Old City.”

According to Amirav, “In Camp David we agreed to give them areas that included about 300,000 Arab inhabitants. These areas are a trap for Israel because they can eventually reach a majority in the city. In Camp David I spoke directly to Yasser Arafat and asked him, ‘Why don’t you tell the Jerusalem Palestinians to vote in the municipal elections?’ He said he was willing, but the local Palestinian leaders in Jerusalem, like Faisal Husseini, were opposed. Fortunately for us it never happened.”

As Bennett and Habayit HaYehudi are celebrating their claim that the ‘United Jerusalem’ law safeguards the city from ever being divided in the future, Jerusalem Affairs Minister Ze’ev Elkin is planning to use the new legislation to remove Arab neighborhoods that are beyond the security barrier from the municipality.

Elkin knows that the new law states that only a bare Knesset majority is needed to change the ‘Unified Jerusalem’ law, meaning that 61 votes could cancel the need for 80 votes. Elkin also understands that the same bare majority could cancel the article forbidding changes in Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries. According to Elkin, on Monday it was not possible to gerrymander Jerusalem, but on Tuesday it became legal.

Elkin envisions the eventual manipulation of Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries to remove Arab neighborhoods that are currently inside the city but outside the security wall. These include places that few Israelis visit or have even heard of, such as Shuafat, Kafr Akab, Sawahra, Sheikh Sa’ad, and parts of  Walaja. The idea is to create a new Arab municipality beyond the barrier in order to protect the Jewish majority in the city.

‘A brave move by Minister Elkin’

Knesset member and former Jerusalem councilwoman Rachel Azaria (Kulanu) told WIN, “This will make it easier to remove Arab neighborhoods from Jerusalem’s municipal responsibility. I think Jerusalem is a city where we must live together. The idea of a wall running through a part of the city as it does today is not something we want to see. The bill is important because it delineates places that are not really part of Jerusalem. Its residents do not identify as Jerusalemites, and they don’t receive proper municipal services because they are not physically integrated into Jerusalem. There is something about Jerusalem that terrifies a lot of leaders to make any decisions. It was a brave move by Minister Elkin.”

Jerusalem Councilwoman Fleur Hassan-Nahoum (Yerushalmim, a Jerusalem municipal party) told WIN, “If we keep all of these Arab neighborhoods inside Jerusalem, then they must be given services just like other residents. It’s unworkable to keep those living beyond the wall inside the city. We can’t have it both ways. The Arab residents in the city could vote in higher numbers and then they would have council members fighting for their rights.”

If Elkin has his way, Jerusalem’s Jewish majority will increase, and some Arab residents will live in a still unnamed municipality outside Jerusalem’s city limits.

The post Analysis: ‘United Jerusalem’ law paves way for tampering with Israeli capital’s municipal boundaries appeared first on World Israel News.

Saudi Arabia has vowed to match Iran’s nuclear capabilities as Obama’s pledge of military backing for the Arab states falls short of an actual defense pact.

By: Lauren Calin

President Obama with the GCC delegates at Camp David. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Saudi Arabia vowed to match Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability at a summit of Arab states hosted in Washington. President Obama pledged an increase in military aid to US allies in the Persian Gulf that was far short of the formal defense pact that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and Oman, had hoped for.

In a possible snub to Obama, King Salman of Saudi Arabia declined to attend the two-day summit, sending the country’s interior and defense ministers instead. “We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” an anonymous Arab official told the New York Times ahead of the meeting.

Under the framework nuclear agreement, Iran will be allowed to keep 6,000 of its centrifuges, a number the Iranian leadership is pushing to bump up to 10,000.

During the summit at Camp David, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir expressed skepticism that an Iranian nuclear agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “We will follow the talks and see before we can judge in terms of whether or not the Iranians will do what it takes to reach a deal,” he said.

Earlier in the week, Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal vowed, “Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” essentially threatening an arms race in the Middle East.

Obama rarely uses Camp David for personal or official business, and White House aides had hoped that the more intimate setting would foster candid conversation. But just two other heads of state — the emirs of Qatar and Kuwait — attended. The others sent lower-level, though still influential, representatives. The most embarrassing absence, for the U.S., was Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. He rejected the summit for a horse show in Britain and a meeting with Queen Elizabeth II.

Iran’s army on the march. (PressTV)

In order to assuage Arab fears, Obama invoked a “new era of cooperation,” promising Thursday “to work with our GCC partners to urgently determine what actions may be appropriate” in the event of Iranian aggression. This carefully worded pledge fell far short of a formal defense pact, which would obligate the US to defend its Gulf allies if attacked by Iran. Instead, the president offered an “extensive program” of military cooperation to develop Arab defense capabilities, including the creation of a regional missile defense system and conducting joint training exercises.

The US, he vowed, will “use all elements of power to secure our core interests in the Gulf region and to deter and confront external aggression against our allies and partners.”

US military cooperation with the Arab Gulf states could prove a conundrum to Israel, which is similarly threatened by Iran’s nuclear program but also has a policy of maintaining a qualitative military edge (QME) over its Arab neighbors, who do not recognize its existence. Obama’s pledge may signify an erosion of the American commitment to maintain Israel’s QME.

AP contributed to this report.

The post Saudi Arabia threatens Obama with regional arms race appeared first on World Israel News.

Ahead of Obama’s Camp David summit with the Gulf countries, the Arab press warns of failing diplomatic ties with the US and regional upheaval.

By: Aryeh Savir, World Israel News

Leaders of the Arab Gulf States. (AP/Hassan Ammar)

President Barack Obama is scheduled to hold a summit in Camp David over the weekend together with delegates from the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and Oman.

The Sunni countries are sending lower-level delegates to the summit and the heads of state are not attending the conference in an act of protest over Obama’s push towards a deal with Iran over its nuclear aspirations, which the Gulf countries believe will further destabilize the region and even threaten their existence. The Emirs of Kuwait and Qatar are the only GCC heads of state who are planning to attend.

According to a New York Times report, the Saudis had even then hinted that they would further downgrade their representation if they felt that the summit was not going to produce results that conformed to their expectations.

The objective of the Camp David summit is to reassure the GCC countries about the nuclear agreement slated to be signed with Iran next month, as well as to discuss tighter US-Gulf security cooperation.

Obama may attempt to assuage the Gulf countries’ fears by offering them an advanced security package which includes weapons they have not yet added to their arsenal. However, the Arab news site Elaph.com reported that the Gulf heads of state would not settle for aid, military contracts, and defense systems provided by the US, but that they were seeking “clear, honest, and practical clarification, by means of absolutely firm, long-term resolutions, that Iran would be prevented from actualizing its expansionist aspirations in the region and from developing nuclear weapon.”

Elaph also reported that “the Gulf leaders are headed for confrontation with the American president, and they want answers and explanations about his positions on these burning issues.”

There are reports of extensive diplomatic efforts on both sides to clear the air, but at the same time the Saudi press published numerous articles and editorials fiercely attacking the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, stating that it had repeatedly disappointed the Arab countries vis-à-vis its foreign policy in the Middle East.

Has Obama Lost the Middle East?

The articles accused the Obama administration of reinforcing Iran’s power in the region – so much so that it was now threatening GCC interests – and underscored that it was not the Iranian nuclear bomb but Iran’s imperialism and expansionism in the region and Iran’s interference in the affairs of the Arab countries that was the “real bomb threatening [the Arab countries’] security,” and called on the US to curb this.

Iran launches a Fatah missile. (PressTV)

These articles focused on the demands that the GCC countries would be presenting to Obama at the summit, including that he change his policy towards Iran and “restore the regional balance,” while at the same time he would undertake unprecedented security military cooperation with the GCC.

The articles emphasized that “the Gulf countries no longer believe the US’s promises and guarantees,” and that they would now demand guarantees in writing. Some of the articles even warned that US-GCC relations were now at a point of a grave, even critical crisis of confidence, and that the Camp David summit was a chance for the US to prevent the collapse of its alliance with the GCC. If this alliance did fall apart, they said, US interests in the region would suffer, and the smoldering regional conflict would erupt into a conflagration.

Salman Al-Dosari, editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, argued that the mutual trust between the US and the Gulf states had eroded to an extent that jeopardizes the alliance between them. “The upcoming Camp David summit may be the most important Gulf-US meeting to take place in 50 years, [because] the US-Gulf alliance is going through a phase of tension and a crisis of confidence,” he wrote. “All [US] institutions are aware of the negative repercussions for American interests that will ensue if the alliance with the Gulf States is dissolved. It is unreasonable for US policy to threaten the interests of the Gulf States, and later we [are bound to] discover that US interests in the region have been harmed as well. This proves that Washington’s policy in the region is completely misguided.” He called for action to back the Obama administration’s rhetoric.

“The US wants to kill two birds with one stone, [by achieving] excellent relations with the Gulf States and with Iran simultaneously. This equation is unacceptable, not because the Gulf States hate [Iran], but because the Iranian regime is predicated on hostility to its neighbors in the Arabian Gulf, and its entire policy is geared towards intervening in their internal affairs. This is the entire story, honorable President Barack Obama.”

Obama’s Policies are Generating Conflict

Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, wrote that he fires burning in the Middle East would in time singe the US as well. “Experience teaches us that Middle East diseases are contagious, and that the terrorism that is taking root there threatens the safety of New York, Washington, Paris, Berlin.”

“It would be no exaggeration to say that the US-Gulf summit at Camp David creates an unusual encounter that will leave its mark on the fate of the Middle East for years or [even] decades to come,” he added.

Iran’s army on the march. (PressTV)

“The American hesitation to deal with it [Iran] decisively and seriously will diminish the importance of the summit and increase the Gulf countries’ apprehensions about Obama’s ‘Iran policy.’ American hesitation will also cause the regional conflict to erupt,” he warned.

George Sama’an, a columnist for Al-Hayat, wrote that the Arabs no longer believe Obama’s promises. “The Gulf states are among the countries that no longer believe the promises and guarantees that the US is providing these days. Obama has not kept any of the promises he made to the residents of the region since his speeches in Egypt and Turkey”

He too demanded action and not only rhetoric. “In light of the changes in the regional and strategic arenas, it is not enough for President Obama to provide guarantees or attempt to calm the situation… What [he] must do [now] is take an active role in a policy that will restore the balance among the region’s major powers… Will he do this, and grow closer to the US’s traditional partners instead of pushing them away?”

Saudi columnist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh wrote, in the Saudi Al-Jazirah daily that the Gulf States may seek other allies such as France or China. “Gulf residents, there are other options. You are not alone in the arena… France is a world power… “This is an extremely clear message [to Obama].”

(With files from MEMRI)

The post Arab press warns US: Iran’s interference in region more dangerous than nuclear bomb appeared first on World Israel News.

Obama is trying hard to convince the Arab Gulf States that a deal with Iran would be safe for them, but they are not convinced. The Saudi king, among others, is not attending the summit.

By: AP and World Israel News Staff

Leaders of the Arab Gulf States. (AP/Hassan Ammar)

The Obama administration’s diplomatic ties with the Arab Gulf countries have taken another turn for the worse, as leaders have canceled their scheduled meeting with President Barack Obama in the US on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman will not attend a Camp David summit of US and allied Arab leaders, his foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said on Sunday.

In a statement, al-Jubeir said the summit Thursday coincides with a humanitarian ceasefire in the conflict in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition is fighting Shiite rebels known as Houthis. He said Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the pro-American Saudi Interior Minister and a lower-level delegate, would lead the Saudi delegation and the king’s son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is defense minister, will also attend.

The leaders of Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have also cancelled their attendance, both citing “health issues.”

Obama had planned to meet Salman one-on-one a day before the gathering of leaders at the presidential retreat. The White House did not take his decision to skip the summit as a sign of any substantial disagreement with the US.

Ties between Washington and Riyadh have been cooling since the Obama administration began working toward a nuclear deal with Iran.

Arab leaders have repeatedly expressed fears that a nuclear agreement with Iran and the lifting of sanctions against the Islamic Republic would enable it to produce a nuclear bomb, acquire weapons and upgrade its military. The Sunni Gulf states, who feel directly threatened by Tehran, fear such a deal could offset a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Shi’ite Iran and the Sunni countries led by Saudi Arabia are regional rivals waging a proxy war through Syria’s civil war. Saudi Arabia and Iran also support rival political parties in Lebanon, and the kingdom is leading airstrikes against Iran-allied Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Summit to Assuage Fears in Gulf States

At the summit, leaders of Gulf nations, feeling under siege, will be looking for assurances that Obama is supporting them. They feel threatened by Islamic terrorists and are concerned about the chaos in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which they fear could spill into their countries.

“I think we are looking for some form of security guarantee, given the behavior of Iran in the region, given the rise of the extremist threat,” said Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE ambassador to the US. “In the past, we have survived with a gentleman’s agreement with the United States about security. I think today, we need something in writing. We need something institutionalized.”

What are the expectations for Obama’s meetings with Gulf Cooperation Council countries — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman?

Weapons sales, a renewed call for a coordinated missile defense system, more joint military exercises, better cooperation on cybersecurity, maritime or border security and coordination od the countries’ defense systems.

The Obama administration is considering arming Sunni Arab Gulf states with advanced missile defense systems and sophisticated weapons in an effort to ease regional fears over a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the Washington Times reported last week.

“I don’t believe there’s a single country [in the council] that doesn’t think a defense shield for the region is a bad idea,” Otaiba said. “The challenge is: How do you turn on a regional defense system when different countries are purchasing different equipment and at different paces? How do you link it? How do you get the radars to talk to each other?”

A high-level Saudi official told the Associated Press in Riyadh that his country wants a defense system and military cooperation similar to what the US affords Israel. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to disclose details of the Saudis’ wish list at the summit, said they also want access to high-tech military equipment, missiles, planes and satellites, as well as more technology and training cooperation with the US.

The US and five other nations are working to complete a deal intended to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for easing penalties that are choking the Iranian economy. The White House says the Gulf countries would be better off with an agreement that blocks Iran’s path to an atomic weapon.

Senator McCain in Saudi Arabia. (AP/Carolyn Kaster)

Senator John McCain, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Obama will have to work hard to convince the Arab allies that they do not need to fear fallout from any nuclear deal.

“Right now they feel that they have no support from this administration, so he has a steep hill to climb,” said McCain, pointing to Saudi Arabia’s decision to act unilaterally in Yemen.

McCain said that’s why the Saudis gave General Lloyd Austin, head of the US Central Command, only “an hour’s notice they were going to strike Yemen.” Saudi Arabia has led airstrikes against Iranian-backed rebels who have toppled the Yemeni government.

Secretary of State John Kerry declined to say exactly what kind of reassurances Obama is prepared to offer at Camp David.

In general terms, Kerry said Friday in Paris that the US wants to strengthen its “security-military relationship” with its Gulf allies and tackle a variety of problems, “foremost of which is the Iranian interference in the affairs of the countries of the region.”

He said US officials were fleshing out commitments that would create a “new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate panel overseeing foreign aid, warned against offering a massive arms package in exchange for Gulf nations’ support of a nuclear deal. Graham said he is not opposed to upgrading the military capabilities of Arab allies, but “if it has a hint of being connected to the Iran deal, I will do everything I can to make sure they never get one bullet or one plane.”

Jon Alterman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington questioned if there is anything the United States can do that would reassure the Gulf States when it comes to Iranian expansionism.

“It seems to me that where they most want reassurance is where the US is both least able and most unwilling to provide it,” he said. “My guess is that the summit is going to leave everybody feeling a little bit unsatisfied.”

The post Arab leaders snub Obama summit appeared first on World Israel News.