This document provides a summary of several news articles on current events related to Israel, Palestine, and the Jewish community. It discusses the terrorist attacks in Paris and rising anti-Semitism in Europe. It also summarizes polls showing a decrease in Democratic identification among American Jews and analyses the failed Palestinian resolution at the UN Security Council seeking statehood. The document argues that true responsibility needs to be placed on Palestinian leadership to make substantive concessions for peace rather than symbolic actions.

1. 1
AN AMERICAN JEWISH – GERMAN INFORMATION & OPINION NEWSLETTER
dubowdigest@optonline.net
GERMANY EDITION
January 2015
IN THIS EDITION
THE FRENCH MURDERS - A few personal thoughts
AMERICAN JEWISH POLITICAL IDENTIFICATION – More Republican?
THE PALESTINIAN UN RESOLUTION – Another loser.
PALESTINIAN RESPONSIBILITY: SUBSTANCE NOT SYMBOLS – Responsibility is
the key word.
GAZA: WHAT A MESS! – A people at war with themselves.
THE ISRAELI ELECTION: A SENSIBLE POINT OF VIEW – At least it would be a step
forward.
Dear Friends:
I wish I could start off this edition of my newsletter on a positive note. However, the
murders in Paris have left a chilling effect that matches the cold mid-January weather
here in the Lower Hudson Valley. The explosion of terrorism in both Europe and Africa
put to rest any positive feelings one could have about the status of decency throughout
much of today’s world.
Sorry to be in such a state.
This is much to discuss so let’s not waste time.
On to the news…

2. 2
THE FRENCH MURDERS
Frankly, I’m not sure what I can add to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles
written about the terrorist murders at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher market in Paris.
Much has already been said about the fact that the kosher market murderer picked out
his place to perform his murders at a place where he would specifically find Jews to kill.
What more is there to say about what is obvious that anti-Semitism in its most grizzly
form is alive and well?
Of course, the police and even the army have been called out now to protect possible
victims in both France and Belgium. What is really called for is a direct confrontation
with Islamic terrorism. Stronger action against jihadi individuals and cells as well as well
as more attention to the underlying causes though I am not sure what one can do to
defeat a state of mind that is running through elements of the Muslim world. It seems
pretty obvious that if Muslims themselves are not going to rise up to defeat the
destructive elements in their own communities they themselves will eventually be
destroyed by their own co-religionists.
I cannot speak for European, especially French, Jews. They are and have been in the
crosshairs of the terrorists. There are a half million of them. Will they decide to leave
France? Some will, of course, go to Israel. One of the major reasons for an Israel is that
it is there as a shelter for Jews running away from terror and death. However, most will
stay and tough it out. The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has stated that France
without Jews in not France. I would respond by saying that France without the
protection of its Jews is likewise, not France.
As far as Germany is concerned, one must be impressed with the outstanding positions
of Chancellor Merkel and President Gauck especially how they have confronted the
right wing-populist Pegida demonstrations against the Islamic community. Extremism
and terrorism, no matter which end of the political spectrum it comes from and which
ethnicity, is dangerous. I hope that Germans in general fully understand that. The anti-
Pegida demonstrations have been heart-warming.
What about the U.S.? To most, I think, it all seems a million miles away – except for the
Jews. I believe that most somehow feel that if it could happen in such an enlightened
country such as France it could happen here as well. Paris has shaken many of us.
Let’s hope that leaders in all countries, especially those with large Muslim populations
understand that Paris is not all that far away from where they live.
AMERICAN JEWISH POLITICAL IDENTIFICATION
We’re a little less than two years away from our next national election. However, if you
pay attention to the media, given its article after article about the candidates and the
election, one would think that voting day was right around the corner.

3. 3
Anyone who reads even a little about American politics knows that The “Jewish vote” is
decidedly Democratic. The Republicans continually note that they are making progress
or is it that the Democrats are moving backwards? Let’s see if we can figure it out.
An article in The Jerusalem Post reports, “The number of American Jews who identify
as Democrats dropped by 10 percent over the past seven years, according to survey
results released by Gallup.
Meanwhile, the number of Jews identifying as Republicans has increased slightly but
remains little changed overall.
Sixty-one percent of American Jews identified as either Democrats or Democratic-
leaning in 2014, down from 71% in 2008, while 29% counted themselves in the
Republican camp, the survey released on Tuesday found.
According to an analysis of the numbers by Gallup’s Frank Newport, the “diminished
Democratic skew among American Jews in recent years is slightly more pronounced
than the same trend among all Americans,” with identification with the party down by 7%
in the same time period among the general population.
Jewish identification with the GOP jumped by seven points during the same period, as
opposed to only 3% among all Americans.
While there are slight disparities between the general trends and those found among
US Jews, they are reflective of the general direction in which Americans are headed
politically, Gallup found.
Among the trends noted, Jewish men and the religious are more likely to be
Republicans than women and the secular, while those with advanced degrees tended to
be less likely to vote conservative than their less educated counterparts.
“The general Democratic orientation of American Jews is a well-established political
fact, although this Democratic slant has decreased marginally in recent years,” Gallup
found.
Given the small sample sizes with which pollsters deal in determining voter trends
among American Jews when surveying the general population, it can be challenging to
ascertain the issues on which Jews in the two major parties disagree, “although most
news accounts suggest that US relations with Israel is certainly one of them,” Newport
wrote.
Not everyone agrees with that assessment, however.
“Except for a small number of American Jews, Israel does not figure prominently in their
electoral decision-making or partisan identification,” said Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist
at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

4. 4
“On surveys, when asked what determines their vote, several domestic concerns rank
higher than Israel.
In addition, Democratic voters, Jewish and otherwise, tend to oppose construction of
Jewish settlements in the West Bank and have a skeptical view of the sincerity of Israeli
leaders truly seeking peace with the Palestinians,” Cohen told The Jerusalem Post.
Shifts in the general American electorate are the primary drivers behind the slight
narrowing of the Democratic lead over the GOP, he continued.
“Jews are still far more Democratic than the rest of the country.”
Cohen added that differences between the US administration and Israeli leaders have
had scant impact on Jews’ party preferences, partly because the vast majority of
liberals, Jewish or not, “support the general directions of the Obama administration.”
Jewish support for the president from August to mid-September stood 13 points higher
than the average approval rating, according to another Gallup poll. Sixty-nine percent of
Jews cast ballots for President Barack Obama in 2012, down from 78% in 2008. Both
tallies are in line with the general trends seen among Jewish voters over the past
century.
These trends are reversed among American expatriate voters in Israel, however,
according to Matt Solomon, the national director of iVoteIsrael, an organization that
works to register American immigrants to vote in US elections.
According to Solomon, 85% of US voters here went Republican during the 2012
presidential election, while 63% voted for the GOP when choosing congressional
representation.
American voters in Israel are “much less partisan oriented than the typical American
Jewish voter,” with three-quarters identifying US-Israel relations, Iran, Jerusalem and
Israeli security as their most important issues, Solomon said. This is “not the typical
partisan issue and frankly [is] one of the rare areas where you can find a lot of
bipartisan collaboration.
“Americans in Israel are not subjected to the same partisan messaging or are [not] even
familiar with most of the issues that separate the parties and therefore tend to look at
candidates independent of their party affiliation.
However, they do place a higher level of scrutiny on whether the candidate sufficiently
supports a strong US-Israel relationship or whether a given candidate may
improve/harm the relationship or aid/undermine Israel in some capacity.”
According to the Pew Research Center’s study “Faith on the Hill: The Religious

5. 5
Composition of the 114th Congress,” which was released on Monday, “Jews continue to
have greater representation in Congress (5%) than in the population as a whole (2%),
but there are five fewer Jewish members in the 114th Congress than there were in the
113th, and 11 fewer than there were in the 112th Congress.”
Of 234 Democrats in the new Congress, 27 are Jewish, while there is only one among
the 301 Republicans, according to Pew.
Mark Twain is said to have popularized the saying, “"There are lies, damned lies, and
statistics". According to Wikipedia, it is a phrase describing the persuasive power of
numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also
sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
Take your choice.
THE PALESTINIAN UN RESOLUTION
Most of you I am sure, after reading your local press know that the Palestinian backed
resolution on the establishment of a Palestinian state failed in the Security Council.
The New York Times reported, “A United Nations Security Council draft resolution that
set a deadline to establish a sovereign Palestinian state was defeated Tuesday night
after it failed to receive the nine votes that are needed for adoption in the 15-member
body.
The United States and Australia voted against the measure. France, China and Russia
were among the eight countries that voted for it. Britain and four other nations
abstained.
The draft resolution, which was introduced by Jordan on behalf of the Palestinians, set a
one-year deadline for negotiations with Israel; established targets for Palestinian
sovereignty, including a capital in East Jerusalem; and called for the “full and phased
withdrawal of Israeli forces” from the West Bank by the end of 2017.
The Palestinian insistence on having the draft resolution voted on before January 1st
seemed to defy logic as some of the “no” vote countries were about to be replaced by
ones more sympathetic just two days later.
That seeming illogical move was hard to understand unless you come to the conclusion
that Palestinian President Abbas actually wanted to lose. If so, why?
J.J. Goldberg writing in The Jewish Daily Forward noted, “The Palestinian tactics
mystified Israeli and American diplomats and prompted speculation that the Palestinians
were intending to lose the vote. It was thought that they wanted to put on a show of
toughness to counter rising anger on the Palestinian street and increasing pressure

6. 6
from Hamas, but they didn’t want to anger Washington by forcing it to cast a veto at a
time when it needs Arab support against ISIS.
Washington was eager to avoid having to cast a veto, which would likely stir ill-will
among Arab allies whose cooperation is needed in the fight against ISIS.
There was some speculation, in fact, that the Palestinians wanted to submit the
resolution in order to present a tough public posture in the face of growing Hamas
pressure, but wanted it to fail in order to avoid tensions with Washington and to leave
the door open to renewed negotiations in the event that a more moderate Israeli
government is elected in March. Today’s events do nothing to negate that speculation.
If you have followed the Israel – Palestinian situation at all, you must be asking yourself,
as Abba Eban once said, “How come the Arabs never miss a chance to miss a chance”.
is it that they really do not want a settlement (sorry about the pun) of the question.
Jeff Robbins writing in The Boston Globe has opined, “It is that Israel’s proposals for an
independent Palestinian state have come with a condition that the Palestinian
leadership has regarded as a deal-breaker: a permanent end of the conflict, and a
commitment to accept Israel’s existence. By contrast, the Security Council end-game
sought by the Palestinians is an end-run around any such condition; it would impose on
the Palestinians no obligation to end the dispute.
This is not by chance. As Abbas knows, the Palestinian street opposes any end of
conflict with Israel that fails to bring about its disappearance. Even before the summer’s
war between Israel and Hamas, a public opinion poll showed that fewer than 30 percent
of Palestinians supported a two-state solution — a West Bank/Gaza state living in
lasting peace with Israel. Almost two-thirds told pollsters that “resistance should
continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated.” And this past September, 80 percent
of Palestinians polled said that Hamas should continue to fire rockets at Israel, with
Hamas, recognized by the United States as a terrorist enterprise, receiving an 88
percent approval rating, compared with only 36 percent approving the considerably
more moderate Palestinian Authority government led by Abbas.
None of this is new, and none of it comes as a surprise. In May 2009, not long after
spurning the “extraordinary terms” described by Rice, Abbas told the Washington Post
that he was in no hurry to make peace with the Israelis, and that he refused even to
negotiate with them. Rather, Abbas preferred to wait, hoping that international pressure
on Israel would force it to capitulate without any corresponding obligation on the
Palestinians’ part to agree to live in peace. “Until then,” Abbas told the Post, “in the
West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”
The Palestinians’ argument that UN intervention is necessary because they cannot
otherwise obtain a state represents a dearly-held narrative that has been adopted
wholesale in certain quarters. Sadly, however, it is a narrative that is tough to square
with what has actually occurred.

7. 7
I believe Robbins to be totally correct and it is for this reason I do not believe that
“peace” is anywhere near being on the horizon. If a “permanent end of the conflict and a
commitment to accept Israel’s existence” so violate the basic Palestinian belief system,
then the best we can hope for is “no more war”. Unhappily, given Gaza, I don’t see that
on the horizon either.
PALESTINIAN RESPONSIBILITY: SUBSTANCE NOT SYMBOLS
It has occurred to many that when it comes to the Israel – Palestinian peace process,
the current Palestinian leadership is treated with “kid gloves” by the international
leadership and that all the responsibility to do what it would take to make a deal falls on
the Israelis. If an agreement is to be made what is it that the Palestinians have to
surrender? All too frequently these kinds of questions do not even seem to be asked. If
peace is discussed the conversation immediately moves to what the Israelis would have
to give up. Such one-sidedness almost seems to be ever-present. Does that offer a
road to an agreement?
Dennis Ross, one of the most experienced American peace negotiators recently
expressed his own thoughts in a New York Times article. He wrote, “Mr. Abbas
[Palestinian President] has now announced that he will turn to the International Criminal
Court — a move that will produce Palestinian charges and Israeli countercharges but
not alter the reality on the ground.
A European official I met recently expressed sympathy for the Palestinians’ pursuit of a
Security Council resolution. I responded by saying that if he favors Palestinian
statehood, it’s time to stop giving the Palestinians a pass. It is time to make it costly for
them to focus on symbols rather than substance.
Since 2000, there have been three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to
resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton’s parameters in 2000, former Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts
last year. In each case, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian
leaders and the answer was either “no” or no response. They determined that the cost
of saying “yes,” or even of making a counteroffer that required concessions, was too
high.
Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anti-colonialist bent
and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate.
Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations — which are by definition about
mutual concessions — will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his
people by making a politically costly decision.
But going to the United Nations does no such thing. It puts pressure on Israel and
requires nothing of the Palestinians. Resolutions are typically about what Israel must do
and what Palestinians should get. If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn’t, why
should we expect the Palestinians to change course?

8. 8
That’s why European leaders who fervently support Palestinian statehood must focus
on how to raise the cost of saying no or not acting at all when there is an offer on the
table. Palestinians care deeply about international support for their cause. If they knew
they would be held accountable for being nonresponsive or rejecting a fair offer or
resolution, it could well change their calculus.
Unfortunately, most Europeans are focused far more on Israeli behavior and want, at a
minimum, to see Israel’s continuing settlement policy change.
But turning to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court during an Israeli
election is counterproductive. It will be seen in Israel as a one-sided approach, and it
will strengthen politicians who prefer the status quo. These candidates will argue that
the deck is stacked against Israel and that the country needs leaders who will stand firm
against unfair pressure.
Peace requires accountability on both sides. It’s fair to ask the Israelis to accept the
basic elements that make peace possible — 1967 lines as well as land swaps and
settlement building limited to the blocks. But isn’t it time to demand the equivalent from
the Palestinians on two states for two peoples, and on Israeli security? Isn’t it time to
ask the Palestinians to respond to proposals and accept resolutions that address Israeli
needs and not just their own?
There is more to the article which you can read by clicking on the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/opinion/stop-giving-palestinians-a-
pass.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
As I said in the above article on the UN Resolution, “If a “permanent end of the conflict
and a commitment to accept Israel’s existence” so violate the basic Palestinian belief
system ,then the best we can hope for is “no more war”. If that is, indeed, the case, then
no matter what sort of political moves are made by Pres. Abbas, Pres. Obama or
anyone else, peace will not be achieved.
GAZA: WHAT A MESS!
I haven’t done a survey but my guess is that most American Jews would be very
favorably inclined to support a real two-state solution to the Israel – Palestinian situation
if one could somehow be manufactured. Most, however, like me look at the severely
bifurcated Palestinian political party structure and say to themselves, “It’s just not
possible at this moment in history”. If they detect any signs of Palestinian unity and
hope, all they have to do, for instance, is read any of the numerous articles about Gaza,
such as the one that appeared recently in the New York Times, and they are confronted
with the reality that anything even resembling peace is a long way off.
Majd al Waheidi and Jodi Redoren in their recent article note, “A potent symbol of the
schism between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, the Islamist group that dominates
Gaza, has been visible at the border crossing here for years: The two maintain separate

9. 9
checkpoints a half-mile apart, and travelers crossing to or from Israel have to pass
through both.
Over the last week, though, the crossing illustrated something else: the unraveling of
the reconciliation agreement reached last year, and the dysfunction of the Palestinians’
supposed government of national consensus.
Internal divisions have plagued the Palestinians since at least 2007, when Hamas won
legislative elections and then routed its main rival, the Fatah faction, from Gaza in a
bloody battle. Fatah continued to dominate the Palestinian Authority, which governed
the West Bank, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which negotiated with Israel
and conducted diplomacy worldwide.
Hamas and the P.L.O. signed a reconciliation pact in April that led to a new cabinet for
the authority. But the pact’s promise of new elections within six months has not come to
fruition, and neither has the authority taken control of the Gaza border crossings or
internal security in the territory.
Hamas officials denounce Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, the Palestinian
Authority and the P.L.O., almost daily, and Mr. Abbas has yet to make good on his
pledge to visit Gaza.
“It’s dead, and it will be dead for a long time,” Mkhaimer Abusaada, a political scientist
at Al-Azhar University in Gaza City, said of reconciliation. “We are back to mutual
accusations.”
Mr. Abbas has recently gained some traction in his quest for Palestinian statehood, and
has bolstered his standing on the Palestinian street by moving to have Palestine join the
International Criminal Court and by pushing for a United Nations Security Council
resolution that would set a deadline for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank.
But many experts say it will be difficult for him to make real progress without control of
Gaza.
The fighting between Hamas and Israel during the summer caused widespread
destruction in Gaza, and thousands of residents were left homeless, but the
reconstruction effort led by the United Nations has been stalled by the Palestinian
Authority’s inability to assert control over security and the border crossings.
As for Mr. Abbas’s broader diplomatic initiative, he said, “The international community
should not use this as a pretext for not doing what it should do in supporting our effort to
reach a peaceful agreement and end the occupation.”
Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian political columnist, said that with Egypt, Jordan and the
Gulf states cracking down on Islamist movements, and with Iran and Syria having
largely withdrawn financial support for Hamas, the faction is fighting for survival in “a
kind of castle mentality.”
“The moment they give up control of the borders, they feel they will lose the only power
they have left,” Mr. Kuttab said. “What do they say in English — possession is two-thirds

10. 10
of the law? They are in possession; they control the area. Until you settle with them and
give them what they want, they are going to create problems every step of the way.”
That, my friends is the picture. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can move forward without
some sort of unified Palestinian political presence. I think it seems obvious to most that
unless the Palestinian vs. Palestinian non-shooting civil war can brought to an end no
progress on the peace front can be achieved. It’s not the Israelis this time.
And, what will the Israelis do? They’ll keep trying to improve their defense/security
situation. With much of the Middle East in such turmoil with terrorism always a threat
who, reasonably, can blame them? I can’t!
THE ISRAELI ELECTION: A SENSIBLE POINT OF VIEW
It’s still hard for me to make sense of what’s happening with the Israeli elections. There
are many parties some of which will come together in a coalition to form a government.
Whether there will be a more right wing group headed by the current Prime Minister,
Bibi Netanyahu or a more liberal grouping around Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog and
former justice minister and Hatnuah party leader Tzipi Livni remains to be seen.
Somewhere in the middle (probably center/right) is the Koolanu Party. One of its most
outstanding candidates is Michael Oren, the former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. An
American born academic, he has recently been quoted in a The Jerusalem Post article
with his view of the Palestinian problem and how it might be handled. To me, he makes
a lot of sense. BTW, Amb. Oren is a former colleague who directed AJC’s Israel Office
some years ago.
TJP reports, “"We all want the same thing, we want an Israel that is strong, an Israel
that is democratic, an Israel that is Jewish, we want an Israel that is economically
prosperous. Peace is the means for achieving that goal. Peace is not an end in itself,"
he told a group of young professionals in Jaffa Wednesday night, which The Jerusalem
Post recorded exclusively for its weekly Frontlines Podcast.
Oren argued that in the absence of a Palestinian leader willing or able to negotiate a
deal with Israel, it is up to Israel to take the initiative.
"In the West Bank today there is de facto Palestinian sovereignty over large segments
of the territory," he said. "There is in existence what is in essence a two-state situation.
Not a two-state solution, but a two-state situation. It is not formal. I say take this
situation and strengthen it. Make it better."
Without closing the door to a negotiated deal, Israel should work out ways to improve
lives for Palestinians such as increasing transport freedom and improving trade, he
said. The Netanyahu government was not doing enough to take the initiative at a time
when Palestinians were advancing their cause in the UN and ICC, he said.

11. 11
He also said Israel should "focus" its settlement building to blocs that everyone knows
will be part of Israel, and cites the 2004 letter from US President George W. Bush as the
legal basis. By focusing on those areas alone, he said, Israel "broadcasts to the world
our seriousness of the openness of that door" to a final status agreement. Asked about
policies that give preferential support to settlers, however, he said that while all citizens
should get benefits and opportunities, they should not get them "at the expense of
anybody else."
Oren slammed Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett's plan to put large swathes of the
West Bank under Israeli sovereignty.
"Annexing of Area C brings an immediate international embargo on the state of Israel,
and I'll tell you unequivocally, it will not be acceptable to both houses and both parties,
so it's also going to be a major problem for our relationship with the United States," he
said. He also dismissed notions that Israel should seek an alternative to the US as its
main backer.
"Anybody who thinks there's a substitute for America as Israel's supreme ally is
deluding themselves. There is no substitute."
Asked what Israel should do if the US and Iran struck a "bad" deal in nuclear
negotiations, Oren said: "Any deal that leaves Iran with the ability to achieve and break
out of a nuclear capability poses a severe threat to the state
It’s hard for me to understand how anybody could argue with his logic. I am especially
positive about his statement on U.S. – Israeli relations. Only a fool or an extremist would
consider harming the connection between the two democracies.
With any sort of peace so far away, at least Amb. Oren has some positive ideas about
how to move the situation forward a bit. He should be congratulated for that.
*********************************************************************************************
See you again in February
DuBow Digest is written and published by Eugene DuBow who can be reached at
dubowdigest@optonline.net
Both the American and Germany editions are posted at www.dubowdigest.typepad.com

12. 12