Terror in Diplomatic Guise: How the French Consulate in Jerusalem Operates Against Israel - by Itai Reuveni

Supporting terrorists, attacking soldiers and police and funding extremist organizations. The case of an official representative of France caught smuggling arms from Gaza to Judea and Samaria is the latest in a long chain of problematic activity

Itai Reuveni..
MiDA..
10 April '18..

When reports surfaced in the international media of a serious security incident involving an employee of a foreign consulate stationed in Israel, my first guess was that there was a good chance that the French consulate in Jerusalem was involved.

Apart from its role as the official diplomatic representative of France in Jerusalem and the various services it provides the city’s residents, consulate employees themselves have recorded a very problematic history over the years with regards to their attitude towards the country that hosts them. This is not the first time they have taken an active part in the struggle against the State of Israel.

The details of the incident were clarified in an official statement by the Israel Security Agency (ISA) – Roman Frank, a driver with the French consulate in Jerusalem, who holds a diplomatic passport and is therefore entitled to immunity and ease of checking at border crossings, was arrested after a weapons smuggler from Gaza was apprehended in Judea and Samaria.

Frank took advantage of the diplomatic license plates in the vehicle he used to easily pass through checkpoints and roadblocks, smuggling in dozens of weapons in return for payment. Several collaborators from Israel and the Palestinian Authority were arrested along with him.

He received the weapons in Gaza, from a civilian employed at a French-funded cultural center, defined as a kind of official cultural attaché of France in Gaza. In one case, Frank received $700 in exchange for six guns. In another case, when 17 guns and rifles were transferred, the consular worker received a sum of NIS 10,500 for the smuggling.

Problematic Activity


This serious incident, where an official representative of a foreign government assists terrorist activity, joins a long list of cases in which French consulate employees were involved in problematic activities.

(Continue to Full Post)

Itai Reuveni is Director of the Israel desk with NGO Monitor.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Glick - The scourge of clientitis

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
23 November '11

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/11/the-scourge-of-clientitis.php


For many years, observers of the US State Department on both sides of the American political spectrum have agreed that State Department officials suffer from a malady referred to as “clientitis.” Clientitis is generally defined as a state of mind in which representatives of an organization confuse their roles.

Rather than advance the cause of their organization to outside organizations, they represent the interests of outside organizations to their own organizations.

In some cases, diplomats are simply corrupted by their host governments. For generations US diplomats to Saudi Arabia have received lucrative post-government service jobs at Saudi-owned or controlled companies, public relations firms and other institutions.

Often, the problem is myopia rather than corruption.

Diplomats who speak to foreign government officials on a daily basis often simply ignore the context in which these foreigners operate. They become friends with their interlocutors and forget that the latter are also agents of their governments tasked with promoting foreign interests in their dealings with US diplomats.

In Israel the situation is similar. Here, too, Foreign Ministry officials have a tendency to give preference to the positions of the governments or institutions to which they are assigned over the interests and positions of the Israeli government that sent them to their posts. For instance, in September 2008, shortly after the UN allowed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to use his speech at the UN General Assembly to accuse the Jews of controlling the world in a bid to poison and destroy it, then-Israeli ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev gave an interview to Army Radio in which she said her primary duty is “correcting the UN’s image in the eyes of the people of Israel.”

SINCE THE scourge of clientitis among diplomats is widely recognized, governments are often able to consider its impact on diplomats when they weigh the credibility or wisdom of recommendations presented by their professional diplomats.

Ettinger: Time for new diplomacy

Yoram Ettinger
Israel Opinion/Ynet
12 May '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4067509,00.html


Op-ed: Israel should adopt defiant, politically incorrect but principle-driven strategy

Secretaries of State Schultz and Baker did not agree with Prime Minister Shamir's worldview, but they respected his principle-driven tenacity. Upon concluding a meeting with then Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, George Mitchell and Bob Dole, the latter told Shamir: "Irrespective of our disagreement with your policy, we respect you, because you're tough."

The international arena does not respect Israeli prime ministers who seek popularity rather than respect, transforming Red Lines to Pink Lines, in order to avoid confrontation. The world does not appreciate prime ministers who subordinate long-term vision and conviction to short-term diplomatic and political convenience.

In contrast to the legacy of Prime Ministers Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Golda Meir, Begin and Shamir, Israel's current public diplomacy reflects frail conviction, while expressing empathy for claims made by Israel's enemies. It tolerates simplistic Western assumptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict and downplays Israel's contribution to the national security of the US.

Israel has hardly leveraged the current Arab turmoil that underscores the tenuous/violent nature of the Jewish State’s enemies and the inherent obstacles to intra-Arab peace (let alone to Israel-Arab peace.) Israel has failed to emphasize the uniquely high threshold of security requirements of the Jewish State in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world and the special role played by Israel as an outpost of Western democracies and a sole beacon of democracy.

In contrast with the Arabs who highlight their "rights," Israel highlights security requirements, while minimizing well-documented and unique ancient roots. While Israeli leaders pride themselves on their "pragmatism" and willingness to distance themselves from historical roots, they in fact undermine Israel's global legitimacy. The Jewish State ignores the lesson of King Solomon's Trial: He who agrees "to split the difference" forfeits his rights to everything.

The Game

The leaked State Department cables reveal the diplomatic seduction that defines relationships in the Middle East

Lee Smith
Tablet Magazine
08 December '10

This is how U.S. diplomats used to talk about their work in the Middle East: “Every American ambassador in the region knows that official meetings with Arab leaders start with the obligatory half-hour lecture on the Palestinian question,” one with a long tenure in the Middle East told the New York Times before Thanksgiving. “If we could dispense with that half-hour and get down to our other business, we might actually be able to get something done.”

But that was in the pre-Cablegate age. One of the surprising (to some) revelations of the leaked diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks is that, counter to what we’ve been told for over a half century, the Palestinian question does not dominate the thinking of Arab officials.

American journalists still get the “half-hour drill”—I’ve gotten it most recently from the prime minister of Lebanon—but with U.S. diplomats, Arab rulers have more pressing issues to discuss. Indeed, the Wikileaks cables seem to confirm that our Arab allies are consumed by their fear of the Iranians. But are they really?

A number of analysts have spent the first weeks of the post-Cablegate era fighting a rear-guard action against the reality of Mideast diplomacy portrayed in the Wikileaks cables. Some are claiming that what the Arabs say in private to U.S. diplomats about Iran is not what they really mean, or that Arab security regimes do not represent the will of the Arab people. Others argue that those American analysts who find their positions vindicated in the released cables are just looking for any evidence to justify their desire to make war on Iran.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Obama Talks, Syria Mocks

Elliot Abrams
The Weekly Standard
06 March '10

The Obama administration has from the start seen Syria as a leading case for engagement. Barack Obama said so during his presidential campaign (announcing he would meet Bashar al Assad without preconditions) and repeated this policy view again last summer:

We’ve started to see some diplomatic contacts between the United States and Syria. There are aspects of Syrian behavior that trouble us, and we think that there is a way that Syria can be much more constructive on a whole host of these issues. But, as you know, I’m a believer in engagement and my hope is that we can continue to see progress on that front.

The engagement with Syria continues apace. Here are the key elements.

* High level envoys have been sent to Damascus: Under Secretary of State William Burns visited Syria in mid-February, the highest ranking U.S. official to set foot there in more than five years, and Middle East envoy George Mitchell has visited three times. High-ranking Central Command officers have been sent to Damascus to discuss cooperation against terrorism.

* President Obama has now nominated an ambassador to Damascus, the first since Margaret Scobey was withdrawn in 2005 after the murder of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri in Lebanon (which was widely blamed on the Assad regime).

* The president has also removed the American block to Syria’s attempt to join the World Trade Organization.

* The United States has eased some export licenses for Syria, mostly in the area of aircraft.

* Syria’s deputy foreign minister was invited to Washington in October, the first such visit in several years.

So there is certainly “progress on that front,” to use the president’s words. But when does “engagement” become “appeasement”? The case of U.S. policy toward Syria suggests that, here at least, the two approaches may not be far apart.

Palestinians To Israel: Instead Of A Peace Summit, How About We "Escalate Our Struggle" Instead?

Omri
Mere Rhetoric
03 January '10

The awesome thing is that the two statements came out on the exact same day, a nicelypointed illustration of the differences between Israel and its partner in peace. Netanyahu proposed a reinvigorated peace summit in Egypt, and promptly got his answer:

The secular Fatah movement led by Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on Thursday vowed to step up its struggle against the Israeli occupation with demonstrations and diplomacy. "Our programme emphasises the importance of a two-track approach, with the first being the escalation of the popular struggle to resist occupation," the movement said in a statement. The group said it would model the struggle on the weekly demonstrations in two West Bank towns, Bilin and Nilin, where residents hurl rocks and protest against the expansion of Israel's controversial separation barrier. Fatah, which marks the 45th anniversary of the start of its armed struggle on Friday, also vowed to "increase movement on the international level to pursue Israel, to isolate it and to force it to answer to international law."

The really elegant part is how they bundled together (a) threats of Palestinian violence and (b) international efforts to delegitimize Israeli self-defense in the face of Palestinian violence ("to isolate it and to force it to answer to international law"). Only Israel's Arab enemies could be soconfidently brazen about crowing that they'll attack Israeli civilians and then whine about Israeli retaliation.

(Read full post)

.

How Israel Must Talk

FresnoZionism.org

02 October 09

I recently wrote two posts — part I and part II of “How Israel must fight” — discussing the special situation of Israel fighting asymmetric wars, in a hostile political and media environment, and with the ever-present threat of intervention by outside powers.

My conclusion was this:

The primary goal, therefore, in future wars must be as complete a victory as possible: the enemy’s army must be shattered, its leadership killed or captured, its arms and installations destroyed. Victory must obtained as quickly as possible, before outside powers intervene; and it must be achieved with overwhelming force, to multiply the psychological effect. Humanitarian concerns will necessarily take a back seat.

But this same philosophy should be applied to the less-violent arena of diplomacy. Sometimes it seems as though Israeli policy is driven by so many forces other than the national interest: the desire to prove to the world how civilized Israel is, the need to mollify the US administration, and of course domestic political considerations.

For example, take the outrageous prisoner exchange demanded by Hamas for Gilad Schalit — 1000 or more terrorists including multiple murderers. Israel seems to have chosen to negotiate about which and how many prisoners will be freed in exchange; but the negotiations should be based on which and how many Hamas leaders will be executed if Schalit is not released!

The futility of the current approach was demonstrated today by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal:

Those who were able to capture Schalit and hold him safely for more than three years are capable of capturing “Schalit and Schalit and Schalit until there was not even one prisoner in the enemy’s jails,” Mashaal said.

Another example of self-defeating policy is the suggestion by some that Israel should launch an official investigation of the charges in the Goldstone report. Is it not a forgone conclusion that any exculpatory conclusions that such an investigation might produce will be either ignored by the anti-Israel media or be slammed as biased? So what advantage is to be gained by keeping the false accusations made in the report in the public eye?

Yet another is any tendency to take seriously the absurd demands of the PA. Israel should make crystal clear that negotiations will not progress until the PA unambiguously states — in Arabic and English — that it recognizes Israel as the state of the Jewish People, and that all demands for ‘right of return’ are forever off the table.

I think that the Netanyahu government has acted more or less correctly so far, although it may not be able to resist the demands to bring Schalit home at almost any cost.

I’m hopeful that it will be able to turn around the apologetic and defeatist attitude that has characterized Israel’s diplomacy in recent years, and present to the world a picture of a nation confident of its power and legitimacy.
.

One Cheer for Obama's Foreign Policy

by Daniel Pipes
danielpipes.org
September 16, 2009

The Obama administration has established an alarmingly naïve and dangerous record on Arab-Israeli issues, leading me to worry about spectacular policy failures ahead. But it has initiated one innovative and positive policy deserving high praise.

Instead of Israel making yet more unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, in late May Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu called to "bring Arab states into the circle of peace." U.S. special envoyGeorge Mitchell and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak picked up on this and developed plans to integrate those Arab states into the diplomatic process. In mid-July, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted that "Arab states have a responsibility … to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel's place in the region."

A month later, Barack Obama declared his hope that "we are going to see not just movement from the Israelis, but also from the Palestinians around issues of incitement and security, from Arab states that show their willingness to engage Israel." According to Foreign Policy blogger Laura Rozen – later confirmed by the White House – Obama "sent letters to at least seven Arab and Gulf states seeking confidence-building measures [CBMs] toward Israel." (Those states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.)

In one such letter, sent on July 7 to King Mohammed VI of Morocco, Obama expressed his hope that Arab states will take steps to end Israel's "isolation" in the Middle East and that "Morocco will be a leader in bridging gaps between Israel and the Arab world." Examples of CBMs include Arab states opening trade office in Israel, allowing Israeli planes to traverse its airspace, issuing tourist visas to Israelis, and Arab officials meeting with Israeli leaders.

This appeal found a mixed Arab reception. On the positive side, Bahrain's crown prince, Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, suggested that "All sides need to take simultaneous, good-faith action if peace is to have a chance" and Jordanian foreign minister Nasser Judeh committed his government "to creating the right atmosphere" and supporting the U.S. "vision." An unnamed Arab diplomat offered that "In return for a symbolic compromise on the settlements, some Arab states will be willing to pay with some symbolic gestures."

Diplomatic smiles waned when Saudi king Abdullah "launched a tirade" at Barack Obama.

In contrast, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia rejected Obama's appeal for CBMs vis-à-vis Israel during a presidential visit in early June. Rozenreports that the Saudi monarch "launched a tirade during Obama's long meeting in Riyadh." It went so badly that Saudi officials "later apologized to the U.S. president for the king's behavior." Likewise, Egypt's foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit asked rhetorically, "Is normalization possible as long as the building in settlements continues? The answer is no, of course." Arab League chief Amr Moussa deemed it "impossible to speak of normalization when Israel rejects any significant measure."

Negative responses notwithstanding, the involvement of the Arab states that can offer benefits to Israel should limit the harm inflicted by do-gooding diplomatic "peace processors."

Almost two decades ago, in a Wall Street Journal article of June 1990, I called for including the states. I noted there a remarkable symmetry in which "Palestinians want from Israel what Israel wants from the Arab states—recognition and legitimacy. Thus, Palestinians seek concessions from Israel and Israel seeks concessions from the Arab states."

I suggested yoking together the parallel frustrations that "Israel cannot get what it wants from the Arab states, and the Palestinians cannot get what they want from Israel." The U.S. government should, I proposed, "link concessions to Israel by the Arab states with Israeli concessions to the Palestinians." That is, when the Arab states give Israel something it wants, Israelis should then—and only then—be expected to give something in turn to the Palestinians."

As an example, I proposed that when the Saudis end their economic boycott of Israel, Israelis in return increase Palestinian access to underground water on the West Bank. This balanced approach, I suggested, "places the burden of the initiative squarely on the Arab states—where it should be."

After the long, sterile, and counterproductive detour of exclusively Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, it is gratifying to see an attempt finally to bring the Arab states into the negotiations. I still maintain that thePalestinians need be defeated before negotiations can usefully take place, but involving the Arab states improves the balance and reduces the potential for damage.
.