Prof. Barry Rubin
The AP falsely reported that Israel is building a new settlement on the West Bank and linked this to a wrong-headed spin on an important national leader visiting Israel. No, not Obama! He's still just a candidate. I'm referring to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Curiously, Brown's visit was highlighted for its criticism of Israel by the AP though his trip was seen in Israel as incredibly supportive. Indeed, Brown made the most pro-Israel statements of any British leader since Margaret Thatcher left the scene. This was especially significant since Brown is the Labour party leader and given the incredibly hostile anti-Israel sentiment in the British media and academia.
One wouldn't know this from the AP story, "British leader presses Israel to halt settlements," posted July 21, by Mohammed Daraghmeh. Its lead was Brown demanding "Israel cease settlement construction." Ironically, another AP story a few days later, in criticizing a reported Israeli decision to build a new West Bank settlement, pointed out (only in the context of criticizing Israel of course) that Israel had not started a new settlement in years.
In fact, the report was false. In fact, Israel had authorized the building of 22 houses on a settlement created more than 25 years ago.
The story claimed Brown's "strongest comments were reserved for the settlements: `I think the whole European Union is very clear on this matter: We want to see a freeze on settlements.'" But given the fact that no new settlement has been built for a long time what did he mean? The phrase used was "settlement expansion." But there is no expansion--settlements are not getting bigger though new buildings are built in existing settlements.
Even when an article reports facts fairly it sort of puts a spin on them. This article states:
"Israel and the Palestinians resumed peace talks late last year at a U.S.-backed conference in Annapolis, Md. Both sides had originally aspired to reach a final peace deal by the end of the year, but have backed away from that goal somewhat because of arguments over settlements and whether the Palestinians are capable of enforcing security in areas they control.
"Under the first phase of the internationally backed peace plan known as the road map, which is the basis of the negotiations, Israel was to freeze all settlement construction and Palestinians were to crack down on extremist groups."
Notice anything? Well, the AP gives a lot of attention to settlement construction but none to the Palestinian failure to "crack down on extremist groups" or enforce "security in areas they control." The fact is that the Palestinian Authority does very little or nothing in these directions but this is not presented as a problem or reported, virtually ever.
Where are the reports of the PA failing to stop terrorists, releasing them, glorifying them, putting them on its payroll, endorsing their goals, inciting to terrorism in its media, providing rationales for their actions in its schools, and so on? Why are radical speeches by PA and Fatah officials ignored?
This week, Palestinian Media Watch documents how the PA's official newspaper claims that Jewish settlers are bringing in and releasing hundreds of super-rats that only attack Palestinians to drive Arabs out of east Jerusalem. Do Palestinians believe this? Many no doubt do, at least in part. But the point is that the PA wants them to believe it. By showing what is really going on it would be clear why peace is so unachievable and who is responsible.
Consider this simple question: If Israel withdrew from all the West Bank and/or freed all Palestinian prisoners would anything really change? Would the Palestinians reciprocate or alter their line, stopping terrorism and backing an end to the conflict. The evidence indicates not.
At any rate, the media gives no hint of such matters but only pursues its own agenda, which requires misstating Brown's agenda.
Prof. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary university. His new book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
You can buy his latest book The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict on Amazon.com
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Role of Hamas in 'collective punishment'
OPINION: ON MAY 27th, 1942, the Deputy Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia, Reinhard Heydrich, was assassinated by the Czech underground as he drove to his office in Prague, writes SEÁN GANNON .
In an effort "to make up for his death", the SS rounded up the residents of the nearby village of Lidice. Some 200 men were immediately executed. The women were sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp where most subsequently died;80 per cent of their children were gassed at Chelmno in July. Two years later, a partisan bomb killed 33 members of an SS police battalion as it marched through central Rome. In reprisal, the city's Gestapo chief, Herbert Kappler, ordered that 10 Italians be executed for every dead German. The following day, 335 people were taken down to the Ardeatine Caves and shot in the back of the neck.
Such were the type of atrocities that the framers of the Fourth Geneva Convention had in mind when they outlawed "collective punishment" in 1949. Article 33's stipulation that no person "be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed" refers to the active imposition of criminal penalties in reprisal for another party's guilt.
Therefore, its constant invocation by critics of Israel in the context of its lockdown of Gaza represents little more than a cynical exploitation of the language of international law, part of a well-established strategy which seeks to de-legitimise Israeli security detail by defining it in terms of policies properly opposed by all right-thinking people: "apartheid" (the security fence); "war crimes" (the targeted killing of terrorist leaders); even "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" (almost every IDF operation).
For example, the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign claims that Israel's rather erratic restrictions on electricity and motor fuel exports to Gaza constitute "collective punishment" and a violation of international law.
However, the legality of economic sanctions in conflict situations is enshrined in the UN Charter despite their unavoidable impact on civilians. The UN embargo against Saddam Hussein's regime caused enormous suffering among ordinary Iraqis while its sanctions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban had what the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs called "a tangible negative effect" on the lives of innocent Afghanis. Yet no one accuses the Security Council of imposing "collective punishment".
Furthermore, although the Fourth Geneva Convention does not technically apply to its conflict with Gaza (which is neither a high contracting party nor, despite Israel's control of its borders, Israeli occupied territory), Jerusalem is fully compliant with its requirements. The convention does not obligate the supply of goods and services to enemy populations (Israel rightly declared Gaza a "hostile entity" in September 2007) other than "essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases". The 1977 First Additional Protocol does not list electricity or fuel among the "other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population", for which transit must be facilitated. In any case, even these can be embargoed where there are serious grounds for believing they will be intercepted by enemy forces. And although this is obviously happening in Gaza (Hamas seized 14 truckloads of Red Crescent relief last February and has been repeatedly accused by the Palestinian Authority of diverting fuel destined for Gaza's power station and hospitals to its own private depots), Israel continues to allow the transfer of hundreds of tonnes of aid into the territory each week.
Israel's travel ban on Gaza students with overseas scholarships has also been described as a form of "collective punishment". Condemning this policy on these pages, the former director of the Irish Fulbright Commission, John Kelly, highlighted the case of seven Fulbright scholars whom he suggested were denied permission to travel to the US to study because three of them were affiliates of Gaza's Islamic University, a Hamas stronghold linked to a number of recent terrorist offences. Three of the 14 Fulbright scholars who applied to leave Gaza this year were indeed refused for security reasons. But the central issue is not whether such students pose a risk in themselves but whether access to an overseas college education represents "an exceptional humanitarian cause" for which Israel should break its legitimate blockade. As the universal right to an education does not extend to higher studies, it clearly does not.
This is undoubtedly a tragedy for the hundreds of students in receipt of foreign university fellowships barred from leaving Gaza, and Israel is presently reviewing its policy and examining applications on a case-by-case basis. But ultimate responsibility for the plight of those denied permission to travel lies not with the Jerusalem government, but with their own Hamas rulers who, in waging an indiscriminate terrorist war against all Israelis, are the region's real perpetrators of "collective punishment" crimes.
Seán Gannon is chairman of Irish Friends of Israel
In an effort "to make up for his death", the SS rounded up the residents of the nearby village of Lidice. Some 200 men were immediately executed. The women were sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp where most subsequently died;80 per cent of their children were gassed at Chelmno in July. Two years later, a partisan bomb killed 33 members of an SS police battalion as it marched through central Rome. In reprisal, the city's Gestapo chief, Herbert Kappler, ordered that 10 Italians be executed for every dead German. The following day, 335 people were taken down to the Ardeatine Caves and shot in the back of the neck.
Such were the type of atrocities that the framers of the Fourth Geneva Convention had in mind when they outlawed "collective punishment" in 1949. Article 33's stipulation that no person "be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed" refers to the active imposition of criminal penalties in reprisal for another party's guilt.
Therefore, its constant invocation by critics of Israel in the context of its lockdown of Gaza represents little more than a cynical exploitation of the language of international law, part of a well-established strategy which seeks to de-legitimise Israeli security detail by defining it in terms of policies properly opposed by all right-thinking people: "apartheid" (the security fence); "war crimes" (the targeted killing of terrorist leaders); even "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" (almost every IDF operation).
For example, the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign claims that Israel's rather erratic restrictions on electricity and motor fuel exports to Gaza constitute "collective punishment" and a violation of international law.
However, the legality of economic sanctions in conflict situations is enshrined in the UN Charter despite their unavoidable impact on civilians. The UN embargo against Saddam Hussein's regime caused enormous suffering among ordinary Iraqis while its sanctions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban had what the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs called "a tangible negative effect" on the lives of innocent Afghanis. Yet no one accuses the Security Council of imposing "collective punishment".
Furthermore, although the Fourth Geneva Convention does not technically apply to its conflict with Gaza (which is neither a high contracting party nor, despite Israel's control of its borders, Israeli occupied territory), Jerusalem is fully compliant with its requirements. The convention does not obligate the supply of goods and services to enemy populations (Israel rightly declared Gaza a "hostile entity" in September 2007) other than "essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases". The 1977 First Additional Protocol does not list electricity or fuel among the "other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population", for which transit must be facilitated. In any case, even these can be embargoed where there are serious grounds for believing they will be intercepted by enemy forces. And although this is obviously happening in Gaza (Hamas seized 14 truckloads of Red Crescent relief last February and has been repeatedly accused by the Palestinian Authority of diverting fuel destined for Gaza's power station and hospitals to its own private depots), Israel continues to allow the transfer of hundreds of tonnes of aid into the territory each week.
Israel's travel ban on Gaza students with overseas scholarships has also been described as a form of "collective punishment". Condemning this policy on these pages, the former director of the Irish Fulbright Commission, John Kelly, highlighted the case of seven Fulbright scholars whom he suggested were denied permission to travel to the US to study because three of them were affiliates of Gaza's Islamic University, a Hamas stronghold linked to a number of recent terrorist offences. Three of the 14 Fulbright scholars who applied to leave Gaza this year were indeed refused for security reasons. But the central issue is not whether such students pose a risk in themselves but whether access to an overseas college education represents "an exceptional humanitarian cause" for which Israel should break its legitimate blockade. As the universal right to an education does not extend to higher studies, it clearly does not.
This is undoubtedly a tragedy for the hundreds of students in receipt of foreign university fellowships barred from leaving Gaza, and Israel is presently reviewing its policy and examining applications on a case-by-case basis. But ultimate responsibility for the plight of those denied permission to travel lies not with the Jerusalem government, but with their own Hamas rulers who, in waging an indiscriminate terrorist war against all Israelis, are the region's real perpetrators of "collective punishment" crimes.
Seán Gannon is chairman of Irish Friends of Israel
Friday, August 15, 2008
Symposium: Obscene Hostage Trades
Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/15/2008
Last month, Israel released five live terrorists in return for the bodies of two of its dead soldiers. One of the terrorists was, as we know, Samir Kuntar, who was convicted of killing an Israeli civilian and his 4-year-old daughter, whose skull he crushed with his rifle butt. The other 2-year-old girl died of suffocation when her terrified mother tried to keep her quiet to avoid being discovered by the hostage-takers. Kuntar also killed two Israeli policemen.
Today Frontpage has assembled a distinguished panel to discuss what psychology, on both sides, explains these trades. Our guests today are:
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, a retired physician (prison doctor and psychiatrist), a contributing editor to City Journal and the author of Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses.
Dr. Kenneth Levin, a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, a Princeton-trained historian, and a commentator on Israeli politics. He is the author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege.
Dr. Joanie Lachkar, a licensed Marriage and Family therapist in private practice in Brentwood and Tarzana, California, who teaches psychoanalysis and is the author of How to Talk to a Narcissist (2007), The Many Faces of Abuse: Treating the Emotional Abuse of High -Functioning Women (1998), and The Narcissistic/Borderline Couple: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Marital Treatment (1992). Dr. Lachkar speaks nationally and recently presented, "The Psychopathology of Terrorism" at the International Psychohistorical Association, and at the Rand Corporation. She is an affiliate member of the New Center for Psychoanalysis, and writes in the Journal of Emotional Abuse.
and
Dr. David Gutmann, emeritus professor of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago.
FP: Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, Dr. Kenneth Levin, Dr. Joanie Lachkar and Dr. David Gutmann, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.
Dr. Gutmann, let’s begin with you.
What is the psychology, on both sides, that explains these hostage trades? To begin with, it is a given from the scale that Israel values and respects human life much more than the other side does. But please explain and expand.
Gutmann: The central issue here is the very special reverence that Israelis have for their soldiers. Bear in mind that the IDF came into being in 1948, barely three years after the German Holocaust ended, and the Arab attempt at a Holocaust of their own began. A hideous history was about to repeat, and the shame over Jewish passivity in the Holocaust would be revived. But quite suddenly, the scenario reversed: in their not-so-advanced Partisan gear, and with make-shift weapons, Jewish soldiers were going on the offensive, defeating regular armies and making the Arabs run. We had been mounted on the scaffold, but now the executioner was dead at our feet. Jewish Holocaust shame was transferred to the Arabs, where it became "Naqba" shame, and persecuted them.
Unfortunately, almost an entire generation of very special Jewish youth – a generation that has never really been replaced - died with the would-be executioners.
From that time, the rescuing, redemptive Israeli soldier, of any rank, acquired an aura that combined the tragedy of a martyr with some of the divinity and grace of a saint. They were Jewish knights – members not only of an army but also of a kind of Holy Order.
This reverence was best expressed in a poem by Natan Alterman, in which the dead soldiers of '48 are depicted as the "Silver Platter" on which the Jewish people received their state.
A conventional army will not stupidly trade a regiment for a handful of troopers; but an Order knows a different logic: it does not leave its knights – whether alive or dead – to have their bodies tortured or their bones desecrated by an enemy that demeans its captives.
Thus, for the majority of Israelis, if you abandon your soldiers you abandon the founding legend in which they are embodied, you revive your collective shame, and as punishment you lose the sources of your personal and national identity. In the Israeli mind that would be the true obscenity. Whatever the cost, you bring your soldiers home.
FP: Thank you Dr. Gutmann. I think important to add to this is the fact that the Arabs do not value individualism and the individual and, therefore, they do not value the life and sacredness of one of their own in the same way that Israelis and Westerners do. There is also the aspect here of Islam, which sees death as something to be sought on this earth and therefore the lives of ones own side are not really seen as worthy.
Dr. Dalrymple, your view of this phenomenon -- and your thoughts on what Dr. Gutmann has said and the comments I have made?
Dalrymple: I think there is also the question of democracy to be examined. No doubt the Israeli government has to think of its electorate, and like other democratic governments, of pressure groups within that electorate. The fact that the decision was not unanimously approved suggests that domestic political calculation entered into it, in which long-term consequences might have been lost sight of.
The matter is far from being a simple one, however. On the face of it many might think the decision a foolish one. On the other hand, Israeli morale needs a belief that the country can survive surrounded by enemies. It must therefore believe that one Israeli is equal to ten, fifty or a hundred of the inhabitants of the surrounding countries. Stalin's question: How many divisions has the Pope? turned out in the end to have been an unwise one. In politics, balance sheets necessarily include intangibles, which may well be more important than tangibles. Of course, this can be taken too far. The question how far is too far is a very difficult one, because events are lived forwards and not backwards.
Lachkar: I agree with Dr. Gutmann that Israelis pay special respect for their soldiers as a linkage to the shame of Jewish passivity on the Holocaust. Dr. Gutmann also comments that Jewish soldiers on the offensive make “Arabs run.” I would like to expand on his concept of the “Holy Order” and reverie to the theme of what life means to a Jew as compared to what life means to an Arab.
The phenomenon can be crystallized very simply: the Jew dies to live while the Arab lives to die. When a Jew offers a toast, he says “L’chayim” to life, to a good life and to peace. Life for a Jew is viewed as a precious gift from God which dominates virtually all laws. The movie “Fiddler on the Roof,” displays this theme throughout. Throughout Jewish laws and traditions, there is a focus on life e.g., the Tree of Life, the Book of Life, Long Life.
In the Muslim world, peace is equated with death, death to the infidels, death to women who are not submissive to men, death to those who betray the Prophet. Any Muslim who obeys and prays will go to Paradise and will finally achieve the life of happiness with 72 virgins, but in order to achieve this one must die. Would any Jew ask for his wife, mother or child to act as a human shield? How many Arabs would treat a wounded Israeli soldier in a Muslim hospital? How many Jews would engage in suicide missions, training their children at an early age to die in order to bring honor to their mothers and their country? How many Jewish mothers would take reward for their sons honor killings, and feel proud?
I recall in the war in Lebanon under Arafat, how innocent women and children were killed while missiles were placed in schools and play yards, using children as the frontline acting as human shields to protect their men. In the war in Iraq, Khomeini sent innocent children across minefields in order to protect Iranian soldiers to walk across without harm while the victims were left maimed with body parts thrown all over. He told the children that they would soon be in Muslim warriors' heaven. Of course, many did not die, but merely had their limbs blown off to live the rest of their lives as maimed cripples.
In essence, human life is precious to the Israelis. But because of the horrific childrearing practices, deprivation of all human needs in the Arab world, there is an anger and resentment which leads to the desire for revenge – and this desire becomes a more pervasive force than life itself.
FP: Dr. Levin, what do you make of the trades? And why release someone like Kuntar, or the others, in exchange for dead soldiers? What does that signify? And what does it signify that Lebanon makes the return of Kuntar a national holiday, and Abbas congratulates Kuntar and his family?
Levin: It is obviously laudable that Israel as a nation is committed to pursuing the return of its captured soldiers as well as of the remains of those killed. And one can sympathize of course with the suffering of the families of those held dead or alive by enemy forces and with their eagerness to have their loved ones returned, if only for proper burial.
But there are major problems with exchanges such as that carried out with Hezbollah in which the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were repatriated in exchange for five live terrorists, including Samir Kuntar - whom Israel had resisted releasing for three decades - and the remains of scores of others. Following such trades in the past, released terrorists have repeatedly been responsible for new horrific acts of terror and horrendous loss of Israeli life. In addition, the exchange encourages Hezbollah and other terror groups to pursue additional kidnappings of Israelis. That Israel would pay such a high price for the return of soldiers' remains also puts in danger any other kidnapping victims, giving their captors little incentive to keep them alive.
It is largely for considerations such as this that the heads of both the Mossad and Shin Bet, as well as other senior members of Israel's security and defense establishment, have expressed strong reservations about the exchange deal.
The weighing of the virtue of retrieving kidnapping victims against the negative consequence of encouraging additional assaults has been addressed over the centuries by Jewish sages. Maimonides, for example, suggested that while winning the freedom of those held captive is a most commendable deed, doing so must be measured against its impact on public security, with the latter taking precedence.
That there is so much public support for the Hezbollah exchange and so little public debate, beyond the reservations raised by some security and defense officials, may be attributed in large part to the value placed on retrieving those lost, whether they be dead or alive. But I believe it also reflects a reluctance to look at the implications for the future, more specifically a refusal to acknowledge that Israel is engaged in a multi-front war with implacable enemies and that there is no end in sight and nothing that Israel can do to change this reality.
All Israel can do is defend itself and seek to make assaults against it so costly to its adversaries that they have an incentive to desist, at least for a time. There is a refusal by many Israelis, a collective closing of eyes, to this reality, consistent with the Oslo mentality that peace is readily available if Israel would make the right concessions. In the context of this mind-set, one need worry less about the implications of the present exchange deal and similar transactions on future assaults because such assaults can be avoided by pursuing and achieving "peace."
The celebration of the exchange by Lebanese across the political spectrum, indeed the declaring of a national holiday in Lebanon, in response particularly to the release of Kuntar, whose claim to fame is his killing of a four-year-old Israeli girl by smashing her skull with his rifle butt, the extension of congratulations to Kuntar and his family by Israel's "peace partner" Abbas, and declarations across the Arab world of a great victory over Israel, a victory that demonstrates the need to pursue additional kidnappings of Israelis, reflect the Arab world's implacable, genocidal hatred of Israel and of Jews more broadly (a hatred that in fact extends to other minorities living among the Arabs, including the Muslim but black residents of Darfur). This hatred is broadcast by Arab media, preached in Arab mosques and taught in Arab schools and is impervious to particular Israeli policies or concessions. Perhaps the ugly expressions of it in the present context will force at least some Israelis to acknowledge the reality of their predicament.
In a recent FrontPageMagazine article, David Hornik notes that Israel's "moderate" peace partner Abbas also lauded one of the terrorists whose bodies were handed over by Israel in the exchange, a Palestinian woman whose "heroic" dead was taking part in an attack that killed 36 Israeli civilians, including 13 children, many of whom were burned to death on a blown up bus. According to Abbas, the woman, Dalal Mughrabi, should be honored for carrying out "one of the most courageous operations in Israel"; and he declared that "we want to turn Dalal's funeral into a national wedding, a major celebration... She will always be remembered as a symbol for the Palestinian women's struggle." One might think that such declarations, too, would awaken some Israelis.
But Israelis have had this reality demonstrated to them in blood-curdling ways innumerable times in recent years, and still many - including many within Israel's political elite - have refused to see it.
FP: Thank you Dr. Levin. I would like the panel to give their thoughts on the theme Dr. Levin has touched on, that we are dealing with a culture – in terms of the Arab culture – that celebrates people who kill children. Perhaps its not so surprising coming from a culture that even lauds the killing of its own children, but nonetheless, what does it say about this culture? What does it say about an international community that sees this culture in a positive way, and an international community that demonizes Israel, when all of us know that it would be unimaginable that Israelis would have a national holiday and celebrate the release of an individual who intentionally murdered not only innocent people, but also a child?
Gutmann: The other participants have commented extensively on the costs to Israel in prestige and tactical advantage resulting from the recent prisoner exchange. Though I agree that the costs were high, and while I would not have included Kuntar the child-butcher in the exchange, I want to concentrate on the possible gains. These in my view have to do with the matter of ego identity.
At around age sixteen, adolescents, pretty much everywhere, recognize social forms and institutions – quite apart from their individual members and practitioners – as Objects: tangible and real, and in possible relationship to themselves. They search among these social objects for those whose legends, ideals and histories are identical (Have Identity With) what they feel themselves to be and what they want to become. Erik Erikson pointed out that an ego identity was not an answer to the usual sophomore’s question, “who am I,” but an answer to the more crucial question, “what do I stand for – and what stands for me?” Identity grows out of this perceived intersection between individual and collective history, between individual and collective myth.
In the Israeli case, the adolescent is drafted into the IDF at precisely that time when these questions are uppermost. Rich with legend, bearing a history of heroism and victory against odds, the IDF presents itself to the adolescent as an ideal identity “object”, and this identity between the individual and the army is summed up in the soldier’s pledge: “I agree, when called upon, to stand up for you, to do my duty, knowing that you, when called upon, will stand up for me.” The IDF stands up for the individual trooper by bringing him back, dead or alive, from any battlefield or any enemy prison. That sense of collective identity has been – more than tanks or aircraft – the source of Israel’s military strength.
However, in recent years, the growth of the peace movement, popular revulsion against harsh anti-Intifada measures, and some decline in the IDF’s military effectiveness, have weakened the bond of identity between the Israeli people and their army, as well as that between the IDF and the individual soldier. As a result, more Israeli adolescents find ways to avoid conscription, more reservists find ways to avoid their yearly call-up, and fewer kids volunteer for the elite commando and armored corps. Military effectiveness drops off.
Military Identity has two inputs: from the soldier, and from the army. If the soldier’s pledge to stand up for the army is weakening, it can be to some degree revived by an enactment of the IDF’s pledge to stand by the soldier – to bring him or his bones home. If the organic connection between the people and its army is restored by the recent prisoner exchange, then - at a time when the enemy’s noose is tightening around Israel’s neck – it will have been worth the high cost.
Dalrymple: I feel somewhat under-qualified to reply to some of what has been said. I have travelled a little in the Arab world, but do not speak Arabic. I have not been struck by any particular death wish or glorification of death, at least as a mass, let alone a universal, phenomenon. I am extremely wary of such sweeping statements, although I confess I have been struck by the propensity I found among people to political self-pity and exaggeration, so that people don't seem very good at distinguishing between the deaths of, say, 70 people, and that of 500,000. A statistical sense doesn't seem very strong in Arab countries, a sense that is necessary for any sense of perspective. But the people whom I met seemed as attached to life as I.
As it happens, I have been interested in the question of human remains, because an American doctor whom I knew only by correspondence, who was a very witty and erudite man, died recently, and sent me a letter from beyond the grave (it was to be posted only in the event of his death). Something in that letter shocked me: he was a rationalist, and said that his remains should be treated with no more reverence than a piece of meat that had gone bad.
I am not religious at all, but I found this attitude shocking (though I revered the man who had it). It seems to me that reverence for human remains, however expressed, is part of the deepest level of our humanity. We are - or at least most of us are - incapable of thinking about human remains, a fortiori of those whom we love, respect or cherish - in these brutal terms.
If I am right, it sets a limit to the degree to which rationality can decide a question like this. What are a set of human remains worth, in a rational sense? This is a question that one cannot bring oneself to consider - it is to break a taboo that should not be broken. At the same time, a government has to decide on the best policy it can, and releasing terrorists does not on the face of it seem a very good one. There is a tension here that I think cannot be resolved.
Lachkar: Thank you Dr. Levin. You hit the nail on the head as you emphasize the basic theme in dealing with the Arab mentality as being culturally based. Very profound to quote Maimonides’ idea that winning freedom must be weighed against its impact on public security. As a psychohistorian, I will expand this approach from a psychohistorical/psychological perspective. (Lachkar, 2002, 2007, 2008).
First, the Israelis group collective fantasy that they are the "good guys," the only democratic country in the region pre-scripted and pre-programmed to live up to their "choseness" the special child of God. This can explain their over-indulging benevolence even if it means a risk to their own country. Arabs, on the other hand, an abandoned orphaned society, are not so much invested in proving their “specialness.” Instead, they are more preoccupied with proving they “exist” as a thing in itself (this may fit with Guttman's concept of ego identity).
One might be reminded when Nassar Gamal Abdel of Egypt, the highly revered leader in the Arab world, began to challenge western dominance as one of the first to bring “meaning” and importance to Arabs by suggesting the destruction of Israel. Thus the slogan “We will drive the Jews into the Sea.” Although many Arabs opposed this slogan, after a while they began to see that it gave them meaning to their lives. Nassar brought meaning purpose to the meaninglessness. “Now we have a goal and direction—the destruction of Israel at any cost!”
This can explain why they celebrate death, and explain why Arabs rejoice when an Israeli soldier is captured or even when a child is mutilated and killed, or make national holidays out of such events as Daniel Perlman’s beheading, or the return of Kuntar. The Israelis on the other hand can attack the enemy but then release them to show the world their fairness and benevolence. Levin makes the point that perhaps the Israelis have gone too far with their benevolence and lose sight they must give way to the enemy to play hard ball during this kind of crisis-a war that cannot give way to weakness, as Muslims are insatiable -- give an inch they take a mile.
The Oslo mentality is a good example of this “Inshallah” seduction toward peace, only to be sabotaged by the commitment to destroy. Yasser Arafat immediately after staging the Olso peace accord admitted he signed the agreement in the spirit of Hudaybiyah. Shortly after terrorism increased rather than decreased.
Levin: I agree with Dr. Gutmann's points about identity objects and the relationship between the IDF and Israeli adolescents. But I don't see the recent hostage trade as necessarily a move by Israel in the service of shoring up identification with the IDF by demonstrating the country's commitment to its soldiers that fall into enemy hands, whether dead or alive.
Identification with the IDF by Israelis of all ages is based on the perception of Israel's military as the selfless and effective defender of the nation and of them and their families. There has been, as Dr. Gutmann notes, an increase in draft-dodging in recent years, much of it by those segments of the society that continue to buy into the Oslo delusions that peace is readily at hand if Israel only makes sufficient concessions. Some of those who share this mind-set are unprepared to do military service because they choose to believe that military actions would be unnecessary if the state only made the "right" diplomatic and political decisions.
Others, on the religious Zionist right, have been so put off by heavy-handed use of the military against settlers, and the state's creating what is in effect a separate set of prosecutorial procedures to target those who demonstrate against government concessions to the state's enemies, that they have spoken openly of avoiding military service in protest. In reality, it appears many fewer have actually acted on such threats than had at one time been anticipated.
But despite increased draft-dodging, whatever its motivation, in fact volunteer levels for combat units is still very high, and the response to the call-up of reserve units during the Second Lebanon War often exceeded what was expected on the basis of earlier precedents.
What most shakes Israelis' confidence in, and at times identification with, the IDF are situations in which - as during the Second Lebanon War - military leaders seem to be grossly mishandling the war effort and, in the course of doing so, seem to be squandering lives needlessly. In fact, during the last war the great majority of the population was in favor of a large-scale ground assault that would have cleared Hezbollah forces from areas that allowed them to fire short-range rockets into Israel. Even though people knew such an assault would entail greater casualties for Israel, they perceived that course as at least accomplishing some important end in defense of the nation. The actual piecemeal insertion of forces, with no overarching strategic objective, resulted in perhaps fewer total casualties but was seen as a waste of lives because it accomplished little and could not help but accomplish little, however well executed.
That the IDF did not execute the plans it actually had at the ready for a large-scale ground assault - a decision that involved both political and military echelons - was due in no small part to the fact that much of the highest ranks of the IDF, like the political leadership, shared that Oslo mind-set that large-scale actions such as a wide invasion of southern Lebanon were a throw-back to the past; that Israeli-Palestinian and broader Israeli-Arab diplomacy were on the way to precluding the necessity for such actions and the accompanying casualties. In fact, many within the highest echelons of the IDF gained their positions in part because they subscribed to the political orthodoxies of the pro-Oslo camp. Consistent with this mind-set, revelations of war-time decisions in post-war investigations showed that there was considerable reluctance within the IDF leadership to even acknowledge the country was engaged in a bonafide war.
This was off-putting to much of the Israeli population, and it has only been with aggressive post-war soul-searching and reform within the IDF that earlier levels of confidence, and identification, have been restored.
But the hostage exchange has in fact been seen by many among the adolescents about to enter the IDF in a negative light and not as the nation acting on its obligation to its soldiers. This is not simply because conceding so much in exchange for the bodies of dead soldiers gives little incentive to the nation's enemies to take good care of captured Israelis. It is also because many of the nation's youth recognize that the country will face military threats to its well-being and survival for the foreseeable future. These soon-to-be soldiers regard it is irresponsible to release potential combatants in exchange for dead soldiers, and to hand propaganda victories to the nation's enemies, victories that can potentially encourage future kidnapings and other assaults.
In June, members of a decorated reserve infantry battalion prepared a letter to be given to the chief of staff in case of war stating that if they are captured they insist Israel not pay a high price for their freedom, and, if they are killed, no negotiations should be held for the return of their bodies or parts of their bodies. The IDF with which these people identify is not the IDF of the recent hostage trade.
Dr. Lachkar makes the point that Israel's frequent prisoner releases are motivated by a national self-comprehension as the "good guys" and a related eagerness to demonstrate benevolence. This may be so, but these demonstrations of benevolence are also intended to impress upon the nation's enemies Israel's eagerness for peace and willingness to make concessions, and take risks, to gain it. But, of course, the response of the other side is hardly gratitude or any diminution of hostility toward the Jewish state. On the contrary, winning the release of prisoners is more likely to be regarded - like the recent hostage trade - as a sign of weakness, and the "V" for victory salutes of the released become spurs to reinforced determination to carry on the war of annihilation against Israel. Many Israelis see this clearly and are only alienated by government prisoner releases, at least those of people involved in past terror.
FP: Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, Dr. Kenneth Levin, Dr. Joanie Lachkar and Dr. David Gutmann, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/15/2008
Last month, Israel released five live terrorists in return for the bodies of two of its dead soldiers. One of the terrorists was, as we know, Samir Kuntar, who was convicted of killing an Israeli civilian and his 4-year-old daughter, whose skull he crushed with his rifle butt. The other 2-year-old girl died of suffocation when her terrified mother tried to keep her quiet to avoid being discovered by the hostage-takers. Kuntar also killed two Israeli policemen.
Today Frontpage has assembled a distinguished panel to discuss what psychology, on both sides, explains these trades. Our guests today are:
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, a retired physician (prison doctor and psychiatrist), a contributing editor to City Journal and the author of Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses.
Dr. Kenneth Levin, a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, a Princeton-trained historian, and a commentator on Israeli politics. He is the author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege.
Dr. Joanie Lachkar, a licensed Marriage and Family therapist in private practice in Brentwood and Tarzana, California, who teaches psychoanalysis and is the author of How to Talk to a Narcissist (2007), The Many Faces of Abuse: Treating the Emotional Abuse of High -Functioning Women (1998), and The Narcissistic/Borderline Couple: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Marital Treatment (1992). Dr. Lachkar speaks nationally and recently presented, "The Psychopathology of Terrorism" at the International Psychohistorical Association, and at the Rand Corporation. She is an affiliate member of the New Center for Psychoanalysis, and writes in the Journal of Emotional Abuse.
and
Dr. David Gutmann, emeritus professor of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago.
FP: Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, Dr. Kenneth Levin, Dr. Joanie Lachkar and Dr. David Gutmann, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.
Dr. Gutmann, let’s begin with you.
What is the psychology, on both sides, that explains these hostage trades? To begin with, it is a given from the scale that Israel values and respects human life much more than the other side does. But please explain and expand.
Gutmann: The central issue here is the very special reverence that Israelis have for their soldiers. Bear in mind that the IDF came into being in 1948, barely three years after the German Holocaust ended, and the Arab attempt at a Holocaust of their own began. A hideous history was about to repeat, and the shame over Jewish passivity in the Holocaust would be revived. But quite suddenly, the scenario reversed: in their not-so-advanced Partisan gear, and with make-shift weapons, Jewish soldiers were going on the offensive, defeating regular armies and making the Arabs run. We had been mounted on the scaffold, but now the executioner was dead at our feet. Jewish Holocaust shame was transferred to the Arabs, where it became "Naqba" shame, and persecuted them.
Unfortunately, almost an entire generation of very special Jewish youth – a generation that has never really been replaced - died with the would-be executioners.
From that time, the rescuing, redemptive Israeli soldier, of any rank, acquired an aura that combined the tragedy of a martyr with some of the divinity and grace of a saint. They were Jewish knights – members not only of an army but also of a kind of Holy Order.
This reverence was best expressed in a poem by Natan Alterman, in which the dead soldiers of '48 are depicted as the "Silver Platter" on which the Jewish people received their state.
A conventional army will not stupidly trade a regiment for a handful of troopers; but an Order knows a different logic: it does not leave its knights – whether alive or dead – to have their bodies tortured or their bones desecrated by an enemy that demeans its captives.
Thus, for the majority of Israelis, if you abandon your soldiers you abandon the founding legend in which they are embodied, you revive your collective shame, and as punishment you lose the sources of your personal and national identity. In the Israeli mind that would be the true obscenity. Whatever the cost, you bring your soldiers home.
FP: Thank you Dr. Gutmann. I think important to add to this is the fact that the Arabs do not value individualism and the individual and, therefore, they do not value the life and sacredness of one of their own in the same way that Israelis and Westerners do. There is also the aspect here of Islam, which sees death as something to be sought on this earth and therefore the lives of ones own side are not really seen as worthy.
Dr. Dalrymple, your view of this phenomenon -- and your thoughts on what Dr. Gutmann has said and the comments I have made?
Dalrymple: I think there is also the question of democracy to be examined. No doubt the Israeli government has to think of its electorate, and like other democratic governments, of pressure groups within that electorate. The fact that the decision was not unanimously approved suggests that domestic political calculation entered into it, in which long-term consequences might have been lost sight of.
The matter is far from being a simple one, however. On the face of it many might think the decision a foolish one. On the other hand, Israeli morale needs a belief that the country can survive surrounded by enemies. It must therefore believe that one Israeli is equal to ten, fifty or a hundred of the inhabitants of the surrounding countries. Stalin's question: How many divisions has the Pope? turned out in the end to have been an unwise one. In politics, balance sheets necessarily include intangibles, which may well be more important than tangibles. Of course, this can be taken too far. The question how far is too far is a very difficult one, because events are lived forwards and not backwards.
Lachkar: I agree with Dr. Gutmann that Israelis pay special respect for their soldiers as a linkage to the shame of Jewish passivity on the Holocaust. Dr. Gutmann also comments that Jewish soldiers on the offensive make “Arabs run.” I would like to expand on his concept of the “Holy Order” and reverie to the theme of what life means to a Jew as compared to what life means to an Arab.
The phenomenon can be crystallized very simply: the Jew dies to live while the Arab lives to die. When a Jew offers a toast, he says “L’chayim” to life, to a good life and to peace. Life for a Jew is viewed as a precious gift from God which dominates virtually all laws. The movie “Fiddler on the Roof,” displays this theme throughout. Throughout Jewish laws and traditions, there is a focus on life e.g., the Tree of Life, the Book of Life, Long Life.
In the Muslim world, peace is equated with death, death to the infidels, death to women who are not submissive to men, death to those who betray the Prophet. Any Muslim who obeys and prays will go to Paradise and will finally achieve the life of happiness with 72 virgins, but in order to achieve this one must die. Would any Jew ask for his wife, mother or child to act as a human shield? How many Arabs would treat a wounded Israeli soldier in a Muslim hospital? How many Jews would engage in suicide missions, training their children at an early age to die in order to bring honor to their mothers and their country? How many Jewish mothers would take reward for their sons honor killings, and feel proud?
I recall in the war in Lebanon under Arafat, how innocent women and children were killed while missiles were placed in schools and play yards, using children as the frontline acting as human shields to protect their men. In the war in Iraq, Khomeini sent innocent children across minefields in order to protect Iranian soldiers to walk across without harm while the victims were left maimed with body parts thrown all over. He told the children that they would soon be in Muslim warriors' heaven. Of course, many did not die, but merely had their limbs blown off to live the rest of their lives as maimed cripples.
In essence, human life is precious to the Israelis. But because of the horrific childrearing practices, deprivation of all human needs in the Arab world, there is an anger and resentment which leads to the desire for revenge – and this desire becomes a more pervasive force than life itself.
FP: Dr. Levin, what do you make of the trades? And why release someone like Kuntar, or the others, in exchange for dead soldiers? What does that signify? And what does it signify that Lebanon makes the return of Kuntar a national holiday, and Abbas congratulates Kuntar and his family?
Levin: It is obviously laudable that Israel as a nation is committed to pursuing the return of its captured soldiers as well as of the remains of those killed. And one can sympathize of course with the suffering of the families of those held dead or alive by enemy forces and with their eagerness to have their loved ones returned, if only for proper burial.
But there are major problems with exchanges such as that carried out with Hezbollah in which the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were repatriated in exchange for five live terrorists, including Samir Kuntar - whom Israel had resisted releasing for three decades - and the remains of scores of others. Following such trades in the past, released terrorists have repeatedly been responsible for new horrific acts of terror and horrendous loss of Israeli life. In addition, the exchange encourages Hezbollah and other terror groups to pursue additional kidnappings of Israelis. That Israel would pay such a high price for the return of soldiers' remains also puts in danger any other kidnapping victims, giving their captors little incentive to keep them alive.
It is largely for considerations such as this that the heads of both the Mossad and Shin Bet, as well as other senior members of Israel's security and defense establishment, have expressed strong reservations about the exchange deal.
The weighing of the virtue of retrieving kidnapping victims against the negative consequence of encouraging additional assaults has been addressed over the centuries by Jewish sages. Maimonides, for example, suggested that while winning the freedom of those held captive is a most commendable deed, doing so must be measured against its impact on public security, with the latter taking precedence.
That there is so much public support for the Hezbollah exchange and so little public debate, beyond the reservations raised by some security and defense officials, may be attributed in large part to the value placed on retrieving those lost, whether they be dead or alive. But I believe it also reflects a reluctance to look at the implications for the future, more specifically a refusal to acknowledge that Israel is engaged in a multi-front war with implacable enemies and that there is no end in sight and nothing that Israel can do to change this reality.
All Israel can do is defend itself and seek to make assaults against it so costly to its adversaries that they have an incentive to desist, at least for a time. There is a refusal by many Israelis, a collective closing of eyes, to this reality, consistent with the Oslo mentality that peace is readily available if Israel would make the right concessions. In the context of this mind-set, one need worry less about the implications of the present exchange deal and similar transactions on future assaults because such assaults can be avoided by pursuing and achieving "peace."
The celebration of the exchange by Lebanese across the political spectrum, indeed the declaring of a national holiday in Lebanon, in response particularly to the release of Kuntar, whose claim to fame is his killing of a four-year-old Israeli girl by smashing her skull with his rifle butt, the extension of congratulations to Kuntar and his family by Israel's "peace partner" Abbas, and declarations across the Arab world of a great victory over Israel, a victory that demonstrates the need to pursue additional kidnappings of Israelis, reflect the Arab world's implacable, genocidal hatred of Israel and of Jews more broadly (a hatred that in fact extends to other minorities living among the Arabs, including the Muslim but black residents of Darfur). This hatred is broadcast by Arab media, preached in Arab mosques and taught in Arab schools and is impervious to particular Israeli policies or concessions. Perhaps the ugly expressions of it in the present context will force at least some Israelis to acknowledge the reality of their predicament.
In a recent FrontPageMagazine article, David Hornik notes that Israel's "moderate" peace partner Abbas also lauded one of the terrorists whose bodies were handed over by Israel in the exchange, a Palestinian woman whose "heroic" dead was taking part in an attack that killed 36 Israeli civilians, including 13 children, many of whom were burned to death on a blown up bus. According to Abbas, the woman, Dalal Mughrabi, should be honored for carrying out "one of the most courageous operations in Israel"; and he declared that "we want to turn Dalal's funeral into a national wedding, a major celebration... She will always be remembered as a symbol for the Palestinian women's struggle." One might think that such declarations, too, would awaken some Israelis.
But Israelis have had this reality demonstrated to them in blood-curdling ways innumerable times in recent years, and still many - including many within Israel's political elite - have refused to see it.
FP: Thank you Dr. Levin. I would like the panel to give their thoughts on the theme Dr. Levin has touched on, that we are dealing with a culture – in terms of the Arab culture – that celebrates people who kill children. Perhaps its not so surprising coming from a culture that even lauds the killing of its own children, but nonetheless, what does it say about this culture? What does it say about an international community that sees this culture in a positive way, and an international community that demonizes Israel, when all of us know that it would be unimaginable that Israelis would have a national holiday and celebrate the release of an individual who intentionally murdered not only innocent people, but also a child?
Gutmann: The other participants have commented extensively on the costs to Israel in prestige and tactical advantage resulting from the recent prisoner exchange. Though I agree that the costs were high, and while I would not have included Kuntar the child-butcher in the exchange, I want to concentrate on the possible gains. These in my view have to do with the matter of ego identity.
At around age sixteen, adolescents, pretty much everywhere, recognize social forms and institutions – quite apart from their individual members and practitioners – as Objects: tangible and real, and in possible relationship to themselves. They search among these social objects for those whose legends, ideals and histories are identical (Have Identity With) what they feel themselves to be and what they want to become. Erik Erikson pointed out that an ego identity was not an answer to the usual sophomore’s question, “who am I,” but an answer to the more crucial question, “what do I stand for – and what stands for me?” Identity grows out of this perceived intersection between individual and collective history, between individual and collective myth.
In the Israeli case, the adolescent is drafted into the IDF at precisely that time when these questions are uppermost. Rich with legend, bearing a history of heroism and victory against odds, the IDF presents itself to the adolescent as an ideal identity “object”, and this identity between the individual and the army is summed up in the soldier’s pledge: “I agree, when called upon, to stand up for you, to do my duty, knowing that you, when called upon, will stand up for me.” The IDF stands up for the individual trooper by bringing him back, dead or alive, from any battlefield or any enemy prison. That sense of collective identity has been – more than tanks or aircraft – the source of Israel’s military strength.
However, in recent years, the growth of the peace movement, popular revulsion against harsh anti-Intifada measures, and some decline in the IDF’s military effectiveness, have weakened the bond of identity between the Israeli people and their army, as well as that between the IDF and the individual soldier. As a result, more Israeli adolescents find ways to avoid conscription, more reservists find ways to avoid their yearly call-up, and fewer kids volunteer for the elite commando and armored corps. Military effectiveness drops off.
Military Identity has two inputs: from the soldier, and from the army. If the soldier’s pledge to stand up for the army is weakening, it can be to some degree revived by an enactment of the IDF’s pledge to stand by the soldier – to bring him or his bones home. If the organic connection between the people and its army is restored by the recent prisoner exchange, then - at a time when the enemy’s noose is tightening around Israel’s neck – it will have been worth the high cost.
Dalrymple: I feel somewhat under-qualified to reply to some of what has been said. I have travelled a little in the Arab world, but do not speak Arabic. I have not been struck by any particular death wish or glorification of death, at least as a mass, let alone a universal, phenomenon. I am extremely wary of such sweeping statements, although I confess I have been struck by the propensity I found among people to political self-pity and exaggeration, so that people don't seem very good at distinguishing between the deaths of, say, 70 people, and that of 500,000. A statistical sense doesn't seem very strong in Arab countries, a sense that is necessary for any sense of perspective. But the people whom I met seemed as attached to life as I.
As it happens, I have been interested in the question of human remains, because an American doctor whom I knew only by correspondence, who was a very witty and erudite man, died recently, and sent me a letter from beyond the grave (it was to be posted only in the event of his death). Something in that letter shocked me: he was a rationalist, and said that his remains should be treated with no more reverence than a piece of meat that had gone bad.
I am not religious at all, but I found this attitude shocking (though I revered the man who had it). It seems to me that reverence for human remains, however expressed, is part of the deepest level of our humanity. We are - or at least most of us are - incapable of thinking about human remains, a fortiori of those whom we love, respect or cherish - in these brutal terms.
If I am right, it sets a limit to the degree to which rationality can decide a question like this. What are a set of human remains worth, in a rational sense? This is a question that one cannot bring oneself to consider - it is to break a taboo that should not be broken. At the same time, a government has to decide on the best policy it can, and releasing terrorists does not on the face of it seem a very good one. There is a tension here that I think cannot be resolved.
Lachkar: Thank you Dr. Levin. You hit the nail on the head as you emphasize the basic theme in dealing with the Arab mentality as being culturally based. Very profound to quote Maimonides’ idea that winning freedom must be weighed against its impact on public security. As a psychohistorian, I will expand this approach from a psychohistorical/psychological perspective. (Lachkar, 2002, 2007, 2008).
First, the Israelis group collective fantasy that they are the "good guys," the only democratic country in the region pre-scripted and pre-programmed to live up to their "choseness" the special child of God. This can explain their over-indulging benevolence even if it means a risk to their own country. Arabs, on the other hand, an abandoned orphaned society, are not so much invested in proving their “specialness.” Instead, they are more preoccupied with proving they “exist” as a thing in itself (this may fit with Guttman's concept of ego identity).
One might be reminded when Nassar Gamal Abdel of Egypt, the highly revered leader in the Arab world, began to challenge western dominance as one of the first to bring “meaning” and importance to Arabs by suggesting the destruction of Israel. Thus the slogan “We will drive the Jews into the Sea.” Although many Arabs opposed this slogan, after a while they began to see that it gave them meaning to their lives. Nassar brought meaning purpose to the meaninglessness. “Now we have a goal and direction—the destruction of Israel at any cost!”
This can explain why they celebrate death, and explain why Arabs rejoice when an Israeli soldier is captured or even when a child is mutilated and killed, or make national holidays out of such events as Daniel Perlman’s beheading, or the return of Kuntar. The Israelis on the other hand can attack the enemy but then release them to show the world their fairness and benevolence. Levin makes the point that perhaps the Israelis have gone too far with their benevolence and lose sight they must give way to the enemy to play hard ball during this kind of crisis-a war that cannot give way to weakness, as Muslims are insatiable -- give an inch they take a mile.
The Oslo mentality is a good example of this “Inshallah” seduction toward peace, only to be sabotaged by the commitment to destroy. Yasser Arafat immediately after staging the Olso peace accord admitted he signed the agreement in the spirit of Hudaybiyah. Shortly after terrorism increased rather than decreased.
Levin: I agree with Dr. Gutmann's points about identity objects and the relationship between the IDF and Israeli adolescents. But I don't see the recent hostage trade as necessarily a move by Israel in the service of shoring up identification with the IDF by demonstrating the country's commitment to its soldiers that fall into enemy hands, whether dead or alive.
Identification with the IDF by Israelis of all ages is based on the perception of Israel's military as the selfless and effective defender of the nation and of them and their families. There has been, as Dr. Gutmann notes, an increase in draft-dodging in recent years, much of it by those segments of the society that continue to buy into the Oslo delusions that peace is readily at hand if Israel only makes sufficient concessions. Some of those who share this mind-set are unprepared to do military service because they choose to believe that military actions would be unnecessary if the state only made the "right" diplomatic and political decisions.
Others, on the religious Zionist right, have been so put off by heavy-handed use of the military against settlers, and the state's creating what is in effect a separate set of prosecutorial procedures to target those who demonstrate against government concessions to the state's enemies, that they have spoken openly of avoiding military service in protest. In reality, it appears many fewer have actually acted on such threats than had at one time been anticipated.
But despite increased draft-dodging, whatever its motivation, in fact volunteer levels for combat units is still very high, and the response to the call-up of reserve units during the Second Lebanon War often exceeded what was expected on the basis of earlier precedents.
What most shakes Israelis' confidence in, and at times identification with, the IDF are situations in which - as during the Second Lebanon War - military leaders seem to be grossly mishandling the war effort and, in the course of doing so, seem to be squandering lives needlessly. In fact, during the last war the great majority of the population was in favor of a large-scale ground assault that would have cleared Hezbollah forces from areas that allowed them to fire short-range rockets into Israel. Even though people knew such an assault would entail greater casualties for Israel, they perceived that course as at least accomplishing some important end in defense of the nation. The actual piecemeal insertion of forces, with no overarching strategic objective, resulted in perhaps fewer total casualties but was seen as a waste of lives because it accomplished little and could not help but accomplish little, however well executed.
That the IDF did not execute the plans it actually had at the ready for a large-scale ground assault - a decision that involved both political and military echelons - was due in no small part to the fact that much of the highest ranks of the IDF, like the political leadership, shared that Oslo mind-set that large-scale actions such as a wide invasion of southern Lebanon were a throw-back to the past; that Israeli-Palestinian and broader Israeli-Arab diplomacy were on the way to precluding the necessity for such actions and the accompanying casualties. In fact, many within the highest echelons of the IDF gained their positions in part because they subscribed to the political orthodoxies of the pro-Oslo camp. Consistent with this mind-set, revelations of war-time decisions in post-war investigations showed that there was considerable reluctance within the IDF leadership to even acknowledge the country was engaged in a bonafide war.
This was off-putting to much of the Israeli population, and it has only been with aggressive post-war soul-searching and reform within the IDF that earlier levels of confidence, and identification, have been restored.
But the hostage exchange has in fact been seen by many among the adolescents about to enter the IDF in a negative light and not as the nation acting on its obligation to its soldiers. This is not simply because conceding so much in exchange for the bodies of dead soldiers gives little incentive to the nation's enemies to take good care of captured Israelis. It is also because many of the nation's youth recognize that the country will face military threats to its well-being and survival for the foreseeable future. These soon-to-be soldiers regard it is irresponsible to release potential combatants in exchange for dead soldiers, and to hand propaganda victories to the nation's enemies, victories that can potentially encourage future kidnapings and other assaults.
In June, members of a decorated reserve infantry battalion prepared a letter to be given to the chief of staff in case of war stating that if they are captured they insist Israel not pay a high price for their freedom, and, if they are killed, no negotiations should be held for the return of their bodies or parts of their bodies. The IDF with which these people identify is not the IDF of the recent hostage trade.
Dr. Lachkar makes the point that Israel's frequent prisoner releases are motivated by a national self-comprehension as the "good guys" and a related eagerness to demonstrate benevolence. This may be so, but these demonstrations of benevolence are also intended to impress upon the nation's enemies Israel's eagerness for peace and willingness to make concessions, and take risks, to gain it. But, of course, the response of the other side is hardly gratitude or any diminution of hostility toward the Jewish state. On the contrary, winning the release of prisoners is more likely to be regarded - like the recent hostage trade - as a sign of weakness, and the "V" for victory salutes of the released become spurs to reinforced determination to carry on the war of annihilation against Israel. Many Israelis see this clearly and are only alienated by government prisoner releases, at least those of people involved in past terror.
FP: Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, Dr. Kenneth Levin, Dr. Joanie Lachkar and Dr. David Gutmann, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
"Most Disconcerting"
That title might apply to most of what's happening these days, I realize, but I have one particular situation in mind:
On Wednesday, Haaretz revealed that the US has rejected a request by Israel for military equipment that would enhance our ability to attack Iran. They reportedly -- and we've had suggestions of this before -- see our readiness to do so as undermining US interests in the area. It was in the context of this rejection that the Americans then offered to boost our defensive capabilities against incoming missiles -- which I wrote about recently.
~~~~~~~~~~
The lesson for us, as spelled out by Aaron Lerner of IMRA: "A stunning reminder to Israel why it is so important to continue developing and maintaining the Israeli arms industry."
Bottom line: Friends, shmends, each nation ultimately acts in what it perceives to be its own best interest. Unfortunately, the US has a history of abandoning allies in the clinch -- which works against genuine long term American interests, even if those who are making the decisions are too blind to see it.
We here in Israel will do as we deem appropriate for our own security. Military action would be handicapped, however, by US refusal to allow us to fly over Iraq to get to Iran. While it seems we cannot count on it, it would be nice to think that, when push comes to shove, the US would at least back us up after the fact. The Americans may have no choice, precisely because their interests will be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
Just to keep everything in broader context: At no point has the US said the military option was off the table. They maintain they are holding it as a last resort, if all else in the way of sanctions and diplomacy has failed. They interpret our request for these arms as a sign that we will act in a manner that they believe is precipitous -- before other efforts have run their course. While we are watching the narrowing of the window for stopping the Iranians before they develop capacity to build a nuclear weapon, and are mindful of the danger of waiting just a bit too long.
Could sanctions work? Absolutely, if the entire international community was serious about this and put Iran in an economic stranglehold. But since each nation acts in what it perceives to be its own (often very short term) interest....
~~~~~~~~~~
Appropriate here is a brief consideration, at least, of the entire (also exceedingly disconcerting) Russian action in Georgia.
The broad parameters are clear -- with Russia acting with naked power, a la the old Soviet Union. Implications are vast and still being debated. Everything connects to everything else.
There is in several quarters fear of confronting Russia too sternly precisely because Russia is needed as an ally in standing strong against Iran. But, the failure of the world to act against Russian aggression will not be lost on the leaders of Iran. We are speaking here about the power of deterrence.
And, there is also the fact that Georgia is a western-tilting democracy that might have expected international assistance at a significant level. (Speaking of responses to allies.)
There are some very sharp minds currently analyzing what Georgia might have expected from the international community and how appropriately George Bush is responding. (Keep in mind that Georgia supported US efforts with troops in Iraq.)
Please see Jeff Jacoby on this, in his piece, "Back in the USSR." He covers a great deal of territory very incisively:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/13/back_in_the_ussr/
JINSA points out, in "Hammers and Nails," that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is touted as an expert on Russia, has been so busy focusing on solving the "Palestinian problem" that she dropped the ball totally with regard to Russia:
http://www.jinsa.org/node/658
JINSA also discusses some possibilities for how Russia should be responded to, which does not necessarily or realistically include military action:
http://www.jinsa.org/node/657
Oil is an additional factor, as Russia is an oil exporter. See Lenny Ben David for an effective analysis of this:
http://lennybendavid.com/2008/08/putin-i-love-smell-of-cordite-and-crude.html
~~~~~~~~~~
On a slightly different note, with significance for US politics, is the matter of how the two contenders for the presidency responded to the issue of the Russian aggression.
Obama began by calling for "restraint" on both sides, which call would do precious little to stop Russia's naked aggression, and which implies the sort of outrageous moral equivalency that we here in Israel are so familiar with.
McCain, on the other hand, put out a statement that included reminders of the moral parameters the situation and calling for specific actions against Russia.
And this, my friends, in a nutshell, epitomizes a major difference between the two candidates. It certainly shows us what response we'd get from each, as president, with regard to our need to contend with Arab aggression.
~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding politics, here in Israel polls are showing that Livni is likely to beat Mofaz in the September Kadima primary. The key issue, as I see it, is not who will win the primary, but whether this new head of Kadima would be able to put together a coalition for a new government. Mofaz is saying that he, with military experience and a tough attitude on Iran, is the only one who could do that.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza have announced that they have a new "Nasser 4" rocket with a 25 kilometer range that can reach Ashdod. They say they will use it if Israel enters Gaza.
On CNN, Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev then declared this to be a "clear violation" of the ceasefire:
"The ceasefire that was negotiated through Egypt was very specific that the Hamas movement and the other terrorist groups can't use it as a period to import more weapons, more explosives, more rockets into the Gaza Strip.
"[Israel reserves] the right to act, if need be, to protect ourselves. We don't want this current quiet just to be the quiet before the storm."
~~~~~~~~~~
One might be reduced to tears of frustration and shame in the face of this statement, which is patently ridiculous in several respects.
First of all, well before this statement by the Committees, Israel intelligence was already fully aware that Hamas has been smuggling in huge amounts of weapons since the ceasefire began in late June. I ran a list of what has been brought in, not long ago. So this statement by Regev is merely a PR response to one particular public statement by one group of terrorists, not an actual response to the fact of violations of the ceasefire, per se.
Talk about loss of deterrence power. The terrorists know they can get away with anything short of killing a large number of Israelis at one time.
~~~~~~~~~~
Second, saying we "reserve the right to act" really makes fools of us. Sort of like, "You keep doing this, you'll see, one of these days, maybe, if we feel like it, we'll do something stop you."
They are violating the ceasefire? Make an official public announcement of this fact and say it is now off, and that we are going to start military operations in Gaza again. It doesn't even have to be (although it should be!) that major operation that we've been told was coming some time soon. Just targeted operations against weapons storage sites and targeted killings of terrorist leaders.
What we're telling the terrorists right now is that the relative quiet suits our government, which was being pressured to do something for the poor suffering people of Sderot and environs. Even though there are severe violations with regard to smuggling and stockpiling of weapons, and a rocket is shot now and then, the constant barrage of rockets has stopped, which makes it easier for Olmert and Barak to function in the short term.
If we say the ceasefire is off, that barrage will begin again. Neither Olmert nor Barak wants this.
~~~~~~~~~~
But what of the future and the ultimate consequences -- regarding loss of Israeli life and damage to Israeli property?? Painful to contemplate. Painful, painful.
Regev says "We don't want this current quiet just to be the quiet before the storm." But of course that's all this is, and all it was ever expected to be. What nonsense to pretend it is anything more. Neighbors who wish to live in peace with us don't stockpile ever increasingly sophisticated weapons. We know this clearly. But the way we're going, we're allowing them to decide when they want to hit us, instead of pre-empting them now.
Has everyone forgotten the Hezbollah lesson? For years our intelligence clearly knew they were stockpiling in Lebanon, but it was thought best to leave the situation alone. Until we got hit by their rockets, which we had done nothing to stop, in 2006.
~~~~~~~~~~
Is anyone surprised? The lawyers for Morris Talansky have announced that he will not be returning to Israel for additional cross-examination by Olmert's lawyers. This is because Talansky is now the subject of a US grand jury investigation in matters that parallel issues here. FBI agents -- alerted by Talansky's testimony in Israel -- actually accompanied Israeli agents who were securing information in the US.
This situation will not necessarily affect a decision regarding the indictment of Olmert, although undoubtedly Olmert's lawyers will claim something about his rights having been infringed upon. Israeli law officials are now pointing with a sense of vindication to their insistence on taking testimony from Talansky before he left the country, and before an actual trial began, precisely for this reason. In spite of his insistence that he would continue to cooperate fully, they knew the possibility of his not returning loomed before them.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
On Wednesday, Haaretz revealed that the US has rejected a request by Israel for military equipment that would enhance our ability to attack Iran. They reportedly -- and we've had suggestions of this before -- see our readiness to do so as undermining US interests in the area. It was in the context of this rejection that the Americans then offered to boost our defensive capabilities against incoming missiles -- which I wrote about recently.
~~~~~~~~~~
The lesson for us, as spelled out by Aaron Lerner of IMRA: "A stunning reminder to Israel why it is so important to continue developing and maintaining the Israeli arms industry."
Bottom line: Friends, shmends, each nation ultimately acts in what it perceives to be its own best interest. Unfortunately, the US has a history of abandoning allies in the clinch -- which works against genuine long term American interests, even if those who are making the decisions are too blind to see it.
We here in Israel will do as we deem appropriate for our own security. Military action would be handicapped, however, by US refusal to allow us to fly over Iraq to get to Iran. While it seems we cannot count on it, it would be nice to think that, when push comes to shove, the US would at least back us up after the fact. The Americans may have no choice, precisely because their interests will be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
Just to keep everything in broader context: At no point has the US said the military option was off the table. They maintain they are holding it as a last resort, if all else in the way of sanctions and diplomacy has failed. They interpret our request for these arms as a sign that we will act in a manner that they believe is precipitous -- before other efforts have run their course. While we are watching the narrowing of the window for stopping the Iranians before they develop capacity to build a nuclear weapon, and are mindful of the danger of waiting just a bit too long.
Could sanctions work? Absolutely, if the entire international community was serious about this and put Iran in an economic stranglehold. But since each nation acts in what it perceives to be its own (often very short term) interest....
~~~~~~~~~~
Appropriate here is a brief consideration, at least, of the entire (also exceedingly disconcerting) Russian action in Georgia.
The broad parameters are clear -- with Russia acting with naked power, a la the old Soviet Union. Implications are vast and still being debated. Everything connects to everything else.
There is in several quarters fear of confronting Russia too sternly precisely because Russia is needed as an ally in standing strong against Iran. But, the failure of the world to act against Russian aggression will not be lost on the leaders of Iran. We are speaking here about the power of deterrence.
And, there is also the fact that Georgia is a western-tilting democracy that might have expected international assistance at a significant level. (Speaking of responses to allies.)
There are some very sharp minds currently analyzing what Georgia might have expected from the international community and how appropriately George Bush is responding. (Keep in mind that Georgia supported US efforts with troops in Iraq.)
Please see Jeff Jacoby on this, in his piece, "Back in the USSR." He covers a great deal of territory very incisively:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/13/back_in_the_ussr/
JINSA points out, in "Hammers and Nails," that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is touted as an expert on Russia, has been so busy focusing on solving the "Palestinian problem" that she dropped the ball totally with regard to Russia:
http://www.jinsa.org/node/658
JINSA also discusses some possibilities for how Russia should be responded to, which does not necessarily or realistically include military action:
http://www.jinsa.org/node/657
Oil is an additional factor, as Russia is an oil exporter. See Lenny Ben David for an effective analysis of this:
http://lennybendavid.com/2008/08/putin-i-love-smell-of-cordite-and-crude.html
~~~~~~~~~~
On a slightly different note, with significance for US politics, is the matter of how the two contenders for the presidency responded to the issue of the Russian aggression.
Obama began by calling for "restraint" on both sides, which call would do precious little to stop Russia's naked aggression, and which implies the sort of outrageous moral equivalency that we here in Israel are so familiar with.
McCain, on the other hand, put out a statement that included reminders of the moral parameters the situation and calling for specific actions against Russia.
And this, my friends, in a nutshell, epitomizes a major difference between the two candidates. It certainly shows us what response we'd get from each, as president, with regard to our need to contend with Arab aggression.
~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding politics, here in Israel polls are showing that Livni is likely to beat Mofaz in the September Kadima primary. The key issue, as I see it, is not who will win the primary, but whether this new head of Kadima would be able to put together a coalition for a new government. Mofaz is saying that he, with military experience and a tough attitude on Iran, is the only one who could do that.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza have announced that they have a new "Nasser 4" rocket with a 25 kilometer range that can reach Ashdod. They say they will use it if Israel enters Gaza.
On CNN, Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev then declared this to be a "clear violation" of the ceasefire:
"The ceasefire that was negotiated through Egypt was very specific that the Hamas movement and the other terrorist groups can't use it as a period to import more weapons, more explosives, more rockets into the Gaza Strip.
"[Israel reserves] the right to act, if need be, to protect ourselves. We don't want this current quiet just to be the quiet before the storm."
~~~~~~~~~~
One might be reduced to tears of frustration and shame in the face of this statement, which is patently ridiculous in several respects.
First of all, well before this statement by the Committees, Israel intelligence was already fully aware that Hamas has been smuggling in huge amounts of weapons since the ceasefire began in late June. I ran a list of what has been brought in, not long ago. So this statement by Regev is merely a PR response to one particular public statement by one group of terrorists, not an actual response to the fact of violations of the ceasefire, per se.
Talk about loss of deterrence power. The terrorists know they can get away with anything short of killing a large number of Israelis at one time.
~~~~~~~~~~
Second, saying we "reserve the right to act" really makes fools of us. Sort of like, "You keep doing this, you'll see, one of these days, maybe, if we feel like it, we'll do something stop you."
They are violating the ceasefire? Make an official public announcement of this fact and say it is now off, and that we are going to start military operations in Gaza again. It doesn't even have to be (although it should be!) that major operation that we've been told was coming some time soon. Just targeted operations against weapons storage sites and targeted killings of terrorist leaders.
What we're telling the terrorists right now is that the relative quiet suits our government, which was being pressured to do something for the poor suffering people of Sderot and environs. Even though there are severe violations with regard to smuggling and stockpiling of weapons, and a rocket is shot now and then, the constant barrage of rockets has stopped, which makes it easier for Olmert and Barak to function in the short term.
If we say the ceasefire is off, that barrage will begin again. Neither Olmert nor Barak wants this.
~~~~~~~~~~
But what of the future and the ultimate consequences -- regarding loss of Israeli life and damage to Israeli property?? Painful to contemplate. Painful, painful.
Regev says "We don't want this current quiet just to be the quiet before the storm." But of course that's all this is, and all it was ever expected to be. What nonsense to pretend it is anything more. Neighbors who wish to live in peace with us don't stockpile ever increasingly sophisticated weapons. We know this clearly. But the way we're going, we're allowing them to decide when they want to hit us, instead of pre-empting them now.
Has everyone forgotten the Hezbollah lesson? For years our intelligence clearly knew they were stockpiling in Lebanon, but it was thought best to leave the situation alone. Until we got hit by their rockets, which we had done nothing to stop, in 2006.
~~~~~~~~~~
Is anyone surprised? The lawyers for Morris Talansky have announced that he will not be returning to Israel for additional cross-examination by Olmert's lawyers. This is because Talansky is now the subject of a US grand jury investigation in matters that parallel issues here. FBI agents -- alerted by Talansky's testimony in Israel -- actually accompanied Israeli agents who were securing information in the US.
This situation will not necessarily affect a decision regarding the indictment of Olmert, although undoubtedly Olmert's lawyers will claim something about his rights having been infringed upon. Israeli law officials are now pointing with a sense of vindication to their insistence on taking testimony from Talansky before he left the country, and before an actual trial began, precisely for this reason. In spite of his insistence that he would continue to cooperate fully, they knew the possibility of his not returning loomed before them.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Israel elected to Universal Postal Union Operations Council
(Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesman)
For the first time in the history of the organization, the Israel Postal Company has been chosen to represent Israel on the Postal Operations Council of the Universal Postal Union at the 24th Universal Postal Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland.
Israel has been a member of the Universal Postal Union since December 1949, but was never elected to serve on its professional decision-making body - the Operations Council. The Council takes decisions relating to the operation of international postal services, financial issues and setting standards in quality of service. At the current UPU Congress, Israel was elected to serve on the Council for four years.
The election of Israel to international organizations is virtually impossible due to the anti-Israeli atmosphere general prevailing in the United Nations institutions and many of its member states. Thus, every vote won is the result of a complex process of bilateral negotiation in the multilateral context. Israel's election by almost 90 votes is the result of almost two years' work, and of cooperation between the Israel Foreign Ministry, the Israel Postal Company and the Ministry of Communications. The election campaign itself was spearheaded by the Israeli Mission to the UN in Geneva.
Itzhak Levanon, Israel's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, said: "This is a significant achievement for Israel in the framework of the the UN institutions. We do not enjoy many such events, and this success leaves me hopeful for the future. I hope that this will herald further Israel achievements at the UN institutions in Geneva."
The Universal Postal Union (UPU) is located in Bern, Switzerland. The 24th Congress originally scheduled to be held in Kenya was transferred to Geneva due to the security situation in Kenya. The next UPU Congress is scheduled to be held in Doha, Qatar in 2012.
עד כאן.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
10 אוגוסט 2008
For the first time in the history of the organization, the Israel Postal Company has been chosen to represent Israel on the Postal Operations Council of the Universal Postal Union at the 24th Universal Postal Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland.
Israel has been a member of the Universal Postal Union since December 1949, but was never elected to serve on its professional decision-making body - the Operations Council. The Council takes decisions relating to the operation of international postal services, financial issues and setting standards in quality of service. At the current UPU Congress, Israel was elected to serve on the Council for four years.
The election of Israel to international organizations is virtually impossible due to the anti-Israeli atmosphere general prevailing in the United Nations institutions and many of its member states. Thus, every vote won is the result of a complex process of bilateral negotiation in the multilateral context. Israel's election by almost 90 votes is the result of almost two years' work, and of cooperation between the Israel Foreign Ministry, the Israel Postal Company and the Ministry of Communications. The election campaign itself was spearheaded by the Israeli Mission to the UN in Geneva.
Itzhak Levanon, Israel's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, said: "This is a significant achievement for Israel in the framework of the the UN institutions. We do not enjoy many such events, and this success leaves me hopeful for the future. I hope that this will herald further Israel achievements at the UN institutions in Geneva."
The Universal Postal Union (UPU) is located in Bern, Switzerland. The 24th Congress originally scheduled to be held in Kenya was transferred to Geneva due to the security situation in Kenya. The next UPU Congress is scheduled to be held in Doha, Qatar in 2012.
עד כאן.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
10 אוגוסט 2008
U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium. The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium. The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
The Ettinger Report
Palestinian Refugees – The Global Context
Yoram Ettinger
1. Over 100 million refugees have been created by wars since the end of WW2.
2. 79 million refugees were created during 1933-1945.
3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan. 3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan.
4. A Greek-Turk population exchange of 2 million refugees was codified by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, following the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War.
5. Millions became refugees in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia – as a result of ruthless regimes - following US withdrawal.
6. A population transfer of millions occurred among USSR and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania, Greece-Bulgaria, Denmark-Germany, etc.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
7. 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait, due to PLO’s collaboration with the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
8. 800,000 Yemenites were expelled from Saudi Arabia, due to Yemen’s support of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
9. Over 500,000 Christians fled Lebanon as a result of a series of civil war ignited by PLO and Syrian occupation.
10. 10,000 PLO members were killed and thousands of Palestinians expelled from Jordan, due to PLO terrorism and attempts to topple the Hashemite regime.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
FOR NON-ISRAEL-RELATED ARAB REFUGEES
11. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) handles all refugees, except Israeli-related Palestinians…
12. UNRWA – the largest UN agency (25,000 employees) - handles only Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
13. Unlike global refugees, Palestinian refugees are defined as any Arab who was in Palestine two years before the 1948/9 War…
14. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA covers all descendants, without generational limitation.
15. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA perpetuates – and does not resettle - Palestinian refugees.
While UNHCR is rewarded for sharply reducing the number of global refugees, UNRWA has been rewarded for perpetuating the status – and significantly inflating the number - of Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
17. In contrast with the mega-million myth, the total number of 1948/9 Palestinian refugees was 320,000. 800,000 Arabs resided within the “Green Line” before the 1948/9 War. 170,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the war. Additional 100,000 were absorbed by Israel. Moreover, 100,000 middle and upper class Arabs were absorbed by neighboring Arab states. Also, 50,000 migrant laborers returned to their states. 50,000 Bedouins joined Jordan and Sinai tribes. 10,000-15,000 were war fatalities. Total refugees = 320,000.
18. 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, following the establishment of the Jewish State. 600,000 were absorbed by Israel and the rest resettled in other non-Arab countries.
For further data, please read “The Claim of Dispossession” by Arieh Avneri, Herzl Press, NY, 1980 and “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters, Harper & Row, NY, 1984.
Yoram Ettinger
1. Over 100 million refugees have been created by wars since the end of WW2.
2. 79 million refugees were created during 1933-1945.
3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan. 3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan.
4. A Greek-Turk population exchange of 2 million refugees was codified by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, following the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War.
5. Millions became refugees in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia – as a result of ruthless regimes - following US withdrawal.
6. A population transfer of millions occurred among USSR and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania, Greece-Bulgaria, Denmark-Germany, etc.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
7. 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait, due to PLO’s collaboration with the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
8. 800,000 Yemenites were expelled from Saudi Arabia, due to Yemen’s support of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
9. Over 500,000 Christians fled Lebanon as a result of a series of civil war ignited by PLO and Syrian occupation.
10. 10,000 PLO members were killed and thousands of Palestinians expelled from Jordan, due to PLO terrorism and attempts to topple the Hashemite regime.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
FOR NON-ISRAEL-RELATED ARAB REFUGEES
11. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) handles all refugees, except Israeli-related Palestinians…
12. UNRWA – the largest UN agency (25,000 employees) - handles only Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
13. Unlike global refugees, Palestinian refugees are defined as any Arab who was in Palestine two years before the 1948/9 War…
14. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA covers all descendants, without generational limitation.
15. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA perpetuates – and does not resettle - Palestinian refugees.
While UNHCR is rewarded for sharply reducing the number of global refugees, UNRWA has been rewarded for perpetuating the status – and significantly inflating the number - of Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
17. In contrast with the mega-million myth, the total number of 1948/9 Palestinian refugees was 320,000. 800,000 Arabs resided within the “Green Line” before the 1948/9 War. 170,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the war. Additional 100,000 were absorbed by Israel. Moreover, 100,000 middle and upper class Arabs were absorbed by neighboring Arab states. Also, 50,000 migrant laborers returned to their states. 50,000 Bedouins joined Jordan and Sinai tribes. 10,000-15,000 were war fatalities. Total refugees = 320,000.
18. 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, following the establishment of the Jewish State. 600,000 were absorbed by Israel and the rest resettled in other non-Arab countries.
For further data, please read “The Claim of Dispossession” by Arieh Avneri, Herzl Press, NY, 1980 and “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters, Harper & Row, NY, 1984.
U.S. court exonerates Saudis from lawsuit filed by relatives of 9/11 victims
As well they should! After all, the Saudis are only responsible for supplying the hate-and-destroy-all-infidels educational curriculum, "Wahhabism" to every mosque (and CAIR), 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers (as well as Osama bin Laden), and mega petro-dollars to jihadis around the globe. "U.S. court rules Saudi Arabia immune in 9/11 case," from Reuters, August 14: NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks and their families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey dismissing a claim against Saudi Arabia, a Saudi charity, four princes and a Saudi banker of providing material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.
The victims and their families argued that because the defendants gave money to Muslim charities that in turn gave money to al Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks.
The appeals court found that the defendants are protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The court also noted that exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.
Of course not: they're our "friends and allies" -- except when plotting to destroy us.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Olmert to PA: You Take Land, We'll Take Arabs
Hillel Fendel and Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Just two days after reports that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has offered 93% of Judea and Samaria for a Palestinian state, it is now reported that the same offer includes a proposal to accept 20,000 Arabs inside Israel. The PA has turned it down. The latest report means that Olmert has reneged on a principle on which Israeli consensus has stood fast for over six decades - namely, what the Arabs call the Right of Return. The Arabs demand that some five million Arabs who claim that they or their ancestors were displaced from Israel during the War of Independence (1948) and Six Day War (1967) be allowed to live in Israel.
Olmert has reportedly agreed to accept 20,000 of the Arabs over the next ten years. However, his conditions stipulate that the process be called "family unification" on a "humanitarian basis," and that the Palestinian Authority drop its remaining "right of return" demands. All other Arabs who wish to "return" must live in a future Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, Olmert insists.
A response from the Prime Minister's Bureau later denied the entire report, saying that Olmert continues to insist that no refugees be allowed to enter Israel.
PA Chairman has rejected Olmert's package deal outright. Without relating to the report of the offer to accept the 20,000 Arabs, PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said that Israel's insistence on keeping 7% of Judea and Samaria is "unacceptable because it contradicts Palestinian, Arab and international resolutions." He said that Israel must withdraw all of its "settlements" and enable the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.
Livni: Against
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, leading the negotiations with the PA, is opposed to any Israeli concessions on the matter of the so-called Arab refugees.
Arab countries have long demanded that Israel allow up to five million Arabs to move from foreign countries to within Israel's pre-1967 borders. Most media have adopted the Arab term "refugees" when referring to the approximately 600,000 Arabs who fled the country during the War of Independence in 1948.
Many, if not most, of them no longer are living, but the PA defines all of their descendants as "refugees" and claims they have the "right of return," similar to the right of all Jews throughout the world to move to Israel and become Israeli citizens.
Virtually all Israeli politicians, including left-wing leaders, have rejected the demand. However, by using the term "family reunification," Prime Minister Olmert may lead to a crack in the Israeli wall of resistance.
Israeli Skepticism
An Israel official, insisting on anonymity, told Reuters that the entire plan, including the offer for almost all of Judea and Samaria while the status of Jerusalem remains undefined, was made by Olmert only in order to establish a legacy for himself before his political exit. "There will be no agreement, period," the official said.
Prime Minister Olmert's offer to Abbas is publicized a week before U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's next trip to the region. She has been pressing Israel and the PA to come up with an "agreement of principles" that can be announced before U.S. President Bush's term of office ends in January.
Obama's War on Women
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 14, 2008
The Obama campaign has at long last lifted the veil of mystery that has surrounded the Democratic presidential candidate's tax increase plans. Mr. Obama's two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, and it isn't pretty. To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he'd impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the "rich" — a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate — expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income. Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: "His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000." It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.
The Obama campaign has at long last lifted the veil of mystery that has surrounded the Democratic presidential candidate's tax increase plans. Mr. Obama's two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, and it isn't pretty. To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he'd impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the "rich" — a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate — expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income. Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: "His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000." It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.
Recruiting Israeli Arabs for Terror
P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/13/2008
Information has come to light about an Israeli Arab who was arrested last month at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport after a return flight from Germany. Khaled Kashkoush, 29, comes from the village of Qalansuwa in central Israel and had been studying medicine for some years in Göttingen, Germany. His arrest was initially reported in Spiegel Online International.
Kashkoush has admitted during interrogation that while in Germany he was recruited by Hezbollah agents. In 2002 he made contact with Hisham Hassan, a Lebanese doctor who is also head of the German branch of the Orphaned Children Project Lebanon. That organization, in turn, raises funds for the Lebanese Martyr Institute—part of Hezbollah’s civilian network in Lebanon.
The Martyr Institute, which supports the families of Hezbollah terrorists killed during operations, spreads Khomeinist ideology both in Lebanon and abroad, and raises funds for Hezbollah, works similarly to the Iranian Shahid Foundation. In 2007 the U.S. Treasury Department declared the Shahid Foundation illegal and the FBI raided and closed its U.S. branch, known as the Goodwill Charitable Organization, in Dearborn, Michigan.
Kashkoush met every two weeks with Dr. Hassan and also helped him administer the Orphaned Children Project. After three years Dr. Hassan put Kashkoush in contact with a Lebanese called “Rami” who turned out to be the senior Hezbollah recruiter Muhammad Hashem, well known to Israeli security.
Hashem gave Kashkoush a total of 13,000 euros. In return Kashkoush was supposed to provide information about Israeli nationals studying abroad who might be potential Hezbollah recruits, and to try and find work in an Israeli hospital so he could gather information about security personnel or soldiers being treated there. At one of their meetings Hashem also gave Kashkoush a map of the latter’s home village, Qalansuwa, that had been downloaded from Google Earth and asked him to locate buildings there.
According to Spiegel Online International’s report, Kashkoush was aiming to get a job at Rambam Hospital in the Israeli city of Haifa before being nabbed at the airport. Kashkoush and his handler, Hashem, had apparently been in touch only via unregistered cellphone and email.
The case is deeply troubling to Israeli security because it fits into a pattern where Hezbollah and other terror organizations have been using Israeli Arabs as a pool for recruits. Although in the cases of three terror attacks by Israeli Arabs in Jerusalem this year no clear links to organizations seem yet to have been found, also this year two Israeli Arabs have been indicted for passing information on strategic sites to Al Qaeda and six more have been arrested for allegedly setting up an Al Qaeda-affiliated network and plotting to shoot down President Bush’s helicopter while he was visiting Israel.
Hezbollah, for its part, particularly exploits the fact that Israeli Arabs can easily be contacted and recruited while abroad, of which Kashkoush’s case is a classic instance. Israel, thus, gets the worst of all worlds: while frequently being slandered as an “apartheid state” it grants its Arab minority full freedoms that the global jihad movement, and a small but increasing number of Israeli Arabs themselves, exploit to Israel’s detriment.
And making life still harder for Israel is the fact that in Europe particularly, Hezbollah can operate freely because it’s not defined as a terrorist organization. Given that Hezbollah is responsible, among countless other acts, for blowing up the U.S. embassy in Lebanon in 1983, the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, the AMIA Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994, and in 2006 for killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers on Israeli territory while firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, the fact that Europe does not classify it as terrorist may seem astonishing.
European countries claim to fear, though, that doing so would harm prospects for Middle East peace talks. European countries also, of course, have lucrative commercial ties with Hezbollah’s patron Iran.
In other words, the Israeli security services have their work cut out for them. In the case of Khaled Kashkoush they appear to have succeeded. Since—as in other Western countries—they’re the main or even only thing that stands between normal life and catastrophe, one hopes they’ll keep working very hard.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/13/2008
Information has come to light about an Israeli Arab who was arrested last month at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport after a return flight from Germany. Khaled Kashkoush, 29, comes from the village of Qalansuwa in central Israel and had been studying medicine for some years in Göttingen, Germany. His arrest was initially reported in Spiegel Online International.
Kashkoush has admitted during interrogation that while in Germany he was recruited by Hezbollah agents. In 2002 he made contact with Hisham Hassan, a Lebanese doctor who is also head of the German branch of the Orphaned Children Project Lebanon. That organization, in turn, raises funds for the Lebanese Martyr Institute—part of Hezbollah’s civilian network in Lebanon.
The Martyr Institute, which supports the families of Hezbollah terrorists killed during operations, spreads Khomeinist ideology both in Lebanon and abroad, and raises funds for Hezbollah, works similarly to the Iranian Shahid Foundation. In 2007 the U.S. Treasury Department declared the Shahid Foundation illegal and the FBI raided and closed its U.S. branch, known as the Goodwill Charitable Organization, in Dearborn, Michigan.
Kashkoush met every two weeks with Dr. Hassan and also helped him administer the Orphaned Children Project. After three years Dr. Hassan put Kashkoush in contact with a Lebanese called “Rami” who turned out to be the senior Hezbollah recruiter Muhammad Hashem, well known to Israeli security.
Hashem gave Kashkoush a total of 13,000 euros. In return Kashkoush was supposed to provide information about Israeli nationals studying abroad who might be potential Hezbollah recruits, and to try and find work in an Israeli hospital so he could gather information about security personnel or soldiers being treated there. At one of their meetings Hashem also gave Kashkoush a map of the latter’s home village, Qalansuwa, that had been downloaded from Google Earth and asked him to locate buildings there.
According to Spiegel Online International’s report, Kashkoush was aiming to get a job at Rambam Hospital in the Israeli city of Haifa before being nabbed at the airport. Kashkoush and his handler, Hashem, had apparently been in touch only via unregistered cellphone and email.
The case is deeply troubling to Israeli security because it fits into a pattern where Hezbollah and other terror organizations have been using Israeli Arabs as a pool for recruits. Although in the cases of three terror attacks by Israeli Arabs in Jerusalem this year no clear links to organizations seem yet to have been found, also this year two Israeli Arabs have been indicted for passing information on strategic sites to Al Qaeda and six more have been arrested for allegedly setting up an Al Qaeda-affiliated network and plotting to shoot down President Bush’s helicopter while he was visiting Israel.
Hezbollah, for its part, particularly exploits the fact that Israeli Arabs can easily be contacted and recruited while abroad, of which Kashkoush’s case is a classic instance. Israel, thus, gets the worst of all worlds: while frequently being slandered as an “apartheid state” it grants its Arab minority full freedoms that the global jihad movement, and a small but increasing number of Israeli Arabs themselves, exploit to Israel’s detriment.
And making life still harder for Israel is the fact that in Europe particularly, Hezbollah can operate freely because it’s not defined as a terrorist organization. Given that Hezbollah is responsible, among countless other acts, for blowing up the U.S. embassy in Lebanon in 1983, the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, the AMIA Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994, and in 2006 for killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers on Israeli territory while firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, the fact that Europe does not classify it as terrorist may seem astonishing.
European countries claim to fear, though, that doing so would harm prospects for Middle East peace talks. European countries also, of course, have lucrative commercial ties with Hezbollah’s patron Iran.
In other words, the Israeli security services have their work cut out for them. In the case of Khaled Kashkoush they appear to have succeeded. Since—as in other Western countries—they’re the main or even only thing that stands between normal life and catastrophe, one hopes they’ll keep working very hard.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.
The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.
The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
Obama's Republicans
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 13, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obamas-republicans/83788/
The Obama campaign's conference call yesterday on Republicans who back the presidential bid of the Democrat from Illinois showcased quite a crew. There was Rita Hauser, the PLO apologist whose law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, racked up millions of dollars in legal fees over the years as a registered foreign agent of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Ms. Hauser met with Mr. Arafat as early as 1988, when America still considered him a terrorist and refused even to allow him access to the United Nations headquarters in New York. Though the meeting may have had the tacit approval of the State Department, Israel publicly objected at the time, though it too chose eventually to treat with Arafat. Ms. Hauser helped fund the Edward Said chair at Columbia for Mr. Obama's pal Rashid Khalidi. "I made a contribution," Ms. Hauser told us back in 2003, describing the chair's namesake, Professor Edward Said, as "a friend of mine. I admire him." Ms. Hauser said she was happy with Mr. Khalidi's selection as a teacher there. "I like him very much. He's a splendid guy, a Palestinian intellectual, a first-class choice, and I think everybody's pleased," she said of the professor whose errors The Sun exposed in its August 5, 2004, editorial, "What the UAE Bought."
Mr. Obama also is boasting of Lincoln Chafee, who, as a senator representing Rhode Island, was responsible for blocking Secretary Bolton from being confirmed as the American ambassador at the United Nations on the grounds that the Bush administration had been too pro-Israel. He was one of two Republicans to vote against repeal of the estate tax, even though he gained his Senate seat in 1999 by being appointed to fill the remainder of his father's term. He voted against confirming Justice Alito. He was one of only three Republicans in 2006 who voted against an extension of the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains.
Back in 2006, a New York Sun article quoted a longtime pro-Israel activist in Washington, Morris Amitay, as saying Mr. Chafee "has one of the worst records of anyone in the Senate, definitely in the bottom 10% of class as far as pro-Israel initiatives are concerned." The Sun article noted that in 2003, Mr. Chafee was one of only four senators to vote against the Syria Accountability Act, a sanctions measure. In 2002, Mr. Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against giving President Bush the authority to take military action in Iraq. According to at least one press report, Mr. Chafee left the Republican party in 2007 after losing his 2006 campaign for re-election.
The third "Republican for Obama" after Ms. Hauser and Mr. Chafee — and the only other one who participated in the call — was a former congressman from Iowa, James Leach. Mr. Leach took to the House floor in 2004 to deliver a speech titled "The Case for Restraint in Iran," warning against American or Israeli attacks on the mullahs's nuclear facilities. "It is hard to believe that outside military intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of authoritarian mullah rule," Mr. Leach said, calling instead for America to agree to a comprehensive nuclear test ban. In 2006, when the House voted 397 to 21 to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act that toughened sanctions on Tehran, Mr. Leach was one of the 21 congressmen who opposed it.
Mr. Obama has made pro-Israel statements in his campaign. He spoke at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington and at a synagogue at Boca Raton, Fla., and at Jerusalem itself. What is one to make of it if he is then going to cart out Ms. Hauser and Messrs. Chafee and Leach? At the least, it exhibits a tone-deafness that weakens the argument that Mr. Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt on these matters. If these are the Republicans who are gravitating to Mr. Obama's campaign, it is an ill omen for the Democrats.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obamas-republicans/83788/
The Obama campaign's conference call yesterday on Republicans who back the presidential bid of the Democrat from Illinois showcased quite a crew. There was Rita Hauser, the PLO apologist whose law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, racked up millions of dollars in legal fees over the years as a registered foreign agent of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Ms. Hauser met with Mr. Arafat as early as 1988, when America still considered him a terrorist and refused even to allow him access to the United Nations headquarters in New York. Though the meeting may have had the tacit approval of the State Department, Israel publicly objected at the time, though it too chose eventually to treat with Arafat. Ms. Hauser helped fund the Edward Said chair at Columbia for Mr. Obama's pal Rashid Khalidi. "I made a contribution," Ms. Hauser told us back in 2003, describing the chair's namesake, Professor Edward Said, as "a friend of mine. I admire him." Ms. Hauser said she was happy with Mr. Khalidi's selection as a teacher there. "I like him very much. He's a splendid guy, a Palestinian intellectual, a first-class choice, and I think everybody's pleased," she said of the professor whose errors The Sun exposed in its August 5, 2004, editorial, "What the UAE Bought."
Mr. Obama also is boasting of Lincoln Chafee, who, as a senator representing Rhode Island, was responsible for blocking Secretary Bolton from being confirmed as the American ambassador at the United Nations on the grounds that the Bush administration had been too pro-Israel. He was one of two Republicans to vote against repeal of the estate tax, even though he gained his Senate seat in 1999 by being appointed to fill the remainder of his father's term. He voted against confirming Justice Alito. He was one of only three Republicans in 2006 who voted against an extension of the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains.
Back in 2006, a New York Sun article quoted a longtime pro-Israel activist in Washington, Morris Amitay, as saying Mr. Chafee "has one of the worst records of anyone in the Senate, definitely in the bottom 10% of class as far as pro-Israel initiatives are concerned." The Sun article noted that in 2003, Mr. Chafee was one of only four senators to vote against the Syria Accountability Act, a sanctions measure. In 2002, Mr. Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against giving President Bush the authority to take military action in Iraq. According to at least one press report, Mr. Chafee left the Republican party in 2007 after losing his 2006 campaign for re-election.
The third "Republican for Obama" after Ms. Hauser and Mr. Chafee — and the only other one who participated in the call — was a former congressman from Iowa, James Leach. Mr. Leach took to the House floor in 2004 to deliver a speech titled "The Case for Restraint in Iran," warning against American or Israeli attacks on the mullahs's nuclear facilities. "It is hard to believe that outside military intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of authoritarian mullah rule," Mr. Leach said, calling instead for America to agree to a comprehensive nuclear test ban. In 2006, when the House voted 397 to 21 to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act that toughened sanctions on Tehran, Mr. Leach was one of the 21 congressmen who opposed it.
Mr. Obama has made pro-Israel statements in his campaign. He spoke at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington and at a synagogue at Boca Raton, Fla., and at Jerusalem itself. What is one to make of it if he is then going to cart out Ms. Hauser and Messrs. Chafee and Leach? At the least, it exhibits a tone-deafness that weakens the argument that Mr. Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt on these matters. If these are the Republicans who are gravitating to Mr. Obama's campaign, it is an ill omen for the Democrats.
"Remembering Gush Katif"
Arlene Kushner
It is now three years since the expulsion of Jews from the communities of Gush Katif in the southern Gaza Strip and other communities in the northern Strip. This was likely the single most shameful act in Israel's history and has wrought nothing but misery in all respects. What has been the result with regard to the Hamas takeover is there for all the world to see.Drawing less attention is the plight of those who were taken from their homes, many of whom remain in temporary quarters and have been slighted by the government in critical ways.
It is my experience that the residents of these communities are among the most Zionist in the nation, demonstrating courage and the most admirable of values. Their situation should not be ignored.
There are reports from Arabs who worked for these Jews in agricultural ventures that the communities -- most notably Netzer Hazani -- built with such devotion, have been razed so completely that nothing remains but the sand from which they rose.
The residents of the Gush Katif communities aspire not only to build again, but ultimately to return to Gaza. I applaud this.
Hopefully in time there will be the opportunity to explore this on-going situation in greater depth.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Haaretz, Olmert has offered the Palestinians a "peace plan": 93% of Judea and Samaria. The question of Jerusalem to be left up in the air for now. And a passage between Gaza and the West Bank area to be permitted only if Fatah were to re-take Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was obvious that this wouldn't fly: The Palestinians are not about to compromise -- cannot compromise with Hamas setting the agenda. Just days ago PA prime minister, Salaam Fayyad had said that the chances of a peace deal were "nonexistent."
(More on Fayyad below.)
~~~~~~~~~~
And sure enough, Abbas has already rejected the offer.
What Abbas's spokesman said was:
"The Israeli proposal is not acceptable. The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries."
Got that? June 4, 1967 boundaries. What he's referring to are armistice lines, not boundaries at all. But the point is that there is no compromise. And can be no deal.
The spokesman said that Israel's proposal was "a waste of time."
An Israeli official, cited by Haaretz and speaking on condition of anonymity, actually said something similar. Explaining that Olmert was merely trying to establish his legacy, he declared:
"There is going to be no agreement, period."
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Fayyad, who recently said:
"The whole world must know that ending the conflict requires an end to the Israeli occupation of the lands that were occupied in 1967, including east Jerusalem. We don't distinguish between a settlement that was built today and one that was built 35 years ago."
Please know, Fayyad is considered by far the most moderate of the PA leaders.
The Palestinians, he declared, won't make any more concessions. More?
He is, he says, incensed by our treatment of the West Bank and Gaza as two separate entities -- as if this is our invention, designed to split the people. The hard reality is that there are two entities and two peoples.
~~~~~~~~~~
Fayyad is proposing a new, transitional government for the PA that includes neither members of Fatah nor of Hamas, to govern until there are elections. I don't imagine this will play well.
He says the position he currently holds in the PA government is his last -- he has no intention of continuing and is putting to rest rumors that he will run for president.
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh has reported in the Post that Ahmed Qurei, who is head of the PA negotiating team, was in Washington recently and came away discouraged by the administration's unwillingness to put further pressure on Israel. Seems we're not "flexible" enough and need to make more far-reaching concessions.
Reportedly, Rice told Qurei that the Bush administration has itself concluded that a peace agreement will not be possible this year. There is unease about pressuring Olmert because it may backfire on Kadima's chances to form a new coalition after Olmert resigns. If Kadima fails to do this, and we go to elections, the chances of further negotiations taking place are a great deal slimmer.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, two days ago Qurei proposed something else. Likely a bargaining ruse from his side, it absolutely wouldn't play from ours in any terms. If, he declared, Israel won't pull back to the '67 lines and make a Palestinian state in everything beyond the Green Line a reality, then it will become time to work on one-state solution, with the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria demanding residency Blue Cards. A disaster in the making.
~~~~~~~~~~
WAFA, the Palestinian news agency reported today that Egypt is going to be inviting all Palestinian factions to Cairo for dialogue as of next week.
~~~~~~~~~~
Regularly now, the "ceasefire" is being broken by rockets fired on Israel from Gaza. Yesterday a rocket fell near a kindergarten in Sderot.
~~~~~~~~~~
In relation to this, it is important to note a stance Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to be taking now. While forever stalling, he has repeatedly made comments about the fact that a major military operation in Gaza is not far away. But now he's shifted.
In an interview on TV on Sunday, he said that even if the IDF went into Gaza and destroyed Hamas, "down to the last office and the last activist," in the end "we would have to achieve a truce, and we would have to deal with the same parties as before."
This is a reason to not go in? Excuse me, but this is one of the stupidest statements from a military man I've yet to hear. Sure you have to deal with your enemy after you defeat him. But the point is that you'd be dealing with him from the vantage of having vanquished him and the parameters of a truce would be decidedly different.
We also, it should be noted, would increase deterrence power across the board if we took out Hamas, giving many others serious pause.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
It is now three years since the expulsion of Jews from the communities of Gush Katif in the southern Gaza Strip and other communities in the northern Strip. This was likely the single most shameful act in Israel's history and has wrought nothing but misery in all respects. What has been the result with regard to the Hamas takeover is there for all the world to see.Drawing less attention is the plight of those who were taken from their homes, many of whom remain in temporary quarters and have been slighted by the government in critical ways.
It is my experience that the residents of these communities are among the most Zionist in the nation, demonstrating courage and the most admirable of values. Their situation should not be ignored.
There are reports from Arabs who worked for these Jews in agricultural ventures that the communities -- most notably Netzer Hazani -- built with such devotion, have been razed so completely that nothing remains but the sand from which they rose.
The residents of the Gush Katif communities aspire not only to build again, but ultimately to return to Gaza. I applaud this.
Hopefully in time there will be the opportunity to explore this on-going situation in greater depth.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Haaretz, Olmert has offered the Palestinians a "peace plan": 93% of Judea and Samaria. The question of Jerusalem to be left up in the air for now. And a passage between Gaza and the West Bank area to be permitted only if Fatah were to re-take Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was obvious that this wouldn't fly: The Palestinians are not about to compromise -- cannot compromise with Hamas setting the agenda. Just days ago PA prime minister, Salaam Fayyad had said that the chances of a peace deal were "nonexistent."
(More on Fayyad below.)
~~~~~~~~~~
And sure enough, Abbas has already rejected the offer.
What Abbas's spokesman said was:
"The Israeli proposal is not acceptable. The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries."
Got that? June 4, 1967 boundaries. What he's referring to are armistice lines, not boundaries at all. But the point is that there is no compromise. And can be no deal.
The spokesman said that Israel's proposal was "a waste of time."
An Israeli official, cited by Haaretz and speaking on condition of anonymity, actually said something similar. Explaining that Olmert was merely trying to establish his legacy, he declared:
"There is going to be no agreement, period."
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Fayyad, who recently said:
"The whole world must know that ending the conflict requires an end to the Israeli occupation of the lands that were occupied in 1967, including east Jerusalem. We don't distinguish between a settlement that was built today and one that was built 35 years ago."
Please know, Fayyad is considered by far the most moderate of the PA leaders.
The Palestinians, he declared, won't make any more concessions. More?
He is, he says, incensed by our treatment of the West Bank and Gaza as two separate entities -- as if this is our invention, designed to split the people. The hard reality is that there are two entities and two peoples.
~~~~~~~~~~
Fayyad is proposing a new, transitional government for the PA that includes neither members of Fatah nor of Hamas, to govern until there are elections. I don't imagine this will play well.
He says the position he currently holds in the PA government is his last -- he has no intention of continuing and is putting to rest rumors that he will run for president.
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh has reported in the Post that Ahmed Qurei, who is head of the PA negotiating team, was in Washington recently and came away discouraged by the administration's unwillingness to put further pressure on Israel. Seems we're not "flexible" enough and need to make more far-reaching concessions.
Reportedly, Rice told Qurei that the Bush administration has itself concluded that a peace agreement will not be possible this year. There is unease about pressuring Olmert because it may backfire on Kadima's chances to form a new coalition after Olmert resigns. If Kadima fails to do this, and we go to elections, the chances of further negotiations taking place are a great deal slimmer.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, two days ago Qurei proposed something else. Likely a bargaining ruse from his side, it absolutely wouldn't play from ours in any terms. If, he declared, Israel won't pull back to the '67 lines and make a Palestinian state in everything beyond the Green Line a reality, then it will become time to work on one-state solution, with the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria demanding residency Blue Cards. A disaster in the making.
~~~~~~~~~~
WAFA, the Palestinian news agency reported today that Egypt is going to be inviting all Palestinian factions to Cairo for dialogue as of next week.
~~~~~~~~~~
Regularly now, the "ceasefire" is being broken by rockets fired on Israel from Gaza. Yesterday a rocket fell near a kindergarten in Sderot.
~~~~~~~~~~
In relation to this, it is important to note a stance Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to be taking now. While forever stalling, he has repeatedly made comments about the fact that a major military operation in Gaza is not far away. But now he's shifted.
In an interview on TV on Sunday, he said that even if the IDF went into Gaza and destroyed Hamas, "down to the last office and the last activist," in the end "we would have to achieve a truce, and we would have to deal with the same parties as before."
This is a reason to not go in? Excuse me, but this is one of the stupidest statements from a military man I've yet to hear. Sure you have to deal with your enemy after you defeat him. But the point is that you'd be dealing with him from the vantage of having vanquished him and the parameters of a truce would be decidedly different.
We also, it should be noted, would increase deterrence power across the board if we took out Hamas, giving many others serious pause.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
"Incredulous U.N."
The Human Rights Council at the United Nations has now banned any criticism regarding Sharia Law and human rights in the Islamic World. According to President Doru Romulus Costea - and following the efforts of delegates from Egypt, Pakistan and Iran - the Council will no longer tolerate criticism of either Sharia or specific fatwas in the name of human rights. In many parts of the Islamic world, it is becomingly increasing clear not only that the Quran (the written record of the original oral transmissions of Muhammad's life teachings) and the Hadith (the later delineations of those teachings) are considered sacrosanct in their perfection, but also the various implementations of these teachings, known as Sharia Law. No evolution or refinements are required. No matter that nearly every multitudinous Muslim sect or group has a differing interpretation of this God-given Sharia Law. Nor that the stoning to death of women, beheading of men, and all the 6th century niceties of feudal Arabia are still part and parcel of the immovable Islamic tradition. Never mind that Sunni will decimate Shia--and vice versa--over differences of interpretations far more modest than those between (modern) Catholics and Protestants, between Hindus and Buddhists. Islamic sect can war on Islamic sect, Arab can criticize Arab.
Because Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions are imperfect, they are fair game for any and all attacks. Since Israel, Zionism, America and the Western World were created and developed outside the Islamic World and its divine perfection, they are likewise subject to criticism.
Now, not only has the Islamic God forbidden outside criticism of the Sharia Law, but the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is its enjoined messenger on earth.
Of course, observers of the HRC should not be surprised. The ostensibly prestigious body has become a revolving door for countries with an ambivalent (or even well nigh invisible) relationship with freedom and democracy. In the two years following its replacement of the equally dictatorship-friendly Human Rights Commission, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia have all been elected to the Council. As a majority of the Council's resolutions are concerned with Israel, it would effectively cease functioning were it not for its compulsive focus on the Jewish state.
Due to this resolution the Council - and thus, perversely, the UN - is endorsing a worldview in which human interpretation and understanding has been placed beyond the pale of critical thinking and investigation as long as it's part of Sharia Law or the Islamic tradition. Perhaps we should rename the United Nations and call it the "Nations of Islam - United in Unique and Ineffable Perfection." Sounds appropriate.
Sincerely,
Mr. Leslie J. Sacks
Because Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions are imperfect, they are fair game for any and all attacks. Since Israel, Zionism, America and the Western World were created and developed outside the Islamic World and its divine perfection, they are likewise subject to criticism.
Now, not only has the Islamic God forbidden outside criticism of the Sharia Law, but the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is its enjoined messenger on earth.
Of course, observers of the HRC should not be surprised. The ostensibly prestigious body has become a revolving door for countries with an ambivalent (or even well nigh invisible) relationship with freedom and democracy. In the two years following its replacement of the equally dictatorship-friendly Human Rights Commission, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia have all been elected to the Council. As a majority of the Council's resolutions are concerned with Israel, it would effectively cease functioning were it not for its compulsive focus on the Jewish state.
Due to this resolution the Council - and thus, perversely, the UN - is endorsing a worldview in which human interpretation and understanding has been placed beyond the pale of critical thinking and investigation as long as it's part of Sharia Law or the Islamic tradition. Perhaps we should rename the United Nations and call it the "Nations of Islam - United in Unique and Ineffable Perfection." Sounds appropriate.
Sincerely,
Mr. Leslie J. Sacks
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence
MAWASSI, Gaza - Three years have passed since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, and in that time the economy of this coastal territory of 1.4 million people has gone from bad to worse.
Gas and food shortages are now being compounded by cash shortages as tens of thousands of people were unable to withdraw money from banks on Monday Still, despite their economic hardships, most Gazans insist that they prefer life here without the Israelis.
But in Mawassi – a mixed ethnic Palestinian and Bedouin town that was completely isolated from the rest of Gaza inside a Jewish settlement enclave – it's a different story.
"I want [the Israelis] to come back," says Riyad al-Laham, an unemployed father of eight who worked in the area's Jewish settlements for nearly 20 years. "All the Mawassi people used to work in the settlements and make good money. Now there is nothing to do. Even our own agricultural land is barren."
Located in the middle of Gush Katif, the former block of Jewish settlements here, Mawassi fell within the security cordon the Israeli army threw around its citizens from 2002 to 2005, when attacks from the neighboring Palestinian town of Khan Yunis came almost daily.
During those years, the people of Mawassi continued to work in Gush Katif, mainly as farmhands in hundreds of greenhouses the Jewish settlers operated.
Mr. Laham and many others in Mawassi say they preferred the relative economic security of those days to the current destitution, even if they are now free from Israeli occupation.
"Freedom to go where?" Laham asks. "I have no fuel now for my car. Where can I go? Freedom is a slogan. Even for a donkey you need money – which I don't have."
Three years ago, before Israel withdrew, Mawassi was a town of fertile corn crops and greenhouses, which – like the ones in the Jewish settlements – grew cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, and strawberries.
Now, in the ethnic Palestinian section of town, nearly half the land lies barren.
Only shells remain of many of the greenhouses that were stripped of valuable materials.
A city that fed itself with its produce and the money its men made from working with the settlers, Mawassi is now dependent on food handouts from the United Nations.
Like the rest of Gaza, its people lack cooking gas and petrol, even if they feel more secure without Israeli soldiers all around them.
In the Bedouin section of town, Salem al-Bahabsa sits with five of his 24 grandchildren in front of his chicken coop. Goats and sheep wander around the other parts of the Bedouin quarter, where people live mostly in tents with tin roofs.
"We are all now unemployed and depend on charity for food," Mr. Bahabsa says. "My sons were farmers in the greenhouses. We worked in the settlements and had resources. Now, I don't think I could survive without [the UN].... Before was better."
There are voices in Mawassi who disagree, including Laham's brother, Iyad. Reclaiming their beachfront, which became the Jewish settlement of Shirat Hayam in 2001, and the ability to move around Gaza as they please, makes the quality of life here better even if there is no longer a market for their produce, Iyad says.
"It was dark days because of the occupation," says Iyad, an employed English teacher and father of three. "Working is not everything. The checkpoints made our city a prison.... We can't say the occupation days were better than today."
But interviews in the village appear to indicate that Iayd's point of view puts him in the minority.
One main reason that life is worse now, say many villagers, is the lack of attention paid to Mawassi by both the previous Fatah and current Hamas governments since the Israeli withdrawal.
The Israelis "used to take responsibility for us as occupiers," Riyad Laham says. "Neither [Hamas nor Fatah] knocked on the doors to ask what we need. People are fed up.... We have become beggars.
"At 9 a.m. in every other country, everyone is at his desk doing his work," Laham says. "Here, people are by the side of the road with their arms crossed together."
Gas and food shortages are now being compounded by cash shortages as tens of thousands of people were unable to withdraw money from banks on Monday Still, despite their economic hardships, most Gazans insist that they prefer life here without the Israelis.
But in Mawassi – a mixed ethnic Palestinian and Bedouin town that was completely isolated from the rest of Gaza inside a Jewish settlement enclave – it's a different story.
"I want [the Israelis] to come back," says Riyad al-Laham, an unemployed father of eight who worked in the area's Jewish settlements for nearly 20 years. "All the Mawassi people used to work in the settlements and make good money. Now there is nothing to do. Even our own agricultural land is barren."
Located in the middle of Gush Katif, the former block of Jewish settlements here, Mawassi fell within the security cordon the Israeli army threw around its citizens from 2002 to 2005, when attacks from the neighboring Palestinian town of Khan Yunis came almost daily.
During those years, the people of Mawassi continued to work in Gush Katif, mainly as farmhands in hundreds of greenhouses the Jewish settlers operated.
Mr. Laham and many others in Mawassi say they preferred the relative economic security of those days to the current destitution, even if they are now free from Israeli occupation.
"Freedom to go where?" Laham asks. "I have no fuel now for my car. Where can I go? Freedom is a slogan. Even for a donkey you need money – which I don't have."
Three years ago, before Israel withdrew, Mawassi was a town of fertile corn crops and greenhouses, which – like the ones in the Jewish settlements – grew cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, and strawberries.
Now, in the ethnic Palestinian section of town, nearly half the land lies barren.
Only shells remain of many of the greenhouses that were stripped of valuable materials.
A city that fed itself with its produce and the money its men made from working with the settlers, Mawassi is now dependent on food handouts from the United Nations.
Like the rest of Gaza, its people lack cooking gas and petrol, even if they feel more secure without Israeli soldiers all around them.
In the Bedouin section of town, Salem al-Bahabsa sits with five of his 24 grandchildren in front of his chicken coop. Goats and sheep wander around the other parts of the Bedouin quarter, where people live mostly in tents with tin roofs.
"We are all now unemployed and depend on charity for food," Mr. Bahabsa says. "My sons were farmers in the greenhouses. We worked in the settlements and had resources. Now, I don't think I could survive without [the UN].... Before was better."
There are voices in Mawassi who disagree, including Laham's brother, Iyad. Reclaiming their beachfront, which became the Jewish settlement of Shirat Hayam in 2001, and the ability to move around Gaza as they please, makes the quality of life here better even if there is no longer a market for their produce, Iyad says.
"It was dark days because of the occupation," says Iyad, an employed English teacher and father of three. "Working is not everything. The checkpoints made our city a prison.... We can't say the occupation days were better than today."
But interviews in the village appear to indicate that Iayd's point of view puts him in the minority.
One main reason that life is worse now, say many villagers, is the lack of attention paid to Mawassi by both the previous Fatah and current Hamas governments since the Israeli withdrawal.
The Israelis "used to take responsibility for us as occupiers," Riyad Laham says. "Neither [Hamas nor Fatah] knocked on the doors to ask what we need. People are fed up.... We have become beggars.
"At 9 a.m. in every other country, everyone is at his desk doing his work," Laham says. "Here, people are by the side of the road with their arms crossed together."
Olmert Has Given 'Abbas Plan for 93% of West Bank
.jpg)
News and Analysis] The Israeli daily Haaretz is reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has given Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud 'Abbas a plan that would see Israel evacuate 93 percent of post-1967 territory; cede Israeli land to the Palestinians in order to make up the difference; and create a free-passage route between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Under the plan, Israel would retain 7% of the post-1967 territory – land upon which major communities have been built since then. According to Olmert, the border would be essentially the same as Israel's controversial security buffer – a charge frequently made by Palestinians and rejected by Israel. The Olmert plan rejects a Palestinian "right of return" for families who left their homes in what became the state of Israel in 1948 – an issue many Palestinians have insisted is non-negotiable. 'Abbas adviser and spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told The Media Line that the plan is not new and that the impression that it was just now submitted by Olmert to 'Abbas is misleading. He said it's been on the table for several weeks. Abu Rudeina said the plan remains unacceptable to the Palestinians, citing what he claims are Israeli deviations in issues already agreed upon within the context of the Road Map peace plan and Annapolis understandings. These include the need for parity in "size and quality" in any land swap and a return to the pre-1967 borders. Abu Rudeina charged that re-asserting the Olmert plan at this time "shows that Israel is still not serious about the peace process." Analysts at The Media Line caution that rather than focusing on point-counterpoint between the sides, notice two events should be viewed in concert: the Olmert plan's re-assertion immediately after Palestinian Chief Negotiator Ahmad Qurei's weekend threat that the Palestinians would shift position and call for a one-state solution if Israel doesn't cooperate. Analysts suggest there is more coordination than is at first apparent.