We are pleased to present Alex Arndt. He is working as a Research Associate and Web Editor for the Knowing Israel - a study tour project that helps to expose young European journalists to Israel's diversity and unique situation (http://www.knowing-israel.org/).
He is a PhD candidate at the University of Potsdam. In addition, he has been working for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, especially for the Post-Holocaust Anti-Semitism program, with translation, research, and briefings on European Anti-Semitism, with a special focus on Germany. He has also contributed with book reviews to the Jewish Political Studies Review. He holds two Master degrees from German and American universities in the fields of History and Cultural Studies.
Interview with Alex Arndt
WTW: Does Europe really know what is going on here in Israel?
Alex: The impression is that Europe does not understand Israel that well, there are a number of reasons and people have already written about this. I’d like to mention just three of these reasons. Western Europe, actually all of Europe with the exception of the old Yugoslavia has not experienced war in the last 60 years. Therefore, the public does not live in a society or a culture where you have to think about war. Nor do they have to plan for the next time someone is going to attack you. This is completely out of the mind of people in Europe, therefore the journalists and sometimes the European public tends to underestimate Israel’s situation. Another thing, Europe is a very post-nationalist society. Europeans, after all these wars that were fought for European identity, race and whatever crazy beliefs they feel that nationalism is a thing of the past which makes them a bit hesitant to embrace things like a Jewish identity many different kinds of things, like religion, cultural and ethnic, there are so many different things that form a Jewish identity, people just do not understand. Thirdly, there is this past of anti-Semitism in Europe which makes it a difficult subject to claim that a people they feel, at least subconsciously, that the wars in Europe and elsewhere has been responsible for the Jewish people looking for a state of their own. Although many do not want to admit it, they do say, “What you people are doing is what the Nazis did to you.” This inversion of holocaust themes are put upon Israel, I think, speaks of some sub-conscious feeling of guilt that one tries to project on Israel. Therefore I think many things come together and make the Europeans to be very hesitant to embrace Israel.
WTW: At the JCPA we monitored the French riots, and at that time there was a Muslim leader in Germany who said we do not have to learn German ; Germany is an Islamic country. Did you hear that remark?
Alex: I think I remember hearing something like that but I don’t think this is something that causes the German people a lot of controversy at the moment. The people still believe and hope that this is really only a problem due to a lack of integration for Muslim immigrants into European society. Many parties are asking, “How can we integrate them? What can we do?” The problem is due to some crazies and then one tries to get rid of them. For example, one man had to leave Germany because he was just a hate monger. I think the majority of the German people have their problems with integration but I think more because it is a problem of difficulty in integrating not because they think Islam is going to conquer Europe.
WTW: So Germans feel secure; there is such an influx of Muslims into Europe altogether. We know, for instance, that in France the police were told not to go into the neighborhoods where the Muslims were living because it was ' occupied territory'. This then is not a prevalent attitude in Germany; Germans do not fear that the Muslims are going to take over?
Alex: Not at all. I think that there are some scandals, last year there was this problem with an opera; it had a strange interpretation of Mozart’s interpretation of religious leaders like Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed was to be beheaded on stage and they cancelled the show; they were afraid of Muslims attacking the opera. The thing is that no one ever proved that the Muslims intended to do so. It was like preemptive surrender-people were afraid-this was rather an example of political correctness rather than really a threat there because there was no proof that the Muslims would have acted that strongly. The debate asks are we overreacting, are we Islamophobic, or are we failing to integrate those people properly? I think there is not a belief that Muslims are taking over Europe. Also, the French riots were perceived in Germany (apart from the far right) as a social problem. For example, those people have no jobs, they have no income, they are frustrated, they are young, they are not feeling integrated into the French society; therefore, they go out and burn cars. Basically you would have the same thing in Germany if we had problems with Muslim immigrants, Germans look for the cause in social problems not so much that there might be some ideology that is completely averse to Western values.
WTW: At this point in time in Germany there is no sense that we are in a 'clash of civilizations' or as some have said WW III has already begun, we haven’t recognized it yet? Just to be clear, the perception in Germany is that all the problems associated with Islam can be answered by economic or by social explanations?
Alex: Yes, I think this is the belief by the majority of the politicians and the public. Of course, there is a hope we can have peace. The cartoon incident definitely hit the European psyche hard, like what is going on was the thinking. If you read the German blogoshperes, more and more people are writing op-ed pieces in the major mainstream newspapers in Germany; more and more people are concerned with this development. They are really worried about Iran speeding to have nuclear weapons and the ongoing frustration with all these peace efforts that Europe invests so much money in and seeing, like in Lebanon and in the territories, they see all this money being expended and it is wasted, burned and they see all the violence going on there. I think the number of people concerned about what is going on. The whole idea of the term 'clash of civilizations' has been with us for a long time. This is considered politically incorrect. Therefore people would never try to talk in this manner and they try to avoid this term. They also try to downplay whatever is going on and thus provide analysis on a structure based upon social and economic issues. Also, the apparent failures of the USA with their policies in Iraq helps now to push those who were against the war from the start and who were against the war on terror from the start to say, “this is not about democratizing the Middle East, just leave them alone and the reasons they hate us is because of the way we treat them. The division between these camps is getting sharper.
WTW: You have just completed the first year of this program with three different groups of young reporters. Can you do a pre and post Israeli visit analysis of the program’s impact thus far?
Alex: We are still working on the program's design and we are learning from our mistakes. During our very first tour the Lebanon War broke out and on the other hand all the journalists were gathered together and were eager to go to this place. They brought with them their own values and beliefs and they wanted to go to several hot spots; they had plenty to write about. I think some of the journalists then focused more on the Middle East from then on. On the other hand the situation was very tense in Israel; everyone you talked to was pro war and again there were some journalists who were left with an impression that Israel is in a unique situation. These people did not know too much about Israel before their visit. Being here made it difficult for them to fully understand what is going on. Of course, we exposed them to many different points of view, they met Palestinians and these were not living up to the journalist’s expectations although they were moderate. They were extremely tense I think the journalists were also extremely frustrated from this interaction. There was also this constant reflection from their side that what Israel was doing was disproportionate. Although we tried to expose them to as many people as was possible, Netanyahu, Dore Gold, Carolyn Glick, they had am impression that they were not sure of their messages. This entire time of hard security talk was “too much for them” to digest. Why don’t you just get the job done and then withdraw or calm down? We did our best. If you have - say 5 people of the 9 people on the tour going away with amore profound and deeper knowledge of this situation and what Israel has to go through then I think the program is successful. After the first tour, we decided to change the program. The journalists come with an effective filter. They want to have Palestinians, they want to have Israeli-Arabs; they want to have left-wingers from Israel-we give it to them. We feel that first, this is a Democracy, it is a pluralistic society it is not a one party country who determines who goes to war or if we kill children –it is a pluralistic society and there are so many different opinions out there we should expose them to these different opinions. Now, during the war even the left - wingers were pro war. Even in our second tour, we met through Haaretz, thanks to a Czech ambassador's hospitality one evening-they were all pretty much pro-Zionist. The last tour was the most diversified and most liberal one to date. This is a thin line. I know this. Talking to a post-Zionist professor gives the reporters a completely different picture of Israel than say Dore Gold whom they will meet right after. The idea behind this is to have them have a didactic experience with regards to Israel. Fr example, have them listen to an Arab- Israeli then go for a tour with an Israeli across Israel-have them see Sderot, let them see how the people live and the destruction. Every time, the journalists were able to pick up the problems raised, they understood and came to their own answers and conclusions. They then were able to also expose the next speaker to the issues they witnessed. If this post-Zionist professor says the wall is insignificant, is there only for symbolic reasons, it does not prevent terrorists from infiltrating into Israel therefore it is exaggerated what Israel claims the wall does. Let the reporters hear this. Then take these issues to the next speaker to Uzi Arad and let them talk to him-ask him about the significance of the wall. Is the wall really completely senseless and is it really only for symbolic reasons? He will explain the opposite point of view. Let the reporters get the facts from different sides and try to get their own picture of the truth. The reporters are here for one week, they hardly have time to access the internet. How can they check these 'facts'? I do my best; I constantly am having discussions with them and provide them with some more knowledge. In the end, I hope that if they walk away from this experience, we give them evaluation sheets, they tell us what they liked most, what they found was the most difficult, I am sure, although they are not so sure of the 'defensible borders concept' or the fence, at least they have the knowledge that Israel wants peace. They leave understanding it is more complicated than they expected and they know this cannot be solved over night and that nothing can be solved by European wishful thinking. If this is the result then I think this program is successful.
WTW: This sounds like a wonderful program . Are you interested in taking this to other European countries?
Alex: This program is for European journalists, it is not just for German journalists. We get them from all over Europe, We have them from Italy, Germany, Russia, Poland, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark.
WTW: Thank you for the clarification. You sponsor the program and you have young journalists from all over Europe. Is the issue of our three captured soldiers kept alive in Europe? Do they know that there are Arab members of the Knesset? Do they know it was an Arab Knesset member that suggested our soldiers be kidnapped?
Alex: The issue of the soldiers-they think that Israel acted disproportionately because only three soldiers were kidnapped and a few more killed. The majority of the German politicians supported Israel for the first two weeks-then they started to defect and put pressure on Israel to stop. In the mind of many people it is still felt that, yes, it was three soldiers but killing so many people and bombing Beirut in the manner we did. You have to argue with this interpretation. You have to tell them it is not only about 3 soldiers, but it is about constant exposure to Kassam missiles and they basically raid our border on a regular basis, then they start to realize this situation is more difficult than they first believed. Regarding language, 'occupied territories', I always put together articles by JCPA and Dore Gold’s famous article on ' occupation' to give them a legal background on just what is going on. They learn more about the history of the situation with this tour; most of these young journalists have very little historical understanding of this situation-it is their weakness. They have limited knowledge of Israel’s history. They see only Israel now, they do not know about 1948, the early Zionist movement of the Mufti of Jerusalem, many do not know these things. They do not know the history and, thus, they cannot appreciate how difficult it is to live in this neighborhood. Thus, the first Intifada, the Palestinians are seen as a people who are oppressed and suppressed by Israel. They do not realize that the Palestinians had many offers of peace but chose different direction-one of terror. The idea of the 'settlements' is a hard sell to the journalists. What you have is European pragmatism. I have to be honest here, although there is some sympathy for the Zionist idea and I feel that Judea and Samaria are 'disputed territories', from a pragmatic point of view and realistically point of view, you have this demographic that there is a Palestinian people living in the territories and their numbers are growing. This is an issue and this is what the Europeans realize when they hear and use the term 'occupied'. Europeans still have questions about Israel’s need for security and thus being inside these territories.
WTW: What does Europe think about the issue of 'settlements'?
Alex: So the 'settlement' issue is, you know, the Europeans feel like we should let the Palestinians have their state. Now the obstacle to this is that there is no space for the Palestinians. Now they regard any attempt by Israel to claim any of these disputed territories as her own is something detrimental to the peace process. You can argue that the peace process has failed and that Oslo has failed, and you can try to explain but still there is this issue of five million Palestinians altogether and they have to go somewhere. You can’t deport them; you have to find a solution. They feel the 'settlements', such as Hebron, are really difficult to hold. They are obstacles, you can try to tell them something, you can reason with them, you can tell them Hebron was always a Jewish city, there was a massacre in 1929, Look, right here now, the security regime for the Palestinian regime believe 'settlements' are detrimental to something called 'peace'. You can’t do much right now and you have to think about the future. The Palestinian population is growing, you will have over 10 million of them years ahead of now. Thus, you cannot forever hang on to the idea that you can have 'settlements' where there are more Arabs than Jewish people. You can’t have a democracy or Jewish democracy if there are more Arabs living there. We try to tell the young reporters that Israel can’t go backward, the issue is one of security. Security is a prerequisite for peace and without security, and without a reliable partner you cannot achieve peace.
WTW: Have they ever thought about Arab countries taking in the 'refugees' just as Israel took in 750,000 to 850,000 refugees?
Alex: Yes, we tell them about this, we give them this perspective. Even when we tell them that Israel is a Democracy and that it must put up with neighbors that reluctant to help the Palestinians out of this situation. So what is Israel suppose to do? In Germany we have a saying, “the smarter ones give in” and another saying “Always the smarter one is giving in, the stupid one is winning in the end.” Thus, Israel must find a solution, Israel must, of course, take care of its own interests and provide security for its people.
WTW: This will still be an unequal equation as there will still be Arabs living in Israel and they will multiply; the Palestinian state would be an apartheid state as no others would be allowed to live there. There are already 22 other Arab countries-that is not a fair exchange.
Alex: Yes, sure but they are asking for a state and yet they are not able to structure themselves in the manner that allows them to make a state. You still have the situation that the Europeans think that Israel should give them a state, leave them alone and they will all be happy. Although this is a fallacy, Europeans think this way. What can you do?
WTW: Alex, thank you very much, that is an interesting analysis of Europe’s point of view. Let me finish this by asking you to complete the following sentence-“There will be peace in the Middle East… “left for a time when the messiah comes.”
WTW: Thank you very much Alex, we wish you all the best
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Successful "Letters to the Editor" Around The World
The 40-year war
Bren Carlill, June 5, 2007, Herald Sun
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21848459-5000117,00.html
TODAY marks 40 years since the start of the Six Day War. We are told constantly that Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank is the reason there is no Arab-Israeli peace.But this prompts an important question: If Israeli occupation is the cause of Middle East warfare, how come there was Middle East warfare before Israeli occupation?
On May 16, 1967, Egypt evicted a UN buffer force separating it from Israel and put troops on the Israeli border.On May 22, it placed a blockade on Israeli shipping in international waters. This act of war was accompanied by public declarations about driving the Jews into the sea. Syria began lobbing artillery rounds from the Golan Heights into Israeli villages.
For three weeks, Israel waited for the international community to intervene. Empty words aside, they did nothing. On June 5, Israel finally acted, striking Egypt and Syria. Despite Israeli pleas not to become involved, Jordan did just that, firing hundreds of artillery rounds from the West Bank into Jerusalem's Jewish suburbs. Six days later, Israel controlled the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem,containing Judaism's holiest site. Jordan had barred Jews from the Old City since1948. Immediately after the war, Israel offered the captured land, minus Jerusalem, in exchange for peace. The Arab League rejection was definitive. No peace, no recognition, no negotiations with Israel, it declared.
SO,the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which called for the same thing, land for peace.Lord Caradon, who drafted Resolution 242, was clear as to whether Israel should withdraw from all, or only part, of the territories.
"Knowing the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line," he said, he was not
prepared to use wording in the resolution that would have made that line
permanent.
So,what has happened over the past 40 years?
Israel has done its part by withdrawing from more than 90 per cent of the land it won in 1967 and offered more than 95 per cent of the remainder.Israel's immediate neighbours have abandoned trying to destroy the Jewishstate by conventional means, but some aid terrorist groups that are still attempting to do so.The Palestinians, not even mentioned in Resolution 242, were given numerous chances to develop a state, but instead inculcated a generation with a love of violence.
Glorified in schools and on television, most recently by a Mickey Mouse look-alike, who can be surprised at today's internal bloodshed in Gaza? Forty years ago, the Arab world rose against Israel in the spirit of secular Arab nationalism.
Today, Israel's enemies unite under the banner of Islamism. This is the thread binding Sunni Hamas, Shiite Hezbollah and non-Arab, Shiite Iran. Iran is developing nukes and promising to wipe out Israel. Intoxicated by Iran's violent rhetoric and the West's lack of will in the face of it, there is a growing view in Middle East thinking that perhaps Israel can be destroyed.
Such thinking will only lead to more violence.
This anniversary of the 1967 war follows an Israeli report criticising successive governments for failures in last year's war with Hezbollah. The report highlights Israel's weaknesses and suggests ways to fix them.Israel is not about to be overrun, as many thought would happen in June 1967. B UT Israel has well-funded, well-armed and well-trained enemies who believe in an inevitable, divine victory and a religious obligation to fight.
It is impossible to deter religious zealots so convinced of their divine purpose that they are willing to blow themselves up on a bus full ofchildren.
Peace in the Middle East will only come when Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah respect the rights of others to live in peace and security, as demanded by the United Nations 40 years ago.It was not Israeli occupation that caused Arab countries to attack in 1967. Rather,it was their attack that caused the occupation. The same refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist is the reason for the lack of peace today.
BREN CARLILL is a policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs
Council
Bren Carlill, June 5, 2007, Herald Sun
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21848459-5000117,00.html
TODAY marks 40 years since the start of the Six Day War. We are told constantly that Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank is the reason there is no Arab-Israeli peace.But this prompts an important question: If Israeli occupation is the cause of Middle East warfare, how come there was Middle East warfare before Israeli occupation?
On May 16, 1967, Egypt evicted a UN buffer force separating it from Israel and put troops on the Israeli border.On May 22, it placed a blockade on Israeli shipping in international waters. This act of war was accompanied by public declarations about driving the Jews into the sea. Syria began lobbing artillery rounds from the Golan Heights into Israeli villages.
For three weeks, Israel waited for the international community to intervene. Empty words aside, they did nothing. On June 5, Israel finally acted, striking Egypt and Syria. Despite Israeli pleas not to become involved, Jordan did just that, firing hundreds of artillery rounds from the West Bank into Jerusalem's Jewish suburbs. Six days later, Israel controlled the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem,containing Judaism's holiest site. Jordan had barred Jews from the Old City since1948. Immediately after the war, Israel offered the captured land, minus Jerusalem, in exchange for peace. The Arab League rejection was definitive. No peace, no recognition, no negotiations with Israel, it declared.
SO,the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which called for the same thing, land for peace.Lord Caradon, who drafted Resolution 242, was clear as to whether Israel should withdraw from all, or only part, of the territories.
"Knowing the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line," he said, he was not
prepared to use wording in the resolution that would have made that line
permanent.
So,what has happened over the past 40 years?
Israel has done its part by withdrawing from more than 90 per cent of the land it won in 1967 and offered more than 95 per cent of the remainder.Israel's immediate neighbours have abandoned trying to destroy the Jewishstate by conventional means, but some aid terrorist groups that are still attempting to do so.The Palestinians, not even mentioned in Resolution 242, were given numerous chances to develop a state, but instead inculcated a generation with a love of violence.
Glorified in schools and on television, most recently by a Mickey Mouse look-alike, who can be surprised at today's internal bloodshed in Gaza? Forty years ago, the Arab world rose against Israel in the spirit of secular Arab nationalism.
Today, Israel's enemies unite under the banner of Islamism. This is the thread binding Sunni Hamas, Shiite Hezbollah and non-Arab, Shiite Iran. Iran is developing nukes and promising to wipe out Israel. Intoxicated by Iran's violent rhetoric and the West's lack of will in the face of it, there is a growing view in Middle East thinking that perhaps Israel can be destroyed.
Such thinking will only lead to more violence.
This anniversary of the 1967 war follows an Israeli report criticising successive governments for failures in last year's war with Hezbollah. The report highlights Israel's weaknesses and suggests ways to fix them.Israel is not about to be overrun, as many thought would happen in June 1967. B UT Israel has well-funded, well-armed and well-trained enemies who believe in an inevitable, divine victory and a religious obligation to fight.
It is impossible to deter religious zealots so convinced of their divine purpose that they are willing to blow themselves up on a bus full ofchildren.
Peace in the Middle East will only come when Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah respect the rights of others to live in peace and security, as demanded by the United Nations 40 years ago.It was not Israeli occupation that caused Arab countries to attack in 1967. Rather,it was their attack that caused the occupation. The same refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist is the reason for the lack of peace today.
BREN CARLILL is a policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs
Council
Monday, June 11, 2007
Interview with Dr. Joel Fishman
June 2007
WTW: We are here with Joel Fishman who has agreed to spend some time with us-welcome to WTW, Joel, it is an honor to be here with you. Let’s get right to it.
What are your thoughts and opinions about the disengagement from Gaza-grave mistake of sound action by the state of Israel?
JF: How do we get from here to there? How did we get to the situation we now find ourselves? I think that we have to look back beyond the disengagement; the first event that brought us to where we are now is the Oslo Agreement which gave our enemy a beachhead and an opportunity to arm itself against us. The great mistake was Oslo. Because of Oslo, several respected commentators said that the arming of the Palestinians created a situation in which the Jewish settlements in Gaza became indefensible. I am not able to evaluate this analysis but it seems to me to be possible. Such a situation may have been the case but it was never said publicly. We have to understand this fact in order to measure whether or not disengagement was a good idea or not. One of the reasons for disengagement was that we had to leave. If we had to leave then the government should have done better with the population there. It is certainly true as we look at the events as they unfolded that disengagement left a very big empty space and gave our enemy a wonderful opportunity for staging new attacks upon Israel. If we look at any Middle East situation it is good and complicated; there is not a simple answer to the question. As to the response, Israel cannot have a heavy-handed military response unless it can first make its case known to the wider public, otherwise we will be accused of being inhumane, disproportionate response, and bullying the weaker side whether or not that we have been the victims, the people will forget the justice of our cause. We have to explain our cause and cultivate some international sympathy for us and our needs. We should be doing this even if we do plan to attack them in the future. Whatever we do we need to give full backing to the population in Sderot to make their situation tenable, they are a city under siege and we should look at it as was the case with Berlin when it was under blockade by the Soviet Union. We have to make it possible for these people to carry on as normal pace of life and we have to find a remedy for the rockets that are being used against us.
WTW: I rather suspect you have some thoughts and opinions about what Israel should be doing with regard to the rocket launches out of Gaza.
JF: Well we have to do something; we have to give careful thought to the situation that we now find ourselves. We have a very delicate situation, where if Israel were to intervene with a heavy hand, world opinion would explode against Israel. People would say that our country is using inordinate force and we are breaking international law and perhaps killing civilians. We have more than a military challenge in front of us; we have the challenge of public opinion. So if Israel did want to intervene with a heavy hand it would have to prepare the public opinion to explain why it would be necessary to intervene. The problem of course with the second Lebanon War was that it did not make its case to the world before it intervened. Although it would be well to say that we should go in with the tanks and blow the living daylights out of these people that could be a situation that might blow up in our face. I think we need more than what we are doing. I think maybe a combination of things, one is intervening very specifically on a well targeted basis within Gaza but in the same time we should be doing more to fortify and strengthen the people of Sderot to make them feel that it is important that they hang on. If need be we may have to build the whole city underground and supply them every day like in Berlin. We have to make sure they hold that city. It is important what we do on the battlefield ; we have to think on the level of politics and we cannot leave a segment of our population abandoned or allow them to feel abandoned under such circumstances. In other words, we have to make them feel like the people of Berlin who were on the end of a good airlift.
WTW: If we just looked at Israel’s response to Hamas once it became the elected government what are your thoughts about our response to Hamas?
JF: On paper our response to Hamas has been nearly perfect. Our Prime Minister said we would have nothing to do with them because they do not recognize the state and they don’t plan to recognize the state. Of course, we have contacts with everybody in the region, I don’t have first hand knowledge but everybody speaks with everybody else and our part of the world. The Europeans do not see things our way and I have been told indirectly that since Hamas has been elected more aid has come to them than ever before. Israel can’t stop it so we have to look at preserving Israel and also limiting and containing the danger that is facing us there by new and imaginative ways.
WTW: Do you have some ideas about some of these new and imaginative ways? Should we engage in collective punishment, for example?
JF: I don’t know and I can’t answer your question because people who would use the term 'collective punishment' would use the idea of disproportionate use of power. This is, I think, one of the cards in our hands-we could threaten to use it and hope that it would not ever be necessary. This is one of the great principles of deterrence-to have the force but wait to use it.
WTW: The last three days PM Olmert, has indicated that no one is immune to a response by Israel-this immediately prompted a response from Hamas; they indicated we had better not touch any of their leaders. This is an escalation of the rhetoric. Hamas has now said ,"We have the morale authority granted to us". They now represent themselves as the agents of high morale authority. What are your thoughts about PM Olmert’s public Gaza position? Are there any cautions that you think might be possible?
JF: I am not an advisor to governments-strictly my own personal opinion is whether exchanging personal threats has any value at all and it is easy to say smooth words. If you wanted to hear beautiful words, PM’s speech on the eve of the second Lebanon War left absolutely nothing to be desired. I think everybody should just keep their mouths shut and it would be better if the words were used as a substitute for real action-let’s say to appeal to the baser instincts of the Israeli people; it is the equivalent of bombing empty buildings. I do not think it is helpful when it comes down to real things.
WTW: Agreements with Muslims-doable? PM Omert is talking about another pullout calling us 'illegally occupying the land'. Should an international force be sent to Gaza? What do you think about American pressure, media?
JF: You mentioned trading land for peace. I don’t know, maybe there are certain circumstances when it is possible to do good business and transact deals with Muslims. We have to find a way to live with them. I think, first of all, that Israel has to be strong and I think the idea of land for peace is fundamentally wrong. The land that came into Israel’s hands was a result of a war in which Israel was the victim of aggression. Allow me to give you a new fact; there are two researchers who have been studying the motives of Russia in the 6-day war. The researchers say that the objective of Russia in the 6-day war was to encourage the Arabs to provoke Israel to make the first strike. If they could provoke Israel to make the first strike; the Soviets could intervene in force - even with nuclear weapons - and wipe out Israel. What went wrong is the Arabs did provoke Israel’s first strike; what went wrong was Israel bombed all of the airfields and probably quite a few of the Soviet Migs which were on the ground and the Soviet plan died at that point. So when we talk about the 6-day war Israel was maneuvered into a position of making the first strike but it was not the aggressor. Now when a country is attacked and is successfully able to defend itself it is entitled to take land and hold it until there is a final settlement. In this final settlement, they may keep some of this land, they may give some of it back; it is at the disposal of Israel. Now the whole thrust of the Soviet propaganda campaign, which others joined, was to say that Israel was the aggressor and therefore was not entitled to enjoy the fruits of victory. Before anyone engages in peace talks, or any transaction of land for peace, unilateral gestures. First of all it is all wrong. The other side has to accept the responsibility for being the aggressor, which is only factually correct, before Israel does anything. In other words the moral case is on Israel’s part and this is becoming more and more evident as the facts of new research become known. Israel does have a good case and I can also add that those who would encourage Israelis to forget their history are really doing a disservice to the state because they are throwing away a good moral sense and legal case.
WTW: What do you think of Sarkozy?
JF: I am not a French expert but I am a historian and as a historian I have been following the newspapers. I always bet on the laws of continuity. As was written in Ecclesiastes: ”All the rivers go to the sea and the sea isn’t full.” I think if we want to make a fair bet with our eyes closed maybe there will be a change of nuance but the general foreign policy in Europe - but particularly in France - is not something that is tinkered with; it belongs to the private preserve of the president. It is not open for public criticism. He will hold his position whether or not he pleases the people - meaning he can do whatever he wishes. Maybe we will see, due to circumstances on the ground and the demographics, the Europeans are becoming sensitive to the situation they have created there might be some greater flexibility – however, the general policies of foreign policy will remain the same. I visited France recently and the French I met are very concerned that their economy does not produce enough jobs for their young people. I met a lot of talented young people who have gone to the best schools and don’t have a future waiting for them in France. They have a great emigration of their young talented elite. The French look across the channel and see the opportunities in England. Many young French people go to England and there is a nagging feeling that they might want to follow the American example; however, England is closer and they think it might work for them if they gave it a
try.
WTW: With an increase in Muslim population in Europe and especially France, do you think he can turn it around? More than 40% of young Muslims in England want to live by Sharia Law. Might the young French ones go to England and get caught up in this?
JF: I am not an expert on Muslim settlement in Europe. Let’s say that if you have a minority, around 10-15% minority of Muslim population and it is a large enough population that they can disturb the body politic, though I am not a prophet, the situation could become unpredictable and maybe the Europeans will have to find ways to cope with it. This is not a situation that allows them to look the other way as is the case in England. Melanie Phillips refers to London as “Londonistan”. It was given this name by the French secret service because the English authorities were tolerant of the Islamic terrorist groups on condition they didn’t operate in England. Of course, in the long run, it didn’t work out as they had thought and they didn’t buy protection or secure protection. We could have an interesting new situation.
WTW: I am a young college student who is an advocate for Israel on a campus that seems to be more anti-Israel than pro - Israel. As a historian, can you give me some words to use, from a historical point of view, that indicate the Jewish people are entitled to land upon which Israel resides?
JF: There is such a thing as a Jewish people. They do have historical claim to the land of Israel There has been continuous settlement on the land by Jews, in this area. Ben Gurion in his time said that the Mandate only confirmed the right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. Now whether or not others will believe in this claim we understand it is a great challenge. The important thing in this case is that the committed Jews and the committed Christians believe that Jews do still have a claim - should be firm in their faith. While it may be impossible to convince others, the best thing is we should stand firm in our faiths.
WTW: Words and language are powerful-the media and our enemy use both to misrepresent the truth. Can you suggest how we might change to counter this?
JF: We have to use our own terminology and we have to make it clear what we are speaking about; terminology is very important because if one uses 'the occupation' you are using the language of our enemy. For example, when Sharon said there was 'an occupation' - that Israel was 'occupying Palestinian territory', he became a slave of the enemy using their terminology and, similarly , during the Cold War , the Soviet Union accused Israel of having a policy of an 'apartheid ' state. This term comes from Soviet propaganda and one is disturbed that President Carter using this language because it is not neutral. It is very important to know where the terminology comes from and one needs to be very careful. If one looks further beyond the terminology we have to find our own media using correct language. There is a tendency in the West to want to be fair and to hear the arguments of both sides. In a sense, people of good faith wanted to hear the message of the Palestinians; the only problem was that the Israelis did not feel it was worth their while to state their own case so they left the field open to their adversaries. Israel must state its case not only in private or public initiatives the government must also state its case with the full authority of the government and we must use whatever alternative means of communication that we have. The Conservatives found radio in the USA with blogs and the internet to get our message across and it is very important that we should think both about terminology and also our message and get them both across. We should not leave a vacuum, we should get out in the field and we should fight.
WTW: On behalf of WTW we thank you for this interview and wish you all the best.
Joel Fishman is an Associate of the Jerusalem Institute for Public Affairs. He received his Ph.D. in Modern European History and Certificate of the European Institute from Columbia University. He is currently studying problems relating to political warfare and the defense of democracy. His most recent publication is: “Ten Years Since Oslo: The PLO's ‘People's War’ Strategy and Israel's Inadequate Response”, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 503, September 1, 2003.
June 2007
WTW: We are here with Joel Fishman who has agreed to spend some time with us-welcome to WTW, Joel, it is an honor to be here with you. Let’s get right to it.
What are your thoughts and opinions about the disengagement from Gaza-grave mistake of sound action by the state of Israel?
JF: How do we get from here to there? How did we get to the situation we now find ourselves? I think that we have to look back beyond the disengagement; the first event that brought us to where we are now is the Oslo Agreement which gave our enemy a beachhead and an opportunity to arm itself against us. The great mistake was Oslo. Because of Oslo, several respected commentators said that the arming of the Palestinians created a situation in which the Jewish settlements in Gaza became indefensible. I am not able to evaluate this analysis but it seems to me to be possible. Such a situation may have been the case but it was never said publicly. We have to understand this fact in order to measure whether or not disengagement was a good idea or not. One of the reasons for disengagement was that we had to leave. If we had to leave then the government should have done better with the population there. It is certainly true as we look at the events as they unfolded that disengagement left a very big empty space and gave our enemy a wonderful opportunity for staging new attacks upon Israel. If we look at any Middle East situation it is good and complicated; there is not a simple answer to the question. As to the response, Israel cannot have a heavy-handed military response unless it can first make its case known to the wider public, otherwise we will be accused of being inhumane, disproportionate response, and bullying the weaker side whether or not that we have been the victims, the people will forget the justice of our cause. We have to explain our cause and cultivate some international sympathy for us and our needs. We should be doing this even if we do plan to attack them in the future. Whatever we do we need to give full backing to the population in Sderot to make their situation tenable, they are a city under siege and we should look at it as was the case with Berlin when it was under blockade by the Soviet Union. We have to make it possible for these people to carry on as normal pace of life and we have to find a remedy for the rockets that are being used against us.
WTW: I rather suspect you have some thoughts and opinions about what Israel should be doing with regard to the rocket launches out of Gaza.
JF: Well we have to do something; we have to give careful thought to the situation that we now find ourselves. We have a very delicate situation, where if Israel were to intervene with a heavy hand, world opinion would explode against Israel. People would say that our country is using inordinate force and we are breaking international law and perhaps killing civilians. We have more than a military challenge in front of us; we have the challenge of public opinion. So if Israel did want to intervene with a heavy hand it would have to prepare the public opinion to explain why it would be necessary to intervene. The problem of course with the second Lebanon War was that it did not make its case to the world before it intervened. Although it would be well to say that we should go in with the tanks and blow the living daylights out of these people that could be a situation that might blow up in our face. I think we need more than what we are doing. I think maybe a combination of things, one is intervening very specifically on a well targeted basis within Gaza but in the same time we should be doing more to fortify and strengthen the people of Sderot to make them feel that it is important that they hang on. If need be we may have to build the whole city underground and supply them every day like in Berlin. We have to make sure they hold that city. It is important what we do on the battlefield ; we have to think on the level of politics and we cannot leave a segment of our population abandoned or allow them to feel abandoned under such circumstances. In other words, we have to make them feel like the people of Berlin who were on the end of a good airlift.
WTW: If we just looked at Israel’s response to Hamas once it became the elected government what are your thoughts about our response to Hamas?
JF: On paper our response to Hamas has been nearly perfect. Our Prime Minister said we would have nothing to do with them because they do not recognize the state and they don’t plan to recognize the state. Of course, we have contacts with everybody in the region, I don’t have first hand knowledge but everybody speaks with everybody else and our part of the world. The Europeans do not see things our way and I have been told indirectly that since Hamas has been elected more aid has come to them than ever before. Israel can’t stop it so we have to look at preserving Israel and also limiting and containing the danger that is facing us there by new and imaginative ways.
WTW: Do you have some ideas about some of these new and imaginative ways? Should we engage in collective punishment, for example?
JF: I don’t know and I can’t answer your question because people who would use the term 'collective punishment' would use the idea of disproportionate use of power. This is, I think, one of the cards in our hands-we could threaten to use it and hope that it would not ever be necessary. This is one of the great principles of deterrence-to have the force but wait to use it.
WTW: The last three days PM Olmert, has indicated that no one is immune to a response by Israel-this immediately prompted a response from Hamas; they indicated we had better not touch any of their leaders. This is an escalation of the rhetoric. Hamas has now said ,"We have the morale authority granted to us". They now represent themselves as the agents of high morale authority. What are your thoughts about PM Olmert’s public Gaza position? Are there any cautions that you think might be possible?
JF: I am not an advisor to governments-strictly my own personal opinion is whether exchanging personal threats has any value at all and it is easy to say smooth words. If you wanted to hear beautiful words, PM’s speech on the eve of the second Lebanon War left absolutely nothing to be desired. I think everybody should just keep their mouths shut and it would be better if the words were used as a substitute for real action-let’s say to appeal to the baser instincts of the Israeli people; it is the equivalent of bombing empty buildings. I do not think it is helpful when it comes down to real things.
WTW: Agreements with Muslims-doable? PM Omert is talking about another pullout calling us 'illegally occupying the land'. Should an international force be sent to Gaza? What do you think about American pressure, media?
JF: You mentioned trading land for peace. I don’t know, maybe there are certain circumstances when it is possible to do good business and transact deals with Muslims. We have to find a way to live with them. I think, first of all, that Israel has to be strong and I think the idea of land for peace is fundamentally wrong. The land that came into Israel’s hands was a result of a war in which Israel was the victim of aggression. Allow me to give you a new fact; there are two researchers who have been studying the motives of Russia in the 6-day war. The researchers say that the objective of Russia in the 6-day war was to encourage the Arabs to provoke Israel to make the first strike. If they could provoke Israel to make the first strike; the Soviets could intervene in force - even with nuclear weapons - and wipe out Israel. What went wrong is the Arabs did provoke Israel’s first strike; what went wrong was Israel bombed all of the airfields and probably quite a few of the Soviet Migs which were on the ground and the Soviet plan died at that point. So when we talk about the 6-day war Israel was maneuvered into a position of making the first strike but it was not the aggressor. Now when a country is attacked and is successfully able to defend itself it is entitled to take land and hold it until there is a final settlement. In this final settlement, they may keep some of this land, they may give some of it back; it is at the disposal of Israel. Now the whole thrust of the Soviet propaganda campaign, which others joined, was to say that Israel was the aggressor and therefore was not entitled to enjoy the fruits of victory. Before anyone engages in peace talks, or any transaction of land for peace, unilateral gestures. First of all it is all wrong. The other side has to accept the responsibility for being the aggressor, which is only factually correct, before Israel does anything. In other words the moral case is on Israel’s part and this is becoming more and more evident as the facts of new research become known. Israel does have a good case and I can also add that those who would encourage Israelis to forget their history are really doing a disservice to the state because they are throwing away a good moral sense and legal case.
WTW: What do you think of Sarkozy?
JF: I am not a French expert but I am a historian and as a historian I have been following the newspapers. I always bet on the laws of continuity. As was written in Ecclesiastes: ”All the rivers go to the sea and the sea isn’t full.” I think if we want to make a fair bet with our eyes closed maybe there will be a change of nuance but the general foreign policy in Europe - but particularly in France - is not something that is tinkered with; it belongs to the private preserve of the president. It is not open for public criticism. He will hold his position whether or not he pleases the people - meaning he can do whatever he wishes. Maybe we will see, due to circumstances on the ground and the demographics, the Europeans are becoming sensitive to the situation they have created there might be some greater flexibility – however, the general policies of foreign policy will remain the same. I visited France recently and the French I met are very concerned that their economy does not produce enough jobs for their young people. I met a lot of talented young people who have gone to the best schools and don’t have a future waiting for them in France. They have a great emigration of their young talented elite. The French look across the channel and see the opportunities in England. Many young French people go to England and there is a nagging feeling that they might want to follow the American example; however, England is closer and they think it might work for them if they gave it a
try.
WTW: With an increase in Muslim population in Europe and especially France, do you think he can turn it around? More than 40% of young Muslims in England want to live by Sharia Law. Might the young French ones go to England and get caught up in this?
JF: I am not an expert on Muslim settlement in Europe. Let’s say that if you have a minority, around 10-15% minority of Muslim population and it is a large enough population that they can disturb the body politic, though I am not a prophet, the situation could become unpredictable and maybe the Europeans will have to find ways to cope with it. This is not a situation that allows them to look the other way as is the case in England. Melanie Phillips refers to London as “Londonistan”. It was given this name by the French secret service because the English authorities were tolerant of the Islamic terrorist groups on condition they didn’t operate in England. Of course, in the long run, it didn’t work out as they had thought and they didn’t buy protection or secure protection. We could have an interesting new situation.
WTW: I am a young college student who is an advocate for Israel on a campus that seems to be more anti-Israel than pro - Israel. As a historian, can you give me some words to use, from a historical point of view, that indicate the Jewish people are entitled to land upon which Israel resides?
JF: There is such a thing as a Jewish people. They do have historical claim to the land of Israel There has been continuous settlement on the land by Jews, in this area. Ben Gurion in his time said that the Mandate only confirmed the right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. Now whether or not others will believe in this claim we understand it is a great challenge. The important thing in this case is that the committed Jews and the committed Christians believe that Jews do still have a claim - should be firm in their faith. While it may be impossible to convince others, the best thing is we should stand firm in our faiths.
WTW: Words and language are powerful-the media and our enemy use both to misrepresent the truth. Can you suggest how we might change to counter this?
JF: We have to use our own terminology and we have to make it clear what we are speaking about; terminology is very important because if one uses 'the occupation' you are using the language of our enemy. For example, when Sharon said there was 'an occupation' - that Israel was 'occupying Palestinian territory', he became a slave of the enemy using their terminology and, similarly , during the Cold War , the Soviet Union accused Israel of having a policy of an 'apartheid ' state. This term comes from Soviet propaganda and one is disturbed that President Carter using this language because it is not neutral. It is very important to know where the terminology comes from and one needs to be very careful. If one looks further beyond the terminology we have to find our own media using correct language. There is a tendency in the West to want to be fair and to hear the arguments of both sides. In a sense, people of good faith wanted to hear the message of the Palestinians; the only problem was that the Israelis did not feel it was worth their while to state their own case so they left the field open to their adversaries. Israel must state its case not only in private or public initiatives the government must also state its case with the full authority of the government and we must use whatever alternative means of communication that we have. The Conservatives found radio in the USA with blogs and the internet to get our message across and it is very important that we should think both about terminology and also our message and get them both across. We should not leave a vacuum, we should get out in the field and we should fight.
WTW: On behalf of WTW we thank you for this interview and wish you all the best.
Joel Fishman is an Associate of the Jerusalem Institute for Public Affairs. He received his Ph.D. in Modern European History and Certificate of the European Institute from Columbia University. He is currently studying problems relating to political warfare and the defense of democracy. His most recent publication is: “Ten Years Since Oslo: The PLO's ‘People's War’ Strategy and Israel's Inadequate Response”, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 503, September 1, 2003.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The audacity of 1967
Saul Singer, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 31, 2007
This week I joined a tour of the Six Day War battle for Jerusalem, led by historian Michael Oren and author Yossi Klein Halevi for the new Adelson Institute of the Shalem Center.
Standing in places where fierce, sometimes hand-to-hand fighting took place, it was difficult to mentally transport ourselves back just 40 years, when Jerusalem was a small town in a cul-de-sac sealed by a wall and Jordanian snipers. And to the few hours of brutal struggle that changed all that.
The tour began at the Sherover Promenade in Talpiot, which has been transformed from a strategic strip of no-man's land to one of the most magnificent vistas of the united city. We heard how, contrary to Jimmy Carter and others who blithely claim that Israel preemptively attacked Jordan, Israel went to extraordinary lengths to avoid opening a front in Jerusalem, even as the IDF pummeled Egypt's air force.
Before the war, one paratrooper was so sure the fighting would be confined to the north and south that he sent his nine-months pregnant wife to family living on the border with Jordan in Jerusalem. He was part of the Paratroop Brigade that had trained to fight in the south, and yet was sent on the second night of the war to respond to the unexpected Jordanian attack on Jerusalem.
On the war's first day, June 5, Jordan launched massive and indiscriminate rocket fire into civilian west Jerusalem, killing and wounding dozens of residents. Jordan also rocketed Tel Aviv from Jenin. Further, Jordanian troops assaulted Jerusalem from the south, on the ridge where the Promenade is today. They retreated after Rachel Kaufman, the wife of the director of an experimental farm on that ridge, opened fire with an old machine gun.
Even after these Jordanian attacks, Israel's leadership was torn over how to respond. Paratroop Brigade commander Motta Gur sent two of his battalions to secure Mount Scopus, and one to take over the Rockefeller Museum, which overlooks the walls of the Old City. By sending part of his force to the Rockefeller, Gur was clearly anticipating an order to take the Old City.
Careful planning and preparation, however, is not what characterized the battles that day. The soldiers sent to capture Ammunition Hill, on the way to Mount Scopus, were not expecting the Jordanians to be so heavily fortified in trenches and bunkers. Nor did they know, as the pre-dawn battle raged, that the Jordanian tanks they were being sent to ward off were being destroyed by the Israeli air force a few kilometers away.
The brigade that was sent to the Rockefeller, which did not even have enough street maps of the city, took a wrong turn on to Nablus Road, where the US consulate still stands, came under hails of Jordanian fire and took many casualties.
There are never commissions of inquiries into victories, but if there were, the Winograd Committee's standards for preparations, training and decision making would not have been remotely met by the battle for Jerusalem. Yet, as in all of Israel's wars, there were battles that were won despite everything, because each soldier knew he could not let his comrades down, and he was fighting for the existence of his family and country.
AT THE CONFERENCE preceding the tour, Adelson Institute scholar Martin Kramer said, "The memory of 1967 is the basis of an implicit understanding between the [Arab] regimes and the peoples: the regimes will avert war, and in return the people will stay loyal, even docile.... The skill of rulers in averting war has helped to secure and entrench them. The collective Arab memory of 1967 explains why no Arab state has entered or stumbled into war with Israel in over 30 years. It's the underpinning of such peace and stability as the region has enjoyed."
In this view, the 1967 war ended the Arab-Israeli phase of the conflict and started a Palestinian-Israeli one. We have now, however, entered a third phase in which the conflict has expanded outward again, to a global battle between Islamofascism led by Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and al-Qaida; and the West, including the US, Europe and Israel.
The idea that the Six Day War actually ushered in this third phase, however fashionable, does not hold water. Though Islamofascism rose over the ashes of pan-Arabism, there was nothing inevitable in the West's toleration of this new and growing threat, which had little to do with Israel.
Even when Osama bin Laden was fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan with American help, the Islamofascists saw the West as the next obstacle in their quest for world domination, and the easier one to beat.
Some wonder whether the powerful effect of 1967 has faded. Particularly since last summer's war, they claim, Israel does not look so invincible any more. Even if this is so, phrasing the problem this way largely misses the point.
The bigger problem now is that the global equivalent to 1967 in the current struggle, the dispatching of the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 is now seen to be unraveling. The new US Iraq strategy is succeeding on the ground, but perhaps not fast enough to stem the erosion in domestic support for seeing the struggle through.
Nasser's pan-Arabist bubble was not fully popped until the defeat of the Arab's Yom Kippur War counterattack six years after 1967. We are seeing a similar Islamofascist counterattack now. This menace will grow until its center, the Iranian regime, is defeated.
On May 26, just days before the Six Day War, as Egypt massed 80,000 troops and 900 tanks on the border, Nasser said, "We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel."
Iran has been equally blunt about its intentions. The international response to Iran's gathering storm has been as feckless as its inaction while Egypt and Syria openly prepared to destroy Israel 40 years ago. Today, however, the Islamofascist threat, while most acute against Israel, is global in scope. Barring an unforeseen burst of effective sanctions, such as imposing a total banking and import ban, a return to Western 1967-like audacity will be necessary.
saul@jpost.com
Saul Singer, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 31, 2007
This week I joined a tour of the Six Day War battle for Jerusalem, led by historian Michael Oren and author Yossi Klein Halevi for the new Adelson Institute of the Shalem Center.
Standing in places where fierce, sometimes hand-to-hand fighting took place, it was difficult to mentally transport ourselves back just 40 years, when Jerusalem was a small town in a cul-de-sac sealed by a wall and Jordanian snipers. And to the few hours of brutal struggle that changed all that.
The tour began at the Sherover Promenade in Talpiot, which has been transformed from a strategic strip of no-man's land to one of the most magnificent vistas of the united city. We heard how, contrary to Jimmy Carter and others who blithely claim that Israel preemptively attacked Jordan, Israel went to extraordinary lengths to avoid opening a front in Jerusalem, even as the IDF pummeled Egypt's air force.
Before the war, one paratrooper was so sure the fighting would be confined to the north and south that he sent his nine-months pregnant wife to family living on the border with Jordan in Jerusalem. He was part of the Paratroop Brigade that had trained to fight in the south, and yet was sent on the second night of the war to respond to the unexpected Jordanian attack on Jerusalem.
On the war's first day, June 5, Jordan launched massive and indiscriminate rocket fire into civilian west Jerusalem, killing and wounding dozens of residents. Jordan also rocketed Tel Aviv from Jenin. Further, Jordanian troops assaulted Jerusalem from the south, on the ridge where the Promenade is today. They retreated after Rachel Kaufman, the wife of the director of an experimental farm on that ridge, opened fire with an old machine gun.
Even after these Jordanian attacks, Israel's leadership was torn over how to respond. Paratroop Brigade commander Motta Gur sent two of his battalions to secure Mount Scopus, and one to take over the Rockefeller Museum, which overlooks the walls of the Old City. By sending part of his force to the Rockefeller, Gur was clearly anticipating an order to take the Old City.
Careful planning and preparation, however, is not what characterized the battles that day. The soldiers sent to capture Ammunition Hill, on the way to Mount Scopus, were not expecting the Jordanians to be so heavily fortified in trenches and bunkers. Nor did they know, as the pre-dawn battle raged, that the Jordanian tanks they were being sent to ward off were being destroyed by the Israeli air force a few kilometers away.
The brigade that was sent to the Rockefeller, which did not even have enough street maps of the city, took a wrong turn on to Nablus Road, where the US consulate still stands, came under hails of Jordanian fire and took many casualties.
There are never commissions of inquiries into victories, but if there were, the Winograd Committee's standards for preparations, training and decision making would not have been remotely met by the battle for Jerusalem. Yet, as in all of Israel's wars, there were battles that were won despite everything, because each soldier knew he could not let his comrades down, and he was fighting for the existence of his family and country.
AT THE CONFERENCE preceding the tour, Adelson Institute scholar Martin Kramer said, "The memory of 1967 is the basis of an implicit understanding between the [Arab] regimes and the peoples: the regimes will avert war, and in return the people will stay loyal, even docile.... The skill of rulers in averting war has helped to secure and entrench them. The collective Arab memory of 1967 explains why no Arab state has entered or stumbled into war with Israel in over 30 years. It's the underpinning of such peace and stability as the region has enjoyed."
In this view, the 1967 war ended the Arab-Israeli phase of the conflict and started a Palestinian-Israeli one. We have now, however, entered a third phase in which the conflict has expanded outward again, to a global battle between Islamofascism led by Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and al-Qaida; and the West, including the US, Europe and Israel.
The idea that the Six Day War actually ushered in this third phase, however fashionable, does not hold water. Though Islamofascism rose over the ashes of pan-Arabism, there was nothing inevitable in the West's toleration of this new and growing threat, which had little to do with Israel.
Even when Osama bin Laden was fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan with American help, the Islamofascists saw the West as the next obstacle in their quest for world domination, and the easier one to beat.
Some wonder whether the powerful effect of 1967 has faded. Particularly since last summer's war, they claim, Israel does not look so invincible any more. Even if this is so, phrasing the problem this way largely misses the point.
The bigger problem now is that the global equivalent to 1967 in the current struggle, the dispatching of the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 is now seen to be unraveling. The new US Iraq strategy is succeeding on the ground, but perhaps not fast enough to stem the erosion in domestic support for seeing the struggle through.
Nasser's pan-Arabist bubble was not fully popped until the defeat of the Arab's Yom Kippur War counterattack six years after 1967. We are seeing a similar Islamofascist counterattack now. This menace will grow until its center, the Iranian regime, is defeated.
On May 26, just days before the Six Day War, as Egypt massed 80,000 troops and 900 tanks on the border, Nasser said, "We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel."
Iran has been equally blunt about its intentions. The international response to Iran's gathering storm has been as feckless as its inaction while Egypt and Syria openly prepared to destroy Israel 40 years ago. Today, however, the Islamofascist threat, while most acute against Israel, is global in scope. Barring an unforeseen burst of effective sanctions, such as imposing a total banking and import ban, a return to Western 1967-like audacity will be necessary.
saul@jpost.com
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Interview with MK Eldad
Background Information:
Member of the Knesset (MK): Leading Israeli opposition figure Moledet Party which is part of the National Union Party.
Professor of Medicine: Head of the Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem; internationally recognized specialist in this field. In wake of the 1994 genocide and cholera epidemic in Rwanda, Dr. Eldad headed the IDF medical contingent to that region.
Brigadier General (reserves): was Surgeon General of the IDF Medical Corps.
MK Arieh Eldad is the second ranking member of his party and was hailed by the Israeli press including Ma'ariv and Yediot Achronot as a man of integrity, hardworking, and a dedicated lawmaker. He heads the Ethics Committee of the Knesset. Recently, he helped launch the Ami-Chai Youth Movement to advance Zionism and educate Israeli students about the rich history of the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.
WRITING THE WRONGS (WTW) invited MK Eldad to share his thoughts and ideas regarding Israel today and we are most pleased to present his responses. The format includes not only direct comments by the Minister but a summary of some of his concerns.
WTW: Given that international law does give Israel authority within the disputed territories, do you think that the country or even the Diaspora has communicated this message effectively to the world community?
WTW: It seems that we failed if the whole world is speaking about the 'occupation' and the 'illegal settlements', 'illegal roadblocks' between the Palestinians; it seems that we failed the battle of propaganda, PR, if not in the real battle against terrorism.
WTW: How can we change the language in general that stigmatizes Israel - like 'occupation' instead of 'disputed'? Do you think there is something we can do?
MK: Yes, for example, many, many countries, even the United States, distinguish the attitude about east Jerusalem that we annexed in 1967 and what I call the West Bank which we didn’t annex. We can still change the attitude from an Israeli point of view-for example, Jordan occupied the West Bank for 19/20 years; we have occupied the area for 40 years and we gave it a chance. It seems we have failed all of these trials for peace; we have dead-end solutions and we shall seek other solutions. We will start it with annexation of Judea and Samaria to the state of Israel. Of course, the world will not recognize it; the world does not recognize Jerusalem is our capitol.
The way to change the world’s attitude about the 'occupation' is to first change our view of the occupation. If Israel thinks this is 'occupied' territory, there is no question that the world will think the same. Only if Israel will change its attitude toward this status, this is the only chance that other states in the world will change attitude toward it and their positions toward this territory. We will have to explain to the world what did change, the two-state solution is no longer part of our plan; we have taken the two-state solution off the table. We have to think of another solution. We have to take the step to explain to our coalition our position and then we should work toward the solution of the conflict as we see it. We must address the state of the refugees; this is a regional solution, we must say that Jordan is Palestine and then work toward the humanitarian problem of the people. Millions of dollars was poured into the refugee camps and they were taught to become terrorists. We must now undo the damage that was done all these years and teach them not to be terrorists and then communicate to the world the need to correct the mistakes that were done to these people.
WTW: What can we do?
MK: First, we must change the government. It failed; it is a non-functioning government. It is not only a failed government; it is a corrupt government. We must make sure that the next government is a pro-Zionist government. This is not a pro-Zionist government; it is a post-Zionist government. Once we are able to take this action, we can go to election, we will have to give Israelis the choice of a Zionist government and if we would be able to do that there is a chance that the next government will be able to turn things back, given we are on the edge of a catastrophe.
WTW: How can we get individuals to stand up and take such a position?
MK: It’s a difficult question because I do not know how to change someone like Bibi Netanyahu and make him a real leader. He is a politician that calculates all of his steps, by surveys and polls and not by ideology. If he would have a survey or public opinion poll that would say the majority of the people want him to speak to the Hamas, he will speak to the Hamas.
I’m trying to be realistic that we cannot change Bibi Netanyahu, but what we can do is create a situation in the political arena where even Bibi would have to create a coalition government based upon the concepts of the Right; the coalition would be strong enough to prevent him from slipping toward the Left or detouring toward a two-state solution.
WTW: Will you prioritize what you think are the urgent issues that Israel must address-now?
WTW Commentary: In response to this question MK Eldad was very clear-he indicated that security and corruption were the two most important issues Israel is facing today. He minced no words and indicated that corruption was pervasive across the spectrum of life here in Israel. He mentioned, but did not elaborate, that not only was there corruption throughout the government, he pointed fingers at banking, the Supreme Court, the judicial system, business , and even the military.
MK Eldad offered several examples, indicating that the Likud Party was corrupt during Sharon’s time in power. One of the outcomes of this was that respected Chief of Staff (COS) Moshe ”Bogie” Ya'alon (now retired was ousted because he disagreed vehemently with PM Sharon’s disengagement plan for Gaza. This did not fit PM Sharon’s plans and he looked for a 'yes-man'- thus, General Halutz became the COS. It was a political nomination that ensured PM Sharon of support for his plan.”
MK Eldad took this argument one step further and indicated that the generals of the northern, central, and southern commands had all at one time or another been secretaries to then PM Sharon. They owed their command appointments to Mr. Sharon and thus let us pick up MK Eldad’s further statements with regard to this issue:
MK: Corruption and the outcome of corruption even inside the IDF, the northern, central, and southern command leaders worked for the COS previously in the capacity of the right hand of Olmert so the military became political. People in the military see what this promoted in the military-the military must give the prime minister the truth, the arguments, the facts, the plans of the military are no longer the view of the military.
Let us look at Lebanon; any honest military man would agree that it is pure nonsense that the war could be won strictly by the air force, but this was the plan wanted by the politicians. There were not enough honest generals in the military to say, This is rubbish, it is not going to work. They knew once they said this, they would not be promoted by the leaders, so the military became corrupted in the same way as the Minister of Agriculture. Once the system is corrupted, the only way to protect the military is to clean the state of corruption. Once we do this, the natural forces will work.
WTW: Would you like to be part of this process and would you provide the leadership?
MK: I am trying to fight corruption in any means that I have. I'm trying first to present an example. My main message is not very popular. I do not try to get closer to rich people so they do not try to control my point of view nor am I trying to impress the media. I support looking out for ourselves. We need ideological leaders not people who will just "run the government".
WTW: Please complete the following sentence:
"Peace in the Middle East will occur when ..."
MK: … when the Arabs will realize we are here to stay to fulfill the mission of the Jewish People."
WTW Commentary: MK Eldad’s style has been to lead by example. According to those who serve with him, who know him professionally, he does indeed do what he says he will do. During our time before, during, and after the interview we found him to be forthcoming, calm, and unpretentious; never once did he try to impress us with his previous activities, honors, or services.
May 29, 2007
Member of the Knesset (MK): Leading Israeli opposition figure Moledet Party which is part of the National Union Party.
Professor of Medicine: Head of the Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem; internationally recognized specialist in this field. In wake of the 1994 genocide and cholera epidemic in Rwanda, Dr. Eldad headed the IDF medical contingent to that region.
Brigadier General (reserves): was Surgeon General of the IDF Medical Corps.
MK Arieh Eldad is the second ranking member of his party and was hailed by the Israeli press including Ma'ariv and Yediot Achronot as a man of integrity, hardworking, and a dedicated lawmaker. He heads the Ethics Committee of the Knesset. Recently, he helped launch the Ami-Chai Youth Movement to advance Zionism and educate Israeli students about the rich history of the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.
WRITING THE WRONGS (WTW) invited MK Eldad to share his thoughts and ideas regarding Israel today and we are most pleased to present his responses. The format includes not only direct comments by the Minister but a summary of some of his concerns.
WTW: Given that international law does give Israel authority within the disputed territories, do you think that the country or even the Diaspora has communicated this message effectively to the world community?
WTW: It seems that we failed if the whole world is speaking about the 'occupation' and the 'illegal settlements', 'illegal roadblocks' between the Palestinians; it seems that we failed the battle of propaganda, PR, if not in the real battle against terrorism.
WTW: How can we change the language in general that stigmatizes Israel - like 'occupation' instead of 'disputed'? Do you think there is something we can do?
MK: Yes, for example, many, many countries, even the United States, distinguish the attitude about east Jerusalem that we annexed in 1967 and what I call the West Bank which we didn’t annex. We can still change the attitude from an Israeli point of view-for example, Jordan occupied the West Bank for 19/20 years; we have occupied the area for 40 years and we gave it a chance. It seems we have failed all of these trials for peace; we have dead-end solutions and we shall seek other solutions. We will start it with annexation of Judea and Samaria to the state of Israel. Of course, the world will not recognize it; the world does not recognize Jerusalem is our capitol.
The way to change the world’s attitude about the 'occupation' is to first change our view of the occupation. If Israel thinks this is 'occupied' territory, there is no question that the world will think the same. Only if Israel will change its attitude toward this status, this is the only chance that other states in the world will change attitude toward it and their positions toward this territory. We will have to explain to the world what did change, the two-state solution is no longer part of our plan; we have taken the two-state solution off the table. We have to think of another solution. We have to take the step to explain to our coalition our position and then we should work toward the solution of the conflict as we see it. We must address the state of the refugees; this is a regional solution, we must say that Jordan is Palestine and then work toward the humanitarian problem of the people. Millions of dollars was poured into the refugee camps and they were taught to become terrorists. We must now undo the damage that was done all these years and teach them not to be terrorists and then communicate to the world the need to correct the mistakes that were done to these people.
WTW: What can we do?
MK: First, we must change the government. It failed; it is a non-functioning government. It is not only a failed government; it is a corrupt government. We must make sure that the next government is a pro-Zionist government. This is not a pro-Zionist government; it is a post-Zionist government. Once we are able to take this action, we can go to election, we will have to give Israelis the choice of a Zionist government and if we would be able to do that there is a chance that the next government will be able to turn things back, given we are on the edge of a catastrophe.
WTW: How can we get individuals to stand up and take such a position?
MK: It’s a difficult question because I do not know how to change someone like Bibi Netanyahu and make him a real leader. He is a politician that calculates all of his steps, by surveys and polls and not by ideology. If he would have a survey or public opinion poll that would say the majority of the people want him to speak to the Hamas, he will speak to the Hamas.
I’m trying to be realistic that we cannot change Bibi Netanyahu, but what we can do is create a situation in the political arena where even Bibi would have to create a coalition government based upon the concepts of the Right; the coalition would be strong enough to prevent him from slipping toward the Left or detouring toward a two-state solution.
WTW: Will you prioritize what you think are the urgent issues that Israel must address-now?
WTW Commentary: In response to this question MK Eldad was very clear-he indicated that security and corruption were the two most important issues Israel is facing today. He minced no words and indicated that corruption was pervasive across the spectrum of life here in Israel. He mentioned, but did not elaborate, that not only was there corruption throughout the government, he pointed fingers at banking, the Supreme Court, the judicial system, business , and even the military.
MK Eldad offered several examples, indicating that the Likud Party was corrupt during Sharon’s time in power. One of the outcomes of this was that respected Chief of Staff (COS) Moshe ”Bogie” Ya'alon (now retired was ousted because he disagreed vehemently with PM Sharon’s disengagement plan for Gaza. This did not fit PM Sharon’s plans and he looked for a 'yes-man'- thus, General Halutz became the COS. It was a political nomination that ensured PM Sharon of support for his plan.”
MK Eldad took this argument one step further and indicated that the generals of the northern, central, and southern commands had all at one time or another been secretaries to then PM Sharon. They owed their command appointments to Mr. Sharon and thus let us pick up MK Eldad’s further statements with regard to this issue:
MK: Corruption and the outcome of corruption even inside the IDF, the northern, central, and southern command leaders worked for the COS previously in the capacity of the right hand of Olmert so the military became political. People in the military see what this promoted in the military-the military must give the prime minister the truth, the arguments, the facts, the plans of the military are no longer the view of the military.
Let us look at Lebanon; any honest military man would agree that it is pure nonsense that the war could be won strictly by the air force, but this was the plan wanted by the politicians. There were not enough honest generals in the military to say, This is rubbish, it is not going to work. They knew once they said this, they would not be promoted by the leaders, so the military became corrupted in the same way as the Minister of Agriculture. Once the system is corrupted, the only way to protect the military is to clean the state of corruption. Once we do this, the natural forces will work.
WTW: Would you like to be part of this process and would you provide the leadership?
MK: I am trying to fight corruption in any means that I have. I'm trying first to present an example. My main message is not very popular. I do not try to get closer to rich people so they do not try to control my point of view nor am I trying to impress the media. I support looking out for ourselves. We need ideological leaders not people who will just "run the government".
WTW: Please complete the following sentence:
"Peace in the Middle East will occur when ..."
MK: … when the Arabs will realize we are here to stay to fulfill the mission of the Jewish People."
WTW Commentary: MK Eldad’s style has been to lead by example. According to those who serve with him, who know him professionally, he does indeed do what he says he will do. During our time before, during, and after the interview we found him to be forthcoming, calm, and unpretentious; never once did he try to impress us with his previous activities, honors, or services.
May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Political Correctness is Killing Us -Part 3
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
May 28,2007
An emerging body of evidence demonstrates not only political correctness in action but also should sound warning bells and lights about the intention of Islam today. The manipulation of certain freedoms found only in Western countries to create a different social sphere is the end game of PC. Here are some selective and instructive examples of this strategy at work:
· Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies
Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals. The Kansas City International Airport has added several foot-washing basins in restrooms to accommodate a growing number of Muslim taxicab drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer.1
· Christian British Airway employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross- The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewelry or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management. It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.2
· A school in Amsterdam will no longer be teaching students about farm living, after Muslim pupils began trashing the classroom when the subject of pigs was introduced.3
· At Lewiston, ME Middle School, placing pork in the mere presence of Muslims is currently being called a hate crime. Note: Jews also believe pork is unclean but, there has never been any effort by the public school system to remove pork, in order to honor their religious beliefs.4
· “Schools are dropping controversial subjects from history lessons - such as the Holocaust and the Crusades - because teachers do not want to cause offence, Government research has discovered.”5 At the risk of offending someone, it is now educationally prudent to disregard history. Thus, if a person cannot handle facts, a school or institution of education should honor the feelings rather than honor the truth. The rationale provided by these teachers is usually wrapped within the following justification:” Some teachers dropped the Holocaust completely from lessons because of fears that Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic reactions.”5 Do you really think they were concerned for the Jewish students or might they be more concerned about subsequent Muslim student behavior? Ask yourself, if the teachers were so concerned about the Jews and their feelings, why did they choose not to teach about the Holocaust?
This final part 3 unmasks the tactics of those promoting PC and offers some alternatives for individuals who believe that this kind of thinking is killing us. Let’s begin with some assumptions:
· PC obscures clear thinking and damages the very people and causes they claim to benefit
· PC has been described as the cancer of society, a virus that spreads quickly - eating its way through established social standards and values
· PC is effective because we accept “makes me” language as truth and hold ourselves responsible for the thoughts, feelings and actions of others.5
Groups use PC as a weapon to defeat their opposition or enemy. Their common strategy is to wear down, erode and create dissension among members of groups of people with respect to thoughts, feelings and actions that are appropriate. The end game is to indicate that group A’s beliefs are superior to the beliefs of all other groups and, thus, socially engineer a change in attitudes and actions of people. One is expected to ultimately deny one’s own beliefs and set of values and acquiesce to the now dominant view of the world. The society is no longer based upon free speech and common sense; it is grounded in PC ideals and the West is at risk for this assault. Without firing a shot, without building a military machine, the fifth column of PC thinkers slowly, over time, help erode a nation’s will, moral clarity, and submission ultimately occurs. PC tactics have been applied within the world of education, politics, business, religion, and social groups.
The tactics used against us have been effective, efficient and inexpensive. Islamists (values contrary,VC Islamists)* recognized years ago that we in the West had fallen prey to political correctness. They knew then and know today that the very strengths of Western society are the beliefs and values that are dear to us. However, they also recognized that these were our social “Achilles Heel” as well. We are generally a compassionate group of citizens, kind-hearted, caring, respectful of others and their points of view. We are tolerant, supportive of the less fortunate and/or disadvantaged, and guardians of personal freedoms. Given our values and beliefs, the tactics are fundamentally working because we accept, agree, and engage in the “makes me structure” presented in the second part of this series. We believe people are responsible for making others to have feelings, thoughts, and ideas. Based upon this, we further believe there is an uncontrollable cause and effect with people then acting upon these same feelings and thoughts. Therefore we become responsible for the essence of other human beings. As stated previously this is not true!5 However, those who do not believe in our way of life capitalize upon this psychological construct and have imported their tactics to multiple facets of our lives. Only a few are to be now examined.
Notice that VC Islamists use guilt and group guilt control to discredit, demean and disarm those it disagrees with and they engage in the very behavior which they condemn in others of - using social and political force to subdue dissent. This plays particularly well with a group of people who operate from positions and beliefs of tolerance, caring, empathy, never wanting to 'offend'. The end result is that we have “learned” not to voice our opinions and our beliefs and thus back down to every comment made. The difficulty then becomes once a group backs down time after time, the OFFENDED group makes demands under the cloud of either expressed or inferred threats. Repeated often enough, you fill in the rest! This begins the erosion of beliefs and more importantly the degradation of our will to stand against those with an opposing point of view. The very foundation the USA was founded upon freedom of expression; it becomes unidirectional and marks the beginning of the end.
Another tactic the VC Islamists use, in an ever-increasing quantity, is to make demands in social, cultural, political behavior. In fear of OFFENDING them or fear of retribution in the form of name calling, physical harm, political and economic pressure (code for threats), we are willing to give away what we believe to be true, we abdicate our responsibilities to our families, our own social groups and our country and we “stand down”. This repeated over time leads to the degradation of a society, it impacts our will to support what we believe, our perseverance wanes and we make social and political decisions that enhance our enemy. We “fool” ourselves into believing that we can co-exist, that they also believe in personal freedom, we begin to listen for what we want to hear rather than listen for what is BEING said. We reduce the budget for our military and intelligence communities, we increase immigration with Muslim countries, we help fund Islamic education centers and other programs-we do so with public monies. At the same time a most interesting behavior emerges, we vote Islamic-centered politicians into office because we believe that tolerance and acceptance transform any enemy who disagrees with our values. We do all of this even though the data, the behavior, the VC Islamists themselves tell us what and how they intend to transform our country into an Islamic one. We turn our “proverbial cheek” to the following:
· Updating the item on Azerbaijan in yesterday’s dispatch - the aid workers yesterday. Azerbaijani journalist who criticized Islam along with his editor has been jailed for two months.
· Updating the items on Somalia in yesterday’s dispatch - Islamist officials yesterday arrested at least 100 people in Lower Shabelle province in Somalia because they were watching a movie. The new Islamic regime has banned movies. Those arrested included women and children who were watching an Indian film.
· The Red Cross today suspended its activities in the Gaza Strip until further notice after Palestinian gunmen kidnapped two of its Italian aid workers yesterday.
There are thousands of other examples; these serve only as reminders. What can we do? Is there still time? First, take some moments and clearly define for yourself what your core beliefs are. Second, clearly understand the “makes me believe” construct, begin to listen for it and realize you do have a choice when events, people, circumstances and feelings present themselves to you. Third, locate one other person who supports your new found position that no longer will political correctness deny you taking actions against those who want to impose their values upon us. It is fine if you are not politically correct. Fourth, consider the following points:
· Not being PC does not mean you are a racist, fascist or any other -ist
· Not being PC does not mean you are not concerned about the lives of others
· Not being PC does not make you mean spirited
· Not being PC does not mean you are insensitive to the plight of others
· Not being PC does not mean you have phobias with religions, lifestyle choices, or people
· Not being PC does come with responsibility:
1. Clarity of thought and intentions
2. Selection of language used to express thoughts, feelings and ideas
3. Taking a stand for your beliefs and values even in the face of dismissal, denial and degradation of one’s character by others
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE PC
· It does not mean you have to give up your values
· It does not mean you cannot defend your way of life, what you believe in and how you choose to live your life
When PC seriously influences government policy development and implementation that places the advantage in our enemy’s hands, PC has literally killed us and will continue to do so until we as a people stand up for our way of life! Perhaps Ms. Nirenstein says it best with this assertion, "You cannot run away from reality indefinitely. Ultimately, you have to know what's right in terms of values, and be courageous about standing up for them."6
End Notes
1. Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals, April 28, 2007, WorldNetDaily.com
2. JANE MERRICK, Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross”, 14th October 2006
3. School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils. AMSTERDAM, 27/04/07
4. Sher Zieve, “Muslims Call Ham Sandwich Hate Crime”, The Family Security Foundation, Inc., April 25, 2007
5. Morris, GS Don, “Political Correctness is Killing Us-Part Two”,http://writingtw.blogspot.com/, April 22,2007.
6. Fiamma Nirenstein,” Making the case for commonality”, in an article written by Ruthie Blum, Jerusalem Post, May 9,2007.
Special thanks to my editor-Chana Givon-co-director of WTW
*”Values contrary” simply acknowledges that a group of Islamists hold life, religious and social values contrary to Western social and cultural values
Also posted on: http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
www.PRIMERCT.org
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
May 28,2007
An emerging body of evidence demonstrates not only political correctness in action but also should sound warning bells and lights about the intention of Islam today. The manipulation of certain freedoms found only in Western countries to create a different social sphere is the end game of PC. Here are some selective and instructive examples of this strategy at work:
· Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies
Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals. The Kansas City International Airport has added several foot-washing basins in restrooms to accommodate a growing number of Muslim taxicab drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer.1
· Christian British Airway employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross- The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewelry or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management. It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.2
· A school in Amsterdam will no longer be teaching students about farm living, after Muslim pupils began trashing the classroom when the subject of pigs was introduced.3
· At Lewiston, ME Middle School, placing pork in the mere presence of Muslims is currently being called a hate crime. Note: Jews also believe pork is unclean but, there has never been any effort by the public school system to remove pork, in order to honor their religious beliefs.4
· “Schools are dropping controversial subjects from history lessons - such as the Holocaust and the Crusades - because teachers do not want to cause offence, Government research has discovered.”5 At the risk of offending someone, it is now educationally prudent to disregard history. Thus, if a person cannot handle facts, a school or institution of education should honor the feelings rather than honor the truth. The rationale provided by these teachers is usually wrapped within the following justification:” Some teachers dropped the Holocaust completely from lessons because of fears that Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic reactions.”5 Do you really think they were concerned for the Jewish students or might they be more concerned about subsequent Muslim student behavior? Ask yourself, if the teachers were so concerned about the Jews and their feelings, why did they choose not to teach about the Holocaust?
This final part 3 unmasks the tactics of those promoting PC and offers some alternatives for individuals who believe that this kind of thinking is killing us. Let’s begin with some assumptions:
· PC obscures clear thinking and damages the very people and causes they claim to benefit
· PC has been described as the cancer of society, a virus that spreads quickly - eating its way through established social standards and values
· PC is effective because we accept “makes me” language as truth and hold ourselves responsible for the thoughts, feelings and actions of others.5
Groups use PC as a weapon to defeat their opposition or enemy. Their common strategy is to wear down, erode and create dissension among members of groups of people with respect to thoughts, feelings and actions that are appropriate. The end game is to indicate that group A’s beliefs are superior to the beliefs of all other groups and, thus, socially engineer a change in attitudes and actions of people. One is expected to ultimately deny one’s own beliefs and set of values and acquiesce to the now dominant view of the world. The society is no longer based upon free speech and common sense; it is grounded in PC ideals and the West is at risk for this assault. Without firing a shot, without building a military machine, the fifth column of PC thinkers slowly, over time, help erode a nation’s will, moral clarity, and submission ultimately occurs. PC tactics have been applied within the world of education, politics, business, religion, and social groups.
The tactics used against us have been effective, efficient and inexpensive. Islamists (values contrary,VC Islamists)* recognized years ago that we in the West had fallen prey to political correctness. They knew then and know today that the very strengths of Western society are the beliefs and values that are dear to us. However, they also recognized that these were our social “Achilles Heel” as well. We are generally a compassionate group of citizens, kind-hearted, caring, respectful of others and their points of view. We are tolerant, supportive of the less fortunate and/or disadvantaged, and guardians of personal freedoms. Given our values and beliefs, the tactics are fundamentally working because we accept, agree, and engage in the “makes me structure” presented in the second part of this series. We believe people are responsible for making others to have feelings, thoughts, and ideas. Based upon this, we further believe there is an uncontrollable cause and effect with people then acting upon these same feelings and thoughts. Therefore we become responsible for the essence of other human beings. As stated previously this is not true!5 However, those who do not believe in our way of life capitalize upon this psychological construct and have imported their tactics to multiple facets of our lives. Only a few are to be now examined.
Notice that VC Islamists use guilt and group guilt control to discredit, demean and disarm those it disagrees with and they engage in the very behavior which they condemn in others of - using social and political force to subdue dissent. This plays particularly well with a group of people who operate from positions and beliefs of tolerance, caring, empathy, never wanting to 'offend'. The end result is that we have “learned” not to voice our opinions and our beliefs and thus back down to every comment made. The difficulty then becomes once a group backs down time after time, the OFFENDED group makes demands under the cloud of either expressed or inferred threats. Repeated often enough, you fill in the rest! This begins the erosion of beliefs and more importantly the degradation of our will to stand against those with an opposing point of view. The very foundation the USA was founded upon freedom of expression; it becomes unidirectional and marks the beginning of the end.
Another tactic the VC Islamists use, in an ever-increasing quantity, is to make demands in social, cultural, political behavior. In fear of OFFENDING them or fear of retribution in the form of name calling, physical harm, political and economic pressure (code for threats), we are willing to give away what we believe to be true, we abdicate our responsibilities to our families, our own social groups and our country and we “stand down”. This repeated over time leads to the degradation of a society, it impacts our will to support what we believe, our perseverance wanes and we make social and political decisions that enhance our enemy. We “fool” ourselves into believing that we can co-exist, that they also believe in personal freedom, we begin to listen for what we want to hear rather than listen for what is BEING said. We reduce the budget for our military and intelligence communities, we increase immigration with Muslim countries, we help fund Islamic education centers and other programs-we do so with public monies. At the same time a most interesting behavior emerges, we vote Islamic-centered politicians into office because we believe that tolerance and acceptance transform any enemy who disagrees with our values. We do all of this even though the data, the behavior, the VC Islamists themselves tell us what and how they intend to transform our country into an Islamic one. We turn our “proverbial cheek” to the following:
· Updating the item on Azerbaijan in yesterday’s dispatch - the aid workers yesterday. Azerbaijani journalist who criticized Islam along with his editor has been jailed for two months.
· Updating the items on Somalia in yesterday’s dispatch - Islamist officials yesterday arrested at least 100 people in Lower Shabelle province in Somalia because they were watching a movie. The new Islamic regime has banned movies. Those arrested included women and children who were watching an Indian film.
· The Red Cross today suspended its activities in the Gaza Strip until further notice after Palestinian gunmen kidnapped two of its Italian aid workers yesterday.
There are thousands of other examples; these serve only as reminders. What can we do? Is there still time? First, take some moments and clearly define for yourself what your core beliefs are. Second, clearly understand the “makes me believe” construct, begin to listen for it and realize you do have a choice when events, people, circumstances and feelings present themselves to you. Third, locate one other person who supports your new found position that no longer will political correctness deny you taking actions against those who want to impose their values upon us. It is fine if you are not politically correct. Fourth, consider the following points:
· Not being PC does not mean you are a racist, fascist or any other -ist
· Not being PC does not mean you are not concerned about the lives of others
· Not being PC does not make you mean spirited
· Not being PC does not mean you are insensitive to the plight of others
· Not being PC does not mean you have phobias with religions, lifestyle choices, or people
· Not being PC does come with responsibility:
1. Clarity of thought and intentions
2. Selection of language used to express thoughts, feelings and ideas
3. Taking a stand for your beliefs and values even in the face of dismissal, denial and degradation of one’s character by others
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE PC
· It does not mean you have to give up your values
· It does not mean you cannot defend your way of life, what you believe in and how you choose to live your life
When PC seriously influences government policy development and implementation that places the advantage in our enemy’s hands, PC has literally killed us and will continue to do so until we as a people stand up for our way of life! Perhaps Ms. Nirenstein says it best with this assertion, "You cannot run away from reality indefinitely. Ultimately, you have to know what's right in terms of values, and be courageous about standing up for them."6
End Notes
1. Airport adds foot basins for Muslim cabbies Police worry about Kansas City 'catering' to Islamic rituals, April 28, 2007, WorldNetDaily.com
2. JANE MERRICK, Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross”, 14th October 2006
3. School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils. AMSTERDAM, 27/04/07
4. Sher Zieve, “Muslims Call Ham Sandwich Hate Crime”, The Family Security Foundation, Inc., April 25, 2007
5. Morris, GS Don, “Political Correctness is Killing Us-Part Two”,http://writingtw.blogspot.com/, April 22,2007.
6. Fiamma Nirenstein,” Making the case for commonality”, in an article written by Ruthie Blum, Jerusalem Post, May 9,2007.
Special thanks to my editor-Chana Givon-co-director of WTW
*”Values contrary” simply acknowledges that a group of Islamists hold life, religious and social values contrary to Western social and cultural values
Also posted on: http://docstalk.blogspot.com/
www.PRIMERCT.org
Fifty-Nine Years of Hate
By Salim Mansur
Western Standard
Fifty-nine years ago on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion read the declaration of independence proclaiming the establishment of Israel with little display of joy among those gathered together in the Tel Aviv Museum that afternoon. Ben-Gurion remarked, “I feel no gaiety in me, only deep anxiety, as on the 29th of November [1947, date of the UN resolution partitioning Palestine] when I was like a mourner at the feast.”
Nearly two thousand years after the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and dispersed Jews from their homeland, the rebirth of Israel offered a slim hope to people who barely survived Nazi Germany’s final solution for European Jewry. If Israel had come into being ten years earlier, a great many of those Jews who perished in the Holocaust would have survived. If Israel had been founded before Hitler launched his war in September 1939, the history of the region arguably might well have been different, and Britain’s “moment in the Middle East” (the phrase belongs to the historian Elizabeth Monroe) could eventually have drawn to a close without the acrimony and humiliation of 1956.
Britain sought to appease the Arabs. Instead of delivering the Jewish state that Britain promised by opening Palestine for a Jewish homeland as set forth in the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, London imposed restrictions in May 1939 on Jewish emigration into Palestine, when the opposite was most sorely needed. Appeasement failed in Europe and it failed in the Middle East as Britain’s Arab allies were overthrown in Egypt (1952) and Iraq (1958), or hemmed in (Jordan) by the anti-colonial nationalist tide in the region.
For Ben-Gurion’s generation, the writing was on the wall. Two millennia of anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in a war of extermination of the Jews, and in the hour of their greatest need as a people to survive, Jews found themselves abandoned. The UN partition of Palestine opened ever so slightly the possibility of the Jews acquiring statehood, in the process becoming politically a normal people, like others – the Arabs, for instance – with states of their own.
The Jewish Agency accepted the UN plan of two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN plan and opted for war to deny the Jews a state of their own. Even as the world was barely beginning to recognize the magnitude of the Holocaust, the Jews in Palestine faced encirclement and annihilation. Six decades and several wars later, Ben-Gurion’s Israel has survived, grown stronger militarily and economically, and is the only free and open society in a region where dictatorships are the norm and tyranny in various disguises conspires against the human instinct for freedom.
Yet Israel remains encircled, and the threat of its annihilation is real and public. Even though Israel has signed peace agreements with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), public hostility against the Jewish state in the Arab world remains deep and widespread. Since 1979, Iran under the rule of Shiite clerics has extended the radius of threat to Israel beyond the Arab Middle East.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is over a century old. In the opinion of many it is the most intractable conflict of our time. It is layered with opposing nationalisms and non-negotiable claims in the name of religions – Judaism and Islam – made by their adherents.
Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan suggest neither Arab nationalism nor Islam represent insurmountable difficulties for peace between the Jews and the Arab Muslims. Then, it might be asked, what is it that has rendered the Arab-Israeli, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable for so long and at such cost, with no apparent solution at hand?
The answer is beguilingly simple. Elias Khoury, a Palestinian Christian writer, observed, “Palestine isn’t a country for it to have a flag. Palestine is a condition. Every Arab is a Palestinian . . . Palestine is the condition of us all.” In other words, Palestine is a mood, a rage, a rallying call of the tribe against its real and imagined enemies, and against which reason is disarmed. In this tribal framework of honour-shame culture, Jews are a people of another tribe who in the past of Arab Islamic history belonged to a lower social status under Muslim rule.
The Jewish ambition in Palestine to acquire a state, and then repeatedly defeating Arab efforts to score even a nominal victory against Israel, are an affront of such magnitude in the context of Arab tribal culture that the resulting shame could only be washed away by blood. It was not inevitable, however, that Jewish hopes for Palestine and the Arab response would become trapped in such a bloody embrace.
When Prince Feisal, son of Sharif Husayn of Mecca and an ally of Britain, wrote in 1919 to Felix Frankfurter attending the Paris Peace Conference, “We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home,” he meant it. The princely sentiment represented an aspect of traditional Arab humanity, uncontaminated by the sort of nationalism that would soon inflame the tribal honour-shame culture.
There is nothing in Islam that can legitimate Arab denial of the Jews’ rights as a people. The Koran (5:20-21) expressly indicates God instructing Moses to take his people into the land designated as Palestine. And when Mohammed was instructed to pray in the direction of Mecca and not Jerusalem – resulting in Mecca becoming the holy centre of Islam – any religious-based Muslim claim on Jerusalem was taken away by the Koran.
Sadly, Prince Feisal’s gesture was lost in the emerging new politics of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1890s-1974) that became dominant between the two world wars. Haj Amin’s politics were demagogic and rabidly anti-Jewish. He collaborated with Hitler, destroyed any possibility of reasonable accommodation with the Jews and laid the template for Palestinian politics of self-destruction.
At any time during the past century Palestinian Arabs could have worked out a settlement with Jews. They could have adopted Prince Feisal’s gesture as their own while recognizing that the return of Jews to Palestine was consistent with God’s words as revealed in the Koran. But they opted instead to make war against the Jews and, consequently, they went to war against the Koran.
There is a lesson to be learned from this century-old conflict. Appeasement as a policy to settle conflicts peacefully does not work. What works is when parties in conflict discover the meaning and benefits of reasonableness. Jewish survival and progress despite the Holocaust is one of the noblest demonstrations of reasonableness at work in history. It is for the Palestinian Arabs to show their capacity to be reasonable after having amply demonstrated their capacity for self-destruction.
Posted May 24, 2007 Front Page Magazine
By Salim Mansur
Western Standard
Fifty-nine years ago on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion read the declaration of independence proclaiming the establishment of Israel with little display of joy among those gathered together in the Tel Aviv Museum that afternoon. Ben-Gurion remarked, “I feel no gaiety in me, only deep anxiety, as on the 29th of November [1947, date of the UN resolution partitioning Palestine] when I was like a mourner at the feast.”
Nearly two thousand years after the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and dispersed Jews from their homeland, the rebirth of Israel offered a slim hope to people who barely survived Nazi Germany’s final solution for European Jewry. If Israel had come into being ten years earlier, a great many of those Jews who perished in the Holocaust would have survived. If Israel had been founded before Hitler launched his war in September 1939, the history of the region arguably might well have been different, and Britain’s “moment in the Middle East” (the phrase belongs to the historian Elizabeth Monroe) could eventually have drawn to a close without the acrimony and humiliation of 1956.
Britain sought to appease the Arabs. Instead of delivering the Jewish state that Britain promised by opening Palestine for a Jewish homeland as set forth in the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, London imposed restrictions in May 1939 on Jewish emigration into Palestine, when the opposite was most sorely needed. Appeasement failed in Europe and it failed in the Middle East as Britain’s Arab allies were overthrown in Egypt (1952) and Iraq (1958), or hemmed in (Jordan) by the anti-colonial nationalist tide in the region.
For Ben-Gurion’s generation, the writing was on the wall. Two millennia of anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in a war of extermination of the Jews, and in the hour of their greatest need as a people to survive, Jews found themselves abandoned. The UN partition of Palestine opened ever so slightly the possibility of the Jews acquiring statehood, in the process becoming politically a normal people, like others – the Arabs, for instance – with states of their own.
The Jewish Agency accepted the UN plan of two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Arabs of Palestine rejected the UN plan and opted for war to deny the Jews a state of their own. Even as the world was barely beginning to recognize the magnitude of the Holocaust, the Jews in Palestine faced encirclement and annihilation. Six decades and several wars later, Ben-Gurion’s Israel has survived, grown stronger militarily and economically, and is the only free and open society in a region where dictatorships are the norm and tyranny in various disguises conspires against the human instinct for freedom.
Yet Israel remains encircled, and the threat of its annihilation is real and public. Even though Israel has signed peace agreements with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), public hostility against the Jewish state in the Arab world remains deep and widespread. Since 1979, Iran under the rule of Shiite clerics has extended the radius of threat to Israel beyond the Arab Middle East.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is over a century old. In the opinion of many it is the most intractable conflict of our time. It is layered with opposing nationalisms and non-negotiable claims in the name of religions – Judaism and Islam – made by their adherents.
Israel’s treaties with Egypt and Jordan suggest neither Arab nationalism nor Islam represent insurmountable difficulties for peace between the Jews and the Arab Muslims. Then, it might be asked, what is it that has rendered the Arab-Israeli, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable for so long and at such cost, with no apparent solution at hand?
The answer is beguilingly simple. Elias Khoury, a Palestinian Christian writer, observed, “Palestine isn’t a country for it to have a flag. Palestine is a condition. Every Arab is a Palestinian . . . Palestine is the condition of us all.” In other words, Palestine is a mood, a rage, a rallying call of the tribe against its real and imagined enemies, and against which reason is disarmed. In this tribal framework of honour-shame culture, Jews are a people of another tribe who in the past of Arab Islamic history belonged to a lower social status under Muslim rule.
The Jewish ambition in Palestine to acquire a state, and then repeatedly defeating Arab efforts to score even a nominal victory against Israel, are an affront of such magnitude in the context of Arab tribal culture that the resulting shame could only be washed away by blood. It was not inevitable, however, that Jewish hopes for Palestine and the Arab response would become trapped in such a bloody embrace.
When Prince Feisal, son of Sharif Husayn of Mecca and an ally of Britain, wrote in 1919 to Felix Frankfurter attending the Paris Peace Conference, “We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home,” he meant it. The princely sentiment represented an aspect of traditional Arab humanity, uncontaminated by the sort of nationalism that would soon inflame the tribal honour-shame culture.
There is nothing in Islam that can legitimate Arab denial of the Jews’ rights as a people. The Koran (5:20-21) expressly indicates God instructing Moses to take his people into the land designated as Palestine. And when Mohammed was instructed to pray in the direction of Mecca and not Jerusalem – resulting in Mecca becoming the holy centre of Islam – any religious-based Muslim claim on Jerusalem was taken away by the Koran.
Sadly, Prince Feisal’s gesture was lost in the emerging new politics of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1890s-1974) that became dominant between the two world wars. Haj Amin’s politics were demagogic and rabidly anti-Jewish. He collaborated with Hitler, destroyed any possibility of reasonable accommodation with the Jews and laid the template for Palestinian politics of self-destruction.
At any time during the past century Palestinian Arabs could have worked out a settlement with Jews. They could have adopted Prince Feisal’s gesture as their own while recognizing that the return of Jews to Palestine was consistent with God’s words as revealed in the Koran. But they opted instead to make war against the Jews and, consequently, they went to war against the Koran.
There is a lesson to be learned from this century-old conflict. Appeasement as a policy to settle conflicts peacefully does not work. What works is when parties in conflict discover the meaning and benefits of reasonableness. Jewish survival and progress despite the Holocaust is one of the noblest demonstrations of reasonableness at work in history. It is for the Palestinian Arabs to show their capacity to be reasonable after having amply demonstrated their capacity for self-destruction.
Posted May 24, 2007 Front Page Magazine
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Does Israeli policymaking work like American Idol?
By Arlene Kushner
May 24, 2007
On May 8, American pollster Stanley Greenberg spoke before the Israeli Knesset's Subcommittee on Foreign and Public Relations. In a subsequent statement to The Jerusalem Post he shared his message: "There is strong support for Israel in the United States. It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace. That commitment is important to Americans viewing Israel as an ally, and for Europeans seeing Israel as a moderate country." This was not Greenberg's first meeting with the subcommittee. According to chair Amira Dotan, he "makes recommendations to the Knesset and Foreign Ministry" when he is in Israel. An American pollster making recommendations to the Knesset? One does not have to dig too deeply to see what is going on. Greenberg's poll was commissioned by The Israel Project (TIP). On its website TIP describes itself as: "an international [i.e., American and Israeli] non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency." That last sentence -- which I believe is a recent addition -- may be technically accurate, but only technically.
At the end of March, I read a report released by TIP entitled: "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution, Hamas continues to embrace terror." I saw this as misleading in two respects. Most significantly, the statement "Hamas continues to embrace terror" leads directly and inexorably to the conclusion that Fatah -- and Abbas -- do not embrace terror. But factually this is not the case, as an examination of Abbas's actions and his words in Arabic to his own people makes clear. What is more, it seemed to me inaccurate, as well, to say that "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution," for a significant portion of the populace is now exceedingly mistrustful of the idea of a Palestinian state.
It is the Olmert government, with disregard for public will, that promotes a "two-state solution." I saw the whitewash of Abbas in this report as serving the ideological goals of Olmert, while failing to address the reality of Fatah as a terror organization. This from an organization that purports to provide "accurate information." And so, I wrote to Calev Ben David, who is director of TIP's Jerusalem office. And I said, "The proper title for a report of yours would be 'Israel is prepared for peace negotiations when a true partner emerges.' "I know you're toeing the line of the Israeli government, but you are doing the people of Israel a disservice, in my opinion, by not being more forthright regarding the situation. We are at a critical juncture now?with regard to the long term security of Israel and concessions that may be demanded of us that put us at existential risk." In replying, Ben David wrote, "You are right: TIP is following after the policy of the democratically-elected government. "?If this government -- or the next one -- decides that Abbas is not a suitable figure to dialogue with, rest assured that we will be on the front line of explaining why he isn't." So it's clear where TIP is coming from. Ben David was describing the approach of the current government: As long as we intend to engage with Abbas, there's no need to explain why his terrorist connections make him an unsuitable candidate for dialogue. It is also clear where Greenberg is coming from.
In the fall of 2005, TIP held a press conference in Jerusalem featuring his most recently completed poll. Greenberg provided figures that purportedly demonstrated that the American public's approval of Israel increased after the (then) recently completed disengagement from Gaza. The implied message here was that the Sharon government had done a good thing to pull people out of Gush Katif, as it enhanced Israel's international standing. I was present, and may have been the only one there who caught the bias in Greenberg's polling technique. He explained that for purposes of the poll they sought persons knowledgeable about the issues -- people who read the NY Times or watch CNN. But these media sources are left-wing and obviously touted the disengagement as a good thing! Not a word about people who watch Fox news, or read the Washington Times, or the NY Sun. Not a word about striking a balance. A population skewed to the left had been polled. But in any event, the underlying premise was wrong: That the correctness of a policy can be determined by polling international public opinion. Which brings us to the current situation: Israel wages a constant uphill public relations battle. And so it is understandable that Israeli officials might be eager to secure favorable opinion ratings in the US. But the current practice of receiving "advice" on what would increase favorable opinion is a disaster. It promotes an approach that is precisely the inverse of what should be taking place.
An autonomous nation cannot responsibly determine its own most appropriate course of action by shaping it in accordance with what would please an international public. Yet this is what seems to be happening. Not only are we witnessing the phenomenon of a pollster "making recommendations" to Israel's legislators, we must keep in mind that this pollster, commissioned by TIP, has an agenda, as is perhaps inevitable. In delivering his message -- "It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace" -- Greenberg is setting the ground for the Olmert approach to continued talks with Abbas. You want the world to like you? You must show good faith by doing this. It's what they are looking for. Imagine if Greenberg had done a very different poll and had come to tell the Knesset, for example, that the American public is afraid of Islamists and respects those who stand strong against them, or that a majority of Americans think Abbas is not a fit partner for peace. Perhaps these things are true. If Greenberg has polled Americans on these issues, he isn't telling us. And he certainly isn't delivering a message that strengthens Israel's resolve against terrorists.
A nation with a healthy respect for its own legitimate rights and needs, instead of attempting to devise policy to fit public opinion, would take a very different approach: Yes, we hope the world will like us, but first we must shape policies that are warranted and in the national best interest. Does this wipe away the need for a strong public relations effort? Not at all. Instead it assigns the appropriate ancillary role to public relations (and polling procedures). That role is an important one: Making the case for Israel and her policy decisions, and making certain that the message is being assimilated and properly understood. There is no lack of work to be done in this regard. The Western world simply does not get it, in good measure because it not being given the facts: - The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is existential and not about borders. - Fatah has terrorist connections. - A strong Israel advances American interests. - Iran already has influence with Palestinian groups in the West Bank. - Conciliation is interpreted by the Arabs as weakness. - If Israel is diminished, the Islamists will be emboldened. - Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not reduce tensions elsewhere in the Mid-East. These are messages that the Olmert government, for its own reasons, is not delivering. How different Israel's public relations situation might be if they were delivered.
Appeared first in Israel Insider
See Arlene's wesite: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
By Arlene Kushner
May 24, 2007
On May 8, American pollster Stanley Greenberg spoke before the Israeli Knesset's Subcommittee on Foreign and Public Relations. In a subsequent statement to The Jerusalem Post he shared his message: "There is strong support for Israel in the United States. It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace. That commitment is important to Americans viewing Israel as an ally, and for Europeans seeing Israel as a moderate country." This was not Greenberg's first meeting with the subcommittee. According to chair Amira Dotan, he "makes recommendations to the Knesset and Foreign Ministry" when he is in Israel. An American pollster making recommendations to the Knesset? One does not have to dig too deeply to see what is going on. Greenberg's poll was commissioned by The Israel Project (TIP). On its website TIP describes itself as: "an international [i.e., American and Israeli] non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency." That last sentence -- which I believe is a recent addition -- may be technically accurate, but only technically.
At the end of March, I read a report released by TIP entitled: "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution, Hamas continues to embrace terror." I saw this as misleading in two respects. Most significantly, the statement "Hamas continues to embrace terror" leads directly and inexorably to the conclusion that Fatah -- and Abbas -- do not embrace terror. But factually this is not the case, as an examination of Abbas's actions and his words in Arabic to his own people makes clear. What is more, it seemed to me inaccurate, as well, to say that "Israel seeks peace through two-state solution," for a significant portion of the populace is now exceedingly mistrustful of the idea of a Palestinian state.
It is the Olmert government, with disregard for public will, that promotes a "two-state solution." I saw the whitewash of Abbas in this report as serving the ideological goals of Olmert, while failing to address the reality of Fatah as a terror organization. This from an organization that purports to provide "accurate information." And so, I wrote to Calev Ben David, who is director of TIP's Jerusalem office. And I said, "The proper title for a report of yours would be 'Israel is prepared for peace negotiations when a true partner emerges.' "I know you're toeing the line of the Israeli government, but you are doing the people of Israel a disservice, in my opinion, by not being more forthright regarding the situation. We are at a critical juncture now?with regard to the long term security of Israel and concessions that may be demanded of us that put us at existential risk." In replying, Ben David wrote, "You are right: TIP is following after the policy of the democratically-elected government. "?If this government -- or the next one -- decides that Abbas is not a suitable figure to dialogue with, rest assured that we will be on the front line of explaining why he isn't." So it's clear where TIP is coming from. Ben David was describing the approach of the current government: As long as we intend to engage with Abbas, there's no need to explain why his terrorist connections make him an unsuitable candidate for dialogue. It is also clear where Greenberg is coming from.
In the fall of 2005, TIP held a press conference in Jerusalem featuring his most recently completed poll. Greenberg provided figures that purportedly demonstrated that the American public's approval of Israel increased after the (then) recently completed disengagement from Gaza. The implied message here was that the Sharon government had done a good thing to pull people out of Gush Katif, as it enhanced Israel's international standing. I was present, and may have been the only one there who caught the bias in Greenberg's polling technique. He explained that for purposes of the poll they sought persons knowledgeable about the issues -- people who read the NY Times or watch CNN. But these media sources are left-wing and obviously touted the disengagement as a good thing! Not a word about people who watch Fox news, or read the Washington Times, or the NY Sun. Not a word about striking a balance. A population skewed to the left had been polled. But in any event, the underlying premise was wrong: That the correctness of a policy can be determined by polling international public opinion. Which brings us to the current situation: Israel wages a constant uphill public relations battle. And so it is understandable that Israeli officials might be eager to secure favorable opinion ratings in the US. But the current practice of receiving "advice" on what would increase favorable opinion is a disaster. It promotes an approach that is precisely the inverse of what should be taking place.
An autonomous nation cannot responsibly determine its own most appropriate course of action by shaping it in accordance with what would please an international public. Yet this is what seems to be happening. Not only are we witnessing the phenomenon of a pollster "making recommendations" to Israel's legislators, we must keep in mind that this pollster, commissioned by TIP, has an agenda, as is perhaps inevitable. In delivering his message -- "It is very important to remind people that Israel is committed to peace" -- Greenberg is setting the ground for the Olmert approach to continued talks with Abbas. You want the world to like you? You must show good faith by doing this. It's what they are looking for. Imagine if Greenberg had done a very different poll and had come to tell the Knesset, for example, that the American public is afraid of Islamists and respects those who stand strong against them, or that a majority of Americans think Abbas is not a fit partner for peace. Perhaps these things are true. If Greenberg has polled Americans on these issues, he isn't telling us. And he certainly isn't delivering a message that strengthens Israel's resolve against terrorists.
A nation with a healthy respect for its own legitimate rights and needs, instead of attempting to devise policy to fit public opinion, would take a very different approach: Yes, we hope the world will like us, but first we must shape policies that are warranted and in the national best interest. Does this wipe away the need for a strong public relations effort? Not at all. Instead it assigns the appropriate ancillary role to public relations (and polling procedures). That role is an important one: Making the case for Israel and her policy decisions, and making certain that the message is being assimilated and properly understood. There is no lack of work to be done in this regard. The Western world simply does not get it, in good measure because it not being given the facts: - The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is existential and not about borders. - Fatah has terrorist connections. - A strong Israel advances American interests. - Iran already has influence with Palestinian groups in the West Bank. - Conciliation is interpreted by the Arabs as weakness. - If Israel is diminished, the Islamists will be emboldened. - Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not reduce tensions elsewhere in the Mid-East. These are messages that the Olmert government, for its own reasons, is not delivering. How different Israel's public relations situation might be if they were delivered.
Appeared first in Israel Insider
See Arlene's wesite: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
The Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Conclusion
Part 7
The deployment of thousands of international forces in Lebanon, in addition to 15,000 Lebanese troops, will encourage Iran to continue to penetrate the Palestinian Authority, where its increased influence will act as an enhanced terror lever against Israel and the West as Tehran pursues its nuclear ambitions.
Iran will also exploit its influence via Hizbullah and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza to encourage terror activities against conservative, pro-Western Sunni regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the PA's current Fatah leadership.
But threats against these regimes, stemming from both Iranian- and al-Qaeda-backed radical Islamic groups in Gaza and the West Bank, may also signal an important opportunity for new regional alliances to manage the destabilizing Jihadi threats. Egypt should now consider playing a much larger role in helping to stabilize Gaza's future, while the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan may, under certain conditions, help Abbas and other moderate leaders secure the West Bank from its current control by Jihadi groups, local warlords and armed militias. The two sides might also discuss deeper cooperation and even mutually acceptable future political arrangements.
Despite the temptation, the international community must be careful not to interpret every "smile" from the Hamas leadership as a sign of moderation and compromise. Hamas' diplomatic shrewdness indicates that it can and will exhibit tactical flexibility, which is part of its deception of negotiating a national unity government with Fatah and keeping its terror activities in temporary check while pursuing its long-term goal – the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state from "the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." In the short term, Hamas will likely continue to receive support from Iran and other Jihadis in targeting Americans in the region due to fury over the U.S. boycott of the radical Palestinian government.47 Despite the interest by some in international circles to try and "tame" or moderate Hamas, those same actors who failed to tame Arafat will not be able to transform Hamas into a viable peace partner and a constructive force for regional stability.
The international community should not fear the collapse of the PA. The experience of Israel's security operations in recent years shows that Palestinian society will not collapse – as the word is commonly interpreted – even under extreme conditions. Palestinian municipalities, for example, continued to operate and provide services even at the height of Israeli military actions against the PA following the Palestinian war of terror and particularly during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.
Iran is clearly the most ominous issue for the West. Operating under a nuclear umbrella, the Iranian regime's upgraded use of its international terror networks via Hizbullah and Palestinian Jihadi groups could threaten the region with "dirty," non-conventional weapons and more blatantly dare to attack Western targets. That is why Israel must maintain defensible borders in the West Bank and remind its Western allies that diplomatic pressure on Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines or to approximate borders would leave Israel's major cities and infrastructure vulnerable to rocket and mortar attacks from West Bank hilltops.
Israel is clearly not the only country on Iran's target list. There is no arguing the fact that Iran also threatens Europe. Hopefully, the United States and the international community will act determinedly against Iran, first by political and financial sanctions, and if necessary by decisive military action.
As U.S. Senator John McCain has said, there is only one option that is worse than using military force against Iran. That option is allowing Iran to achieve regional hegemony, and ultimately global power, under a nuclear umbrella. Only when Iran, Syria and their terrorist proxies are squarely defeated can both the Middle East and the West hope to achieve a more peaceful and stable future.
Conclusion
Part 7
The deployment of thousands of international forces in Lebanon, in addition to 15,000 Lebanese troops, will encourage Iran to continue to penetrate the Palestinian Authority, where its increased influence will act as an enhanced terror lever against Israel and the West as Tehran pursues its nuclear ambitions.
Iran will also exploit its influence via Hizbullah and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza to encourage terror activities against conservative, pro-Western Sunni regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the PA's current Fatah leadership.
But threats against these regimes, stemming from both Iranian- and al-Qaeda-backed radical Islamic groups in Gaza and the West Bank, may also signal an important opportunity for new regional alliances to manage the destabilizing Jihadi threats. Egypt should now consider playing a much larger role in helping to stabilize Gaza's future, while the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan may, under certain conditions, help Abbas and other moderate leaders secure the West Bank from its current control by Jihadi groups, local warlords and armed militias. The two sides might also discuss deeper cooperation and even mutually acceptable future political arrangements.
Despite the temptation, the international community must be careful not to interpret every "smile" from the Hamas leadership as a sign of moderation and compromise. Hamas' diplomatic shrewdness indicates that it can and will exhibit tactical flexibility, which is part of its deception of negotiating a national unity government with Fatah and keeping its terror activities in temporary check while pursuing its long-term goal – the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state from "the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." In the short term, Hamas will likely continue to receive support from Iran and other Jihadis in targeting Americans in the region due to fury over the U.S. boycott of the radical Palestinian government.47 Despite the interest by some in international circles to try and "tame" or moderate Hamas, those same actors who failed to tame Arafat will not be able to transform Hamas into a viable peace partner and a constructive force for regional stability.
The international community should not fear the collapse of the PA. The experience of Israel's security operations in recent years shows that Palestinian society will not collapse – as the word is commonly interpreted – even under extreme conditions. Palestinian municipalities, for example, continued to operate and provide services even at the height of Israeli military actions against the PA following the Palestinian war of terror and particularly during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.
Iran is clearly the most ominous issue for the West. Operating under a nuclear umbrella, the Iranian regime's upgraded use of its international terror networks via Hizbullah and Palestinian Jihadi groups could threaten the region with "dirty," non-conventional weapons and more blatantly dare to attack Western targets. That is why Israel must maintain defensible borders in the West Bank and remind its Western allies that diplomatic pressure on Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines or to approximate borders would leave Israel's major cities and infrastructure vulnerable to rocket and mortar attacks from West Bank hilltops.
Israel is clearly not the only country on Iran's target list. There is no arguing the fact that Iran also threatens Europe. Hopefully, the United States and the international community will act determinedly against Iran, first by political and financial sanctions, and if necessary by decisive military action.
As U.S. Senator John McCain has said, there is only one option that is worse than using military force against Iran. That option is allowing Iran to achieve regional hegemony, and ultimately global power, under a nuclear umbrella. Only when Iran, Syria and their terrorist proxies are squarely defeated can both the Middle East and the West hope to achieve a more peaceful and stable future.
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Security Implications for Israel: Establishing Defensible Borders
Part 6
The Second Lebanon War underscores the importance of strategic depth for Israel's survival. During the war, 90 to 95 percent of the more than four thousand rockets firedbyHizbullahatIsraelicitieswereshort-range,122 mm rockets launched from distances of between six and twenty-two kilometers. These short-range rockets directly threatened nearly two million Israelis, a third of Israel's population. Nearly a million people temporarily fled the north, while more than a million remaining citizens were forced to take cover in bomb shelters. Twelve thousand buildings were hit and estimates of overall damage reached well over $2.5 billion. However, had Israel's ground operation been executed in the first week of the war and a security zone created up to Lebanon's Litani River – approximately twenty kilometers from Israel's northern border – nearly 95 percent of Hizbullah's rockets would have landed in southern Lebanon and not northern Israel.
The conclusion is clear: land is essential to Israel's defense and national security, particularly in the face of short-range rocket attacks that, notwithstanding the separate issue of long-range missiles, continue to be a strategic threat to the Jewish state.
Therefore, Israel's security requirements for strategic depth have far-reaching consequences for the future of the West Bank. Had Hizbullah rockets been launched from the hills of the West Bank under Hamas control, Israel would face an unprecedented existential threat as 70 percent of its civilian population and 80 percent of its industrial capacity is situated below these hilltops along Israel's coastline. Unfortunately, Hamas' control of the Palestinian areas, particularly in the West Bank, could easily result in weapons flowing to Hamas from Iraq and Hizbullah in Lebanon, creating a strategic threat from Israel's eastern front. Given the unstable strategic situation in Lebanon and to Israel's east in Iraq, Syria and the West Bank, Israel must have defensible borders in the West Bank.
It must be emphasized that the West Bank security fence is not a strategic solution to the full range of Palestinian Jihadi terror actions. The fence is only meant to be a tactical measure that has largely succeeded in preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israel's major population centers. However, the IDF's anti-terror operations on the ground in the West Bank and against Hamas in Gaza continue to be the major preventative measure against Palestinian terror assaults on Israeli towns and cities. Accordingly, Israel must protect its interests eastward in the Jordan Valley, as well as in the areas surrounding Jerusalem and to the east of Ben-Gurion Airport. Israel must also control territory to the east of the security fence where it is crucial that the IDF's operational strength be preserved in order to protect Israeli population centers along the coast.
Hamas will not reach a territorial compromise with Israel. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah has little control. Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal determines policy from Damascus in cooperation with Syria and Iran, which offer financial backing. Moreover, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is unable to rein in radical Islamists in Gaza who are attacking Israel with Kassam rockets, and Palestinian security forces have failed to stabilize the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.
Therefore, a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not with insight and neither a two-state solution nor further territorial concessions in the West Bank are relevant for the foreseeable future. Israel took substantial risks to achieve a two-state solution, especially since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Unfortunately, Israel's bilateral peace process experiment resulted in nearly 1,400 Israelis dead and thousands more wounded. It is imperative, then, that Israel and the West learn the lessons of the political and diplomatic failures opposite the Palestinians.
While Israel's political leadership and public continue to demonstrate willingness for territorial compromise with the Palestinians, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza was a strategic mistake of the first order. The Gaza withdrawal helped bring about Hamas' victory. It emboldened radical Islamic terror groups, from Hizbullah in Lebanon to radical insurgent groups in Iraq. It strengthened the assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and the Iranians that Israel can be beaten.
But of even greater consequence, Israel's Gaza pullback and the summer 2006 war with Hizbullah have harmed America's strategic war on terror in the region. The United States and Europe had praised Israel's unilateral withdrawal from both Lebanon in 2000 and the Gaza Strip in September 2005, thus ending Israel's occupation of those areas. According to the international view, Israel's pullbacks edged the region closer to peace and stability. However, fundamentalist Islam interprets Israel's moves differently from the way Western actors read them. Muslim extremists believe that they have defeated Israel, once in Gaza and twice in Lebanon. Now following the summer 2006 war, they are confident that they can defeat Israel in Tel Aviv. They sense that they have destabilized a superpower, and will destabilize the West by defeating Israel.
The free world, then, undermines its own regional interests by pressuring Israel to increase its vulnerability by withdrawing from additional territories in the West Bank, most of which are unpopulated and essential for Israel's defense and national security. Simply stated, Israeli concessions are viewed by radical Islam as the West's weakness.
There is even greater reason for concern today. A second "southern Lebanon" is sprouting up under Israel's feet in both Gaza and the West Bank.41 Hizbullah has strengthened its financial and operational influence in both arenas. Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, Gaza has become a hotbed of Jihadi terror activity by al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups. Hizbullah established a forward headquarters in Gaza that activates suicide terrorists there and in the West Bank. While Hizbullah's headquarters has been based in Beirut, since the IDF's destruction of substantial Hizbullah infrastructure in southern Lebanon and in the Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut, Hizbullah operations from Gaza have become a more effective strategy. It is not surprising that Palestinian terrorist tactics after mid-2006 increasingly resembled those adopted by Hizbullah. In fact, a large majority of Palestinians polled after the Lebanon war reported that the tactics employed by Hizbullah against Israel provide an "attractive model" for Palestinian armed resistance.
Iran is also exploiting the Palestinian arena as a platform for the subversion of regimes that are connected to the West, especially in Egypt and Jordan. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia led unprecedented Arab public criticism of Hizbullah after the first week of the war, blasting Nasrallah for "adventurism." They accused Hizbullah of attempting to drag the entire region into a military confrontation with Israel.
Hamas is also seeking to produce or import longer-range rockets that are more lethal and more accurate. These missiles will have a greater range and will be capable of hitting Israel's southern city of Ashkelon as well as more northern coastal cities. Hamas is also importing shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, weapons that Iran and Syria supplied to Hizbullah in Lebanon.
The Karine-A weapons ship that the Iranians sent to Gaza in 2002, in coordination with PA leader Yasser Arafat, demonstrated more than simply an Iranian interest in supporting the Palestinian Authority's terrorist war with Iranian weapons. The Iranians have been working through Hizbullah and Hamas in Gaza to create a model similar to Hizbullah's Lebanon model, called "Jihad Il Binaya." In the Lebanese model, the same system that supports civil affairs – such as construction, education, health care and welfare – also creates a civilian infrastructure for terror. Through this paradigm, Hizbullah has deepened its connection to the local population. In fact, Hamas police units traveled to Iran for military training following the cease-fire in Lebanon. This unprecedented, direct Iranian penetration into the Palestinian arena may increase the likelihood of a Palestinian civil war and accelerate the deterioration in Gaza and the West Bank.
Security Implications for Israel: Establishing Defensible Borders
Part 6
The Second Lebanon War underscores the importance of strategic depth for Israel's survival. During the war, 90 to 95 percent of the more than four thousand rockets firedbyHizbullahatIsraelicitieswereshort-range,122 mm rockets launched from distances of between six and twenty-two kilometers. These short-range rockets directly threatened nearly two million Israelis, a third of Israel's population. Nearly a million people temporarily fled the north, while more than a million remaining citizens were forced to take cover in bomb shelters. Twelve thousand buildings were hit and estimates of overall damage reached well over $2.5 billion. However, had Israel's ground operation been executed in the first week of the war and a security zone created up to Lebanon's Litani River – approximately twenty kilometers from Israel's northern border – nearly 95 percent of Hizbullah's rockets would have landed in southern Lebanon and not northern Israel.
The conclusion is clear: land is essential to Israel's defense and national security, particularly in the face of short-range rocket attacks that, notwithstanding the separate issue of long-range missiles, continue to be a strategic threat to the Jewish state.
Therefore, Israel's security requirements for strategic depth have far-reaching consequences for the future of the West Bank. Had Hizbullah rockets been launched from the hills of the West Bank under Hamas control, Israel would face an unprecedented existential threat as 70 percent of its civilian population and 80 percent of its industrial capacity is situated below these hilltops along Israel's coastline. Unfortunately, Hamas' control of the Palestinian areas, particularly in the West Bank, could easily result in weapons flowing to Hamas from Iraq and Hizbullah in Lebanon, creating a strategic threat from Israel's eastern front. Given the unstable strategic situation in Lebanon and to Israel's east in Iraq, Syria and the West Bank, Israel must have defensible borders in the West Bank.
It must be emphasized that the West Bank security fence is not a strategic solution to the full range of Palestinian Jihadi terror actions. The fence is only meant to be a tactical measure that has largely succeeded in preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israel's major population centers. However, the IDF's anti-terror operations on the ground in the West Bank and against Hamas in Gaza continue to be the major preventative measure against Palestinian terror assaults on Israeli towns and cities. Accordingly, Israel must protect its interests eastward in the Jordan Valley, as well as in the areas surrounding Jerusalem and to the east of Ben-Gurion Airport. Israel must also control territory to the east of the security fence where it is crucial that the IDF's operational strength be preserved in order to protect Israeli population centers along the coast.
Hamas will not reach a territorial compromise with Israel. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah has little control. Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal determines policy from Damascus in cooperation with Syria and Iran, which offer financial backing. Moreover, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is unable to rein in radical Islamists in Gaza who are attacking Israel with Kassam rockets, and Palestinian security forces have failed to stabilize the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.
Therefore, a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not with insight and neither a two-state solution nor further territorial concessions in the West Bank are relevant for the foreseeable future. Israel took substantial risks to achieve a two-state solution, especially since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Unfortunately, Israel's bilateral peace process experiment resulted in nearly 1,400 Israelis dead and thousands more wounded. It is imperative, then, that Israel and the West learn the lessons of the political and diplomatic failures opposite the Palestinians.
While Israel's political leadership and public continue to demonstrate willingness for territorial compromise with the Palestinians, Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza was a strategic mistake of the first order. The Gaza withdrawal helped bring about Hamas' victory. It emboldened radical Islamic terror groups, from Hizbullah in Lebanon to radical insurgent groups in Iraq. It strengthened the assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and the Iranians that Israel can be beaten.
But of even greater consequence, Israel's Gaza pullback and the summer 2006 war with Hizbullah have harmed America's strategic war on terror in the region. The United States and Europe had praised Israel's unilateral withdrawal from both Lebanon in 2000 and the Gaza Strip in September 2005, thus ending Israel's occupation of those areas. According to the international view, Israel's pullbacks edged the region closer to peace and stability. However, fundamentalist Islam interprets Israel's moves differently from the way Western actors read them. Muslim extremists believe that they have defeated Israel, once in Gaza and twice in Lebanon. Now following the summer 2006 war, they are confident that they can defeat Israel in Tel Aviv. They sense that they have destabilized a superpower, and will destabilize the West by defeating Israel.
The free world, then, undermines its own regional interests by pressuring Israel to increase its vulnerability by withdrawing from additional territories in the West Bank, most of which are unpopulated and essential for Israel's defense and national security. Simply stated, Israeli concessions are viewed by radical Islam as the West's weakness.
There is even greater reason for concern today. A second "southern Lebanon" is sprouting up under Israel's feet in both Gaza and the West Bank.41 Hizbullah has strengthened its financial and operational influence in both arenas. Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, Gaza has become a hotbed of Jihadi terror activity by al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups. Hizbullah established a forward headquarters in Gaza that activates suicide terrorists there and in the West Bank. While Hizbullah's headquarters has been based in Beirut, since the IDF's destruction of substantial Hizbullah infrastructure in southern Lebanon and in the Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut, Hizbullah operations from Gaza have become a more effective strategy. It is not surprising that Palestinian terrorist tactics after mid-2006 increasingly resembled those adopted by Hizbullah. In fact, a large majority of Palestinians polled after the Lebanon war reported that the tactics employed by Hizbullah against Israel provide an "attractive model" for Palestinian armed resistance.
Iran is also exploiting the Palestinian arena as a platform for the subversion of regimes that are connected to the West, especially in Egypt and Jordan. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia led unprecedented Arab public criticism of Hizbullah after the first week of the war, blasting Nasrallah for "adventurism." They accused Hizbullah of attempting to drag the entire region into a military confrontation with Israel.
Hamas is also seeking to produce or import longer-range rockets that are more lethal and more accurate. These missiles will have a greater range and will be capable of hitting Israel's southern city of Ashkelon as well as more northern coastal cities. Hamas is also importing shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, weapons that Iran and Syria supplied to Hizbullah in Lebanon.
The Karine-A weapons ship that the Iranians sent to Gaza in 2002, in coordination with PA leader Yasser Arafat, demonstrated more than simply an Iranian interest in supporting the Palestinian Authority's terrorist war with Iranian weapons. The Iranians have been working through Hizbullah and Hamas in Gaza to create a model similar to Hizbullah's Lebanon model, called "Jihad Il Binaya." In the Lebanese model, the same system that supports civil affairs – such as construction, education, health care and welfare – also creates a civilian infrastructure for terror. Through this paradigm, Hizbullah has deepened its connection to the local population. In fact, Hamas police units traveled to Iran for military training following the cease-fire in Lebanon. This unprecedented, direct Iranian penetration into the Palestinian arena may increase the likelihood of a Palestinian civil war and accelerate the deterioration in Gaza and the West Bank.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Second Lebanon War: Moshe Yaalon
Western Passivity Magnifies the Jihadi Threat
Part 5
The international community is weak and split over how to proceed in Iraq and against Iran. This may in part be a result of the fact that many European countries do not understand that the West is in the middle of a world war, a clash of civilizations and cultures with radical Islam. Ahmadinejad has been clearer on this point. He reportedly received one of 1,000 pirated copies of Professor Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations that had been translated into Persian and trucked in to Tehran by the IRGC in the mid-1990s.
Washington also appears to have lost its post-9/11 footing. The Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report seems to underscore a growing preference among many in Washington for appeasing and negotiating over confronting and isolating the radical Islamists, particularly in Iran. The report's central recommendations that the Bush administration open diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran and actively pursue comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace negotiations – including Israel's return of the Golan Heights to Syria – represents a 180-degree-turn away from President Bush's policy since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bush had declared in his 2002 State of the Union address that "some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will....If we stop now – leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked – our sense of security would be false and temporary."
Another example of the West's traditional preference for diplomacy and Israeli concessions over confrontation with radical Islam occurred in late 2001. Joschka Fischer, then Foreign Minister of Germany, stated on at least one occasion that Israel's unilateral and precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 served as a trigger for the subsequent Palestinian Authority war of terror that Arafat launched four months later. But while Fischer acknowledged the problem and even sounded like "an Israeli security hawk," according to a senior British foreign policy analyst present, he did not recant the pressure he placed on Israel for territorial concessions.
Aside from the Second Lebanon War, Israel has been hesitant to confront Iran and Syria. It had been much easier for Israelis to first confront and then negotiate with secular Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan, and reach bilateral peace treaties on the basis of the "land for peace" formula. However, in the case of Iran and its Jihadi proxies, Israel faces uncompromising enemies. This requires the Jewish state to confront the Jihadi threat and act with uncompromising political will.
Hizbullah is not nearly as dangerous a fighting forceas Egypt or Syria. However, the fundamentalist group's blind hatred of the West and its irrepressible political will to destroy Israel and export terror renders it largely immune from embracing what moderate and reform-minded Arab regimes and the West consider overriding national considerations such as economic interests. Iran and its proxies are not primarily motivated by the same national calculations characteristic of the West, but rather by religiously driven, apocalyptic dedication to vanquish Western democracies such as the United States and Israel. Therefore, conventional deterrence strategies such as "mutually assured destruction" that the United States employed opposite the former Soviet Union are not relevant opposite the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ahmadinejad appears more than prepared for Iran to suffer massive human losses to reach his objective of annihilating Israel and reaching a nuclear showdown with the United States.
Nonetheless, the passive posture of the United States, Europe, and even Israel, with regard to Iran, Syria, and their proxies has bolstered Jihadi confidence and has magnified their growing threat to the international state system. The West's interest in maintaining the current international order and avoiding a clash with radical Islamic leaderships has also enhanced Sunni and Shiite Jihadi appeal throughout the region, from Iraq to Jordan, in Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt and the West Bank.
Part 5
The international community is weak and split over how to proceed in Iraq and against Iran. This may in part be a result of the fact that many European countries do not understand that the West is in the middle of a world war, a clash of civilizations and cultures with radical Islam. Ahmadinejad has been clearer on this point. He reportedly received one of 1,000 pirated copies of Professor Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations that had been translated into Persian and trucked in to Tehran by the IRGC in the mid-1990s.
Washington also appears to have lost its post-9/11 footing. The Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) Report seems to underscore a growing preference among many in Washington for appeasing and negotiating over confronting and isolating the radical Islamists, particularly in Iran. The report's central recommendations that the Bush administration open diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran and actively pursue comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace negotiations – including Israel's return of the Golan Heights to Syria – represents a 180-degree-turn away from President Bush's policy since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bush had declared in his 2002 State of the Union address that "some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will....If we stop now – leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked – our sense of security would be false and temporary."
Another example of the West's traditional preference for diplomacy and Israeli concessions over confrontation with radical Islam occurred in late 2001. Joschka Fischer, then Foreign Minister of Germany, stated on at least one occasion that Israel's unilateral and precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 served as a trigger for the subsequent Palestinian Authority war of terror that Arafat launched four months later. But while Fischer acknowledged the problem and even sounded like "an Israeli security hawk," according to a senior British foreign policy analyst present, he did not recant the pressure he placed on Israel for territorial concessions.
Aside from the Second Lebanon War, Israel has been hesitant to confront Iran and Syria. It had been much easier for Israelis to first confront and then negotiate with secular Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan, and reach bilateral peace treaties on the basis of the "land for peace" formula. However, in the case of Iran and its Jihadi proxies, Israel faces uncompromising enemies. This requires the Jewish state to confront the Jihadi threat and act with uncompromising political will.
Hizbullah is not nearly as dangerous a fighting forceas Egypt or Syria. However, the fundamentalist group's blind hatred of the West and its irrepressible political will to destroy Israel and export terror renders it largely immune from embracing what moderate and reform-minded Arab regimes and the West consider overriding national considerations such as economic interests. Iran and its proxies are not primarily motivated by the same national calculations characteristic of the West, but rather by religiously driven, apocalyptic dedication to vanquish Western democracies such as the United States and Israel. Therefore, conventional deterrence strategies such as "mutually assured destruction" that the United States employed opposite the former Soviet Union are not relevant opposite the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ahmadinejad appears more than prepared for Iran to suffer massive human losses to reach his objective of annihilating Israel and reaching a nuclear showdown with the United States.
Nonetheless, the passive posture of the United States, Europe, and even Israel, with regard to Iran, Syria, and their proxies has bolstered Jihadi confidence and has magnified their growing threat to the international state system. The West's interest in maintaining the current international order and avoiding a clash with radical Islamic leaderships has also enhanced Sunni and Shiite Jihadi appeal throughout the region, from Iraq to Jordan, in Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt and the West Bank.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Hag Sameach
Lecha Dodi
As he left the shul, he noticed a young man wearing jeans and a backpack, standing tentatively at the foot of the steps. Inspired by the meaningful Kabbalas Shabbos he had just experienced, he decided to greet the young man. "Good Shabbos. Would you like to eat with us tonight?" The young man's face broke in an instant from a worried look to a smile. "Yes, thanks, he said, My name is Machi."
Soon they were standing around the Shabbos table. Dan noticed his guest fidgeting and leafing through his bencher, looking for something. "Is there a song you want to sing he asked. The young man’s face lit up. "Yes, there is, but I can't find it here. I really liked what we sang earlier. What was it?...Something 'Dodi Oh, he offered, "You mean Lecha Dodi But you won’t find it in there. Let me get you a siddur." Upon the song’s completion, Machi requested the song yet again. Throughout the meal, he repeatedly requested the song, Dan acceding each time to his guest’s request, his puzzlement increasing. "Don't you want to sing something else?" he finally asked. "I just really like that one," Machi replied bashfully. "There’s just something about it - I really like it."
"Where are you from?" Dan asked. The boy looked pained, then gazed at the floor and said, "Ramallah." Dan was quite sure he'd heard the boy say Ramallah, but it couldn’t be. Perhaps he had actually heard Ramleh, an Israeli city. To this he replied, "Oh, I have a cousin there. Do you know Ephraim Warner? He lives on Herzl Street." The young man shook his head sadly. "There are no Jews in Ramallah." Dan gasped. He really had said "Ramallah"! His mind raced. Had he invited an Arab to spend Shabbos with him? "I'm sorry, he exclaimed, but I'm a bit confused. And now that I think of it, I haven't even asked your full name." The boy nervously shook his head and offered quietly, "Machmud Ibn-esh-Sharif." Dan slumped back, speechless. Machi broke the silence hesitantly, "I was born and grew up in Ramallah. I was taught to hate Jews, and that killing them was heroic. But I always had doubts. Our tradition taught us that believers should desire for others what they desire for themselves. I used to wonder, aren’t Jews people too? Don’t they have the right to live as well? I asked my father, and he threw me out of the house. By now my mind was made up; I was going to run away and live with Jews, until I could find out what they were really like. Who knows? I might even convert. I snuck back into the house that night to get my things, but my mother noticed me packing. When I had conveyed my plans to her, she turned pale. You don't have to convert, she whispered after a long pause, You already are a Jew. "I was shocked. What do you mean? Judaism follows the mother, she explained. I'm Jewish, so you're Jewish. "I never had any idea my mother was Jewish. She didn’t want anyone to know. Then she whispered suddenly, 'I made a mistake by marrying an Arab man. In you, my mistake will be redeemed.'
My mother quickly went, dug out some old documents and handed them to me - my birth certificate and her old Israeli ID card, so I could prove I was a Jew. I've got them here, but I don't know what to do with them. She also handed me an old photograph of my grandparents that was taken at the grave of one of our ancestors. Now I’ve traveled here to Israel to find out where I really belong." Dan gently put his hand on Machmud's shoulder and asked, "Do you have the photo here?" "Sure, he said, I always carry it with me." Machmud reached into his backpack and pulled out the photograph. When Dan saw the photograph, he nearly collapsed. It was of a grave in the old cemetery in Tzfat, the inscription identifying it as that of the great Kabbalist Rav Shlomo Alkabetz. Dan's voice quivered with excitement and awe as he explained to Machmud who his ancestor was. "He was a friend of the Arizal, a great Torah scholar, a tzaddik, a mystic. And, Machmud, your ancestor is the author of that song we sang tonight, Lecha Dodi!" This time Machmud was speechless. Dan extended his trembling hand, "Welcome home, Machmud."
Machmud had unwittingly traced his roots back to a man whose early years remain shrouded in history until the age of 24, when he traveled for the first time to Eretz Yisrael. Along the way, he gave charismatic speeches, inspiring his audiences with his knowledge of Kabbalah. He soon met Yosef Caro, and became his close friend and chavrusa, along with the Arizal and the Alshich HaKadosh. It was from one of their shared spiritual experiences while learning late one night that R Yosef Caro reestablished the custom of Tikkun Leil Shavu'ot (mentioned in the Zohar), which we perpetuate today. R’Shlomo produced manuscripts on Torah and Kabbalah, many of which were stolen upon his death and therefore never published under his name. He is credited with initiating the ritual of physically greeting the shechina, or neshoma yesairah at shkiah on Friday. After Minchah, as the sun cast its setting rays over the distant hilltops, this saintly mystic and his disciples would venture out onto one of Tzfat’s magnificent slopes. Gazing out upon plunging ravines and soaring heights, they would open their hearts in song as the sunset swelled into a cadence of changing colors. The haunting beauty of this liturgical mosaic, pieced together with phrases from Shoftim, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and Tehillim, whose stanzas mostly reflect the Jewish longing for redemption, the restoration of Yerushalayim and the coming of Mashiach, tugs at the heart strings of every Jew who longs for closeness to his creator. Its expression during this most propitious ays ratzon, when Klal Yisrael weds HaKadosh Boruch Hu on a weekly basis, was specifically designed by R’Shlomo to open our hearts, if only for a moment, to the faint emanations of Olam Habah which reach our world at this time.
R’Shlomo Halevi Alkabetz is remembered for his authorship of Lecha Dodi, and it is precisely this hymn which affords us a unique look inside a world in which he represented so much more. For the world of Kabbalah, in which physical and spiritual boundaries are routinely blurred, finds prime expression in this moving elegy which has the power to change and improve our spiritual lives so many years after its authorship, and which succeeded in returning R’Shlomo’s great grandson Machmud back under the Kanfei HaShechinah. So as you sing Lecha Dodi this Friday evening, listen a bit more closely, and you’ll understand that it is much more than just a song. You just may recognize it as the voice of your own soul, crying out to its creator, yearning for the Shechinah, for now you’ll know THE REST OF THE STORY.
From the Adult Education Committee of Congregation Beth Abraham's Be'er Mayim Chaim Teaneck
As he left the shul, he noticed a young man wearing jeans and a backpack, standing tentatively at the foot of the steps. Inspired by the meaningful Kabbalas Shabbos he had just experienced, he decided to greet the young man. "Good Shabbos. Would you like to eat with us tonight?" The young man's face broke in an instant from a worried look to a smile. "Yes, thanks, he said, My name is Machi."
Soon they were standing around the Shabbos table. Dan noticed his guest fidgeting and leafing through his bencher, looking for something. "Is there a song you want to sing he asked. The young man’s face lit up. "Yes, there is, but I can't find it here. I really liked what we sang earlier. What was it?...Something 'Dodi Oh, he offered, "You mean Lecha Dodi But you won’t find it in there. Let me get you a siddur." Upon the song’s completion, Machi requested the song yet again. Throughout the meal, he repeatedly requested the song, Dan acceding each time to his guest’s request, his puzzlement increasing. "Don't you want to sing something else?" he finally asked. "I just really like that one," Machi replied bashfully. "There’s just something about it - I really like it."
"Where are you from?" Dan asked. The boy looked pained, then gazed at the floor and said, "Ramallah." Dan was quite sure he'd heard the boy say Ramallah, but it couldn’t be. Perhaps he had actually heard Ramleh, an Israeli city. To this he replied, "Oh, I have a cousin there. Do you know Ephraim Warner? He lives on Herzl Street." The young man shook his head sadly. "There are no Jews in Ramallah." Dan gasped. He really had said "Ramallah"! His mind raced. Had he invited an Arab to spend Shabbos with him? "I'm sorry, he exclaimed, but I'm a bit confused. And now that I think of it, I haven't even asked your full name." The boy nervously shook his head and offered quietly, "Machmud Ibn-esh-Sharif." Dan slumped back, speechless. Machi broke the silence hesitantly, "I was born and grew up in Ramallah. I was taught to hate Jews, and that killing them was heroic. But I always had doubts. Our tradition taught us that believers should desire for others what they desire for themselves. I used to wonder, aren’t Jews people too? Don’t they have the right to live as well? I asked my father, and he threw me out of the house. By now my mind was made up; I was going to run away and live with Jews, until I could find out what they were really like. Who knows? I might even convert. I snuck back into the house that night to get my things, but my mother noticed me packing. When I had conveyed my plans to her, she turned pale. You don't have to convert, she whispered after a long pause, You already are a Jew. "I was shocked. What do you mean? Judaism follows the mother, she explained. I'm Jewish, so you're Jewish. "I never had any idea my mother was Jewish. She didn’t want anyone to know. Then she whispered suddenly, 'I made a mistake by marrying an Arab man. In you, my mistake will be redeemed.'
My mother quickly went, dug out some old documents and handed them to me - my birth certificate and her old Israeli ID card, so I could prove I was a Jew. I've got them here, but I don't know what to do with them. She also handed me an old photograph of my grandparents that was taken at the grave of one of our ancestors. Now I’ve traveled here to Israel to find out where I really belong." Dan gently put his hand on Machmud's shoulder and asked, "Do you have the photo here?" "Sure, he said, I always carry it with me." Machmud reached into his backpack and pulled out the photograph. When Dan saw the photograph, he nearly collapsed. It was of a grave in the old cemetery in Tzfat, the inscription identifying it as that of the great Kabbalist Rav Shlomo Alkabetz. Dan's voice quivered with excitement and awe as he explained to Machmud who his ancestor was. "He was a friend of the Arizal, a great Torah scholar, a tzaddik, a mystic. And, Machmud, your ancestor is the author of that song we sang tonight, Lecha Dodi!" This time Machmud was speechless. Dan extended his trembling hand, "Welcome home, Machmud."
Machmud had unwittingly traced his roots back to a man whose early years remain shrouded in history until the age of 24, when he traveled for the first time to Eretz Yisrael. Along the way, he gave charismatic speeches, inspiring his audiences with his knowledge of Kabbalah. He soon met Yosef Caro, and became his close friend and chavrusa, along with the Arizal and the Alshich HaKadosh. It was from one of their shared spiritual experiences while learning late one night that R Yosef Caro reestablished the custom of Tikkun Leil Shavu'ot (mentioned in the Zohar), which we perpetuate today. R’Shlomo produced manuscripts on Torah and Kabbalah, many of which were stolen upon his death and therefore never published under his name. He is credited with initiating the ritual of physically greeting the shechina, or neshoma yesairah at shkiah on Friday. After Minchah, as the sun cast its setting rays over the distant hilltops, this saintly mystic and his disciples would venture out onto one of Tzfat’s magnificent slopes. Gazing out upon plunging ravines and soaring heights, they would open their hearts in song as the sunset swelled into a cadence of changing colors. The haunting beauty of this liturgical mosaic, pieced together with phrases from Shoftim, Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, and Tehillim, whose stanzas mostly reflect the Jewish longing for redemption, the restoration of Yerushalayim and the coming of Mashiach, tugs at the heart strings of every Jew who longs for closeness to his creator. Its expression during this most propitious ays ratzon, when Klal Yisrael weds HaKadosh Boruch Hu on a weekly basis, was specifically designed by R’Shlomo to open our hearts, if only for a moment, to the faint emanations of Olam Habah which reach our world at this time.
R’Shlomo Halevi Alkabetz is remembered for his authorship of Lecha Dodi, and it is precisely this hymn which affords us a unique look inside a world in which he represented so much more. For the world of Kabbalah, in which physical and spiritual boundaries are routinely blurred, finds prime expression in this moving elegy which has the power to change and improve our spiritual lives so many years after its authorship, and which succeeded in returning R’Shlomo’s great grandson Machmud back under the Kanfei HaShechinah. So as you sing Lecha Dodi this Friday evening, listen a bit more closely, and you’ll understand that it is much more than just a song. You just may recognize it as the voice of your own soul, crying out to its creator, yearning for the Shechinah, for now you’ll know THE REST OF THE STORY.
From the Adult Education Committee of Congregation Beth Abraham's Be'er Mayim Chaim Teaneck
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)