Dear Friends,

We all applaud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s outstanding speech yesterday in Congress.

Leftwing politicians and commentators in Israel and abroad are of course attacking the speech, but the People in Israel and in the United States of America will not be fooled.

Below please find an interview with former foreign minister Professor Moshe Arens on the motives for the attack on Netanyahu’s speech. The interview appears in the latest issue of Sovereignty that Women in Green published yesterday and will distribute all over the country, in the next few days, in Hebrew and in English, in 120,000 copies.

Women in Green wishes all friends of Israel a happy Purim.

“And The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour” (Meguilat Esther)

Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar
www.womeningreen.org

www.ribonut.co.il

‘The motives for the attack on Netanyahu’s speech in Congress – politicization and lack of understanding’
Professor Moshe Arens is convinced that even if Obama and his people do not like Netanyahu’s speech in Congress, this will not cause a degradation of relations between the United States and Israel, a relationship that is based on mutual interests, which the United States also understands should not be given up.
A lack of understanding and political biases. These are the two reasons that former foreign minister, Prof. Moshe Arens finds for the frontal attack against the prime minister regarding his speech in the American Congress and the claim that Israel’s relations with the government in Washington are being degraded.
Prof. Arens endured tremendous American stresses while he was a minister in Yitzhak Shamir’s government and the present stress on Netanyahu’s government appear in his eyes to be of totally different proportions than how they are described in the Israeli media.
“Relations with the United States are very good”, he states and clarifies that even if it seems that in the fabric of Israeli-American relations, that Israel is the receiver and the United States is the giver, the reality is quite different. “The relationship is based on the interests of both countries. The connection between the two countries is advantageous to both countries. No country would harm relations that it considers to be advantageous for it. Therefore I am sure that Netanyahu’s speech in Congress cannot harm these interests. Everyone who is concerned can rest reassured”.
Arens, perhaps because of his responsible political approach, finds it difficult to understand why the prime minister’s political opposition must make use even of this speech in order to butt heads and fight with him. He sees the speech as having importance of the first degree for every Israeli whatever his political beliefs. “The agreement that is being formulated between the United States and Iran is not good for Israel and it is in the interest of every responsible Israeli citizen, no matter whom he intends to vote for, that the prime minister’s speech before the two houses of Congress will be effective. Period”.
Arens is not impressed by the fact that those who oppose Netanyahu’s speech are headed by the person who was foreign minister, MK Tzipi Livni, and who should, supposedly, understand the true structure of Israel’s relations with the United States. In his opinion, as mentioned, the reasons for the criticism of Netanyahu are clear. “The unfortunate fact is that many Israelis speak on the subject of relations with the United States without understanding the United States and the way in which a position is formulated there and without understanding the true essence of the relationship, or they prefer to hide this in order to blame the prime minister. It is a mixture of lack of understanding and political motives. There is a lack of understanding here. People do not understand what these relations are based on. The support for Israel comes from Republicans as well as Democrats and nothing will change as a result of the speech, even if the president of the United States is not enthusiastic about Netanyahu’s appearance there”.
Arens also relates to Israel’s degree of political freedom, especially in light of the Israeli sense that the Israeli prime minister cannot take a different political stance from that which is dictated to him by the White House. Arens totally rejects this approach and states that an Israeli leader must have only Israeli interests in mind. “We must take care of our own interests and our interests and in Judea and Samaria are essential and necessary for our security. We must state our policies according to our interests and with all due respect to former American president Bush and his letter, I am not sure that this letter represents the epitome of the State of Israel’s security interests”.
Arens reminds us that there have already been leaders who stood up for Israel in the face of American dictates, and under much tougher circumstances. “Begin did it and he told them that we are not a banana republic. Why is it a problem to say this?” he says, and mentions that this stance was taken with the Americans during the period when Israel’s economic dependence was far greater than that of today. “The State of Israel has progressed in giant steps since then. Israel of today is a relatively rich state showing impressive growth for years. It is nice to get grants but we must remember that this support also serves American interests. These are not gifts. But even during the economic crisis, when there was no choice and they had to cut their governmental budget, and also the support to Israel, it became clear even then that we can even get by without this. Their support represents perhaps one and a half percent of the Israel gross national product and if this is decreased or eliminated it will not harm us, and certainly not harm us critically. We do not need to change direction because of some dependence or other on a friend like the United States”.