(Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesman)
For the first time in the history of the organization, the Israel Postal Company has been chosen to represent Israel on the Postal Operations Council of the Universal Postal Union at the 24th Universal Postal Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland.
Israel has been a member of the Universal Postal Union since December 1949, but was never elected to serve on its professional decision-making body - the Operations Council. The Council takes decisions relating to the operation of international postal services, financial issues and setting standards in quality of service. At the current UPU Congress, Israel was elected to serve on the Council for four years.
The election of Israel to international organizations is virtually impossible due to the anti-Israeli atmosphere general prevailing in the United Nations institutions and many of its member states. Thus, every vote won is the result of a complex process of bilateral negotiation in the multilateral context. Israel's election by almost 90 votes is the result of almost two years' work, and of cooperation between the Israel Foreign Ministry, the Israel Postal Company and the Ministry of Communications. The election campaign itself was spearheaded by the Israeli Mission to the UN in Geneva.
Itzhak Levanon, Israel's Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, said: "This is a significant achievement for Israel in the framework of the the UN institutions. We do not enjoy many such events, and this success leaves me hopeful for the future. I hope that this will herald further Israel achievements at the UN institutions in Geneva."
The Universal Postal Union (UPU) is located in Bern, Switzerland. The 24th Congress originally scheduled to be held in Kenya was transferred to Geneva due to the security situation in Kenya. The next UPU Congress is scheduled to be held in Doha, Qatar in 2012.
עד כאן.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
10 אוגוסט 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium. The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium. The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
The Ettinger Report
Palestinian Refugees – The Global Context
Yoram Ettinger
1. Over 100 million refugees have been created by wars since the end of WW2.
2. 79 million refugees were created during 1933-1945.
3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan. 3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan.
4. A Greek-Turk population exchange of 2 million refugees was codified by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, following the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War.
5. Millions became refugees in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia – as a result of ruthless regimes - following US withdrawal.
6. A population transfer of millions occurred among USSR and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania, Greece-Bulgaria, Denmark-Germany, etc.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
7. 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait, due to PLO’s collaboration with the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
8. 800,000 Yemenites were expelled from Saudi Arabia, due to Yemen’s support of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
9. Over 500,000 Christians fled Lebanon as a result of a series of civil war ignited by PLO and Syrian occupation.
10. 10,000 PLO members were killed and thousands of Palestinians expelled from Jordan, due to PLO terrorism and attempts to topple the Hashemite regime.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
FOR NON-ISRAEL-RELATED ARAB REFUGEES
11. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) handles all refugees, except Israeli-related Palestinians…
12. UNRWA – the largest UN agency (25,000 employees) - handles only Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
13. Unlike global refugees, Palestinian refugees are defined as any Arab who was in Palestine two years before the 1948/9 War…
14. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA covers all descendants, without generational limitation.
15. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA perpetuates – and does not resettle - Palestinian refugees.
While UNHCR is rewarded for sharply reducing the number of global refugees, UNRWA has been rewarded for perpetuating the status – and significantly inflating the number - of Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
17. In contrast with the mega-million myth, the total number of 1948/9 Palestinian refugees was 320,000. 800,000 Arabs resided within the “Green Line” before the 1948/9 War. 170,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the war. Additional 100,000 were absorbed by Israel. Moreover, 100,000 middle and upper class Arabs were absorbed by neighboring Arab states. Also, 50,000 migrant laborers returned to their states. 50,000 Bedouins joined Jordan and Sinai tribes. 10,000-15,000 were war fatalities. Total refugees = 320,000.
18. 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, following the establishment of the Jewish State. 600,000 were absorbed by Israel and the rest resettled in other non-Arab countries.
For further data, please read “The Claim of Dispossession” by Arieh Avneri, Herzl Press, NY, 1980 and “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters, Harper & Row, NY, 1984.
Yoram Ettinger
1. Over 100 million refugees have been created by wars since the end of WW2.
2. 79 million refugees were created during 1933-1945.
3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan. 3. 15 Million Hindus, Sikhs (8.5MN) and Muslims (6.5MN) were displaced, in 1947, in order to reshape British India into India and Pakistan.
4. A Greek-Turk population exchange of 2 million refugees was codified by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, following the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War.
5. Millions became refugees in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia – as a result of ruthless regimes - following US withdrawal.
6. A population transfer of millions occurred among USSR and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania, Greece-Bulgaria, Denmark-Germany, etc.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
7. 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait, due to PLO’s collaboration with the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
8. 800,000 Yemenites were expelled from Saudi Arabia, due to Yemen’s support of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
9. Over 500,000 Christians fled Lebanon as a result of a series of civil war ignited by PLO and Syrian occupation.
10. 10,000 PLO members were killed and thousands of Palestinians expelled from Jordan, due to PLO terrorism and attempts to topple the Hashemite regime.
NO CLAIM – LET ALONE NO RIGHT - OF RETURN ENSHRINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
FOR NON-ISRAEL-RELATED ARAB REFUGEES
11. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) handles all refugees, except Israeli-related Palestinians…
12. UNRWA – the largest UN agency (25,000 employees) - handles only Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
13. Unlike global refugees, Palestinian refugees are defined as any Arab who was in Palestine two years before the 1948/9 War…
14. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA covers all descendants, without generational limitation.
15. Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA perpetuates – and does not resettle - Palestinian refugees.
While UNHCR is rewarded for sharply reducing the number of global refugees, UNRWA has been rewarded for perpetuating the status – and significantly inflating the number - of Israel-related Palestinian refugees.
17. In contrast with the mega-million myth, the total number of 1948/9 Palestinian refugees was 320,000. 800,000 Arabs resided within the “Green Line” before the 1948/9 War. 170,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the war. Additional 100,000 were absorbed by Israel. Moreover, 100,000 middle and upper class Arabs were absorbed by neighboring Arab states. Also, 50,000 migrant laborers returned to their states. 50,000 Bedouins joined Jordan and Sinai tribes. 10,000-15,000 were war fatalities. Total refugees = 320,000.
18. 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries, following the establishment of the Jewish State. 600,000 were absorbed by Israel and the rest resettled in other non-Arab countries.
For further data, please read “The Claim of Dispossession” by Arieh Avneri, Herzl Press, NY, 1980 and “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters, Harper & Row, NY, 1984.
U.S. court exonerates Saudis from lawsuit filed by relatives of 9/11 victims
As well they should! After all, the Saudis are only responsible for supplying the hate-and-destroy-all-infidels educational curriculum, "Wahhabism" to every mosque (and CAIR), 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers (as well as Osama bin Laden), and mega petro-dollars to jihadis around the globe. "U.S. court rules Saudi Arabia immune in 9/11 case," from Reuters, August 14: NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks and their families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey dismissing a claim against Saudi Arabia, a Saudi charity, four princes and a Saudi banker of providing material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.
The victims and their families argued that because the defendants gave money to Muslim charities that in turn gave money to al Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks.
The appeals court found that the defendants are protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The court also noted that exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.
Of course not: they're our "friends and allies" -- except when plotting to destroy us.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Olmert to PA: You Take Land, We'll Take Arabs
Hillel Fendel and Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Just two days after reports that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has offered 93% of Judea and Samaria for a Palestinian state, it is now reported that the same offer includes a proposal to accept 20,000 Arabs inside Israel. The PA has turned it down. The latest report means that Olmert has reneged on a principle on which Israeli consensus has stood fast for over six decades - namely, what the Arabs call the Right of Return. The Arabs demand that some five million Arabs who claim that they or their ancestors were displaced from Israel during the War of Independence (1948) and Six Day War (1967) be allowed to live in Israel.
Olmert has reportedly agreed to accept 20,000 of the Arabs over the next ten years. However, his conditions stipulate that the process be called "family unification" on a "humanitarian basis," and that the Palestinian Authority drop its remaining "right of return" demands. All other Arabs who wish to "return" must live in a future Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, Olmert insists.
A response from the Prime Minister's Bureau later denied the entire report, saying that Olmert continues to insist that no refugees be allowed to enter Israel.
PA Chairman has rejected Olmert's package deal outright. Without relating to the report of the offer to accept the 20,000 Arabs, PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said that Israel's insistence on keeping 7% of Judea and Samaria is "unacceptable because it contradicts Palestinian, Arab and international resolutions." He said that Israel must withdraw all of its "settlements" and enable the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.
Livni: Against
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, leading the negotiations with the PA, is opposed to any Israeli concessions on the matter of the so-called Arab refugees.
Arab countries have long demanded that Israel allow up to five million Arabs to move from foreign countries to within Israel's pre-1967 borders. Most media have adopted the Arab term "refugees" when referring to the approximately 600,000 Arabs who fled the country during the War of Independence in 1948.
Many, if not most, of them no longer are living, but the PA defines all of their descendants as "refugees" and claims they have the "right of return," similar to the right of all Jews throughout the world to move to Israel and become Israeli citizens.
Virtually all Israeli politicians, including left-wing leaders, have rejected the demand. However, by using the term "family reunification," Prime Minister Olmert may lead to a crack in the Israeli wall of resistance.
Israeli Skepticism
An Israel official, insisting on anonymity, told Reuters that the entire plan, including the offer for almost all of Judea and Samaria while the status of Jerusalem remains undefined, was made by Olmert only in order to establish a legacy for himself before his political exit. "There will be no agreement, period," the official said.
Prime Minister Olmert's offer to Abbas is publicized a week before U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's next trip to the region. She has been pressing Israel and the PA to come up with an "agreement of principles" that can be announced before U.S. President Bush's term of office ends in January.
Obama's War on Women
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 14, 2008
The Obama campaign has at long last lifted the veil of mystery that has surrounded the Democratic presidential candidate's tax increase plans. Mr. Obama's two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, and it isn't pretty. To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he'd impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the "rich" — a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate — expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income. Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: "His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000." It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.
The Obama campaign has at long last lifted the veil of mystery that has surrounded the Democratic presidential candidate's tax increase plans. Mr. Obama's two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal, and it isn't pretty. To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he'd impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the "rich" — a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate — expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income. Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: "His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000." It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.
Recruiting Israeli Arabs for Terror
P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/13/2008
Information has come to light about an Israeli Arab who was arrested last month at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport after a return flight from Germany. Khaled Kashkoush, 29, comes from the village of Qalansuwa in central Israel and had been studying medicine for some years in Göttingen, Germany. His arrest was initially reported in Spiegel Online International.
Kashkoush has admitted during interrogation that while in Germany he was recruited by Hezbollah agents. In 2002 he made contact with Hisham Hassan, a Lebanese doctor who is also head of the German branch of the Orphaned Children Project Lebanon. That organization, in turn, raises funds for the Lebanese Martyr Institute—part of Hezbollah’s civilian network in Lebanon.
The Martyr Institute, which supports the families of Hezbollah terrorists killed during operations, spreads Khomeinist ideology both in Lebanon and abroad, and raises funds for Hezbollah, works similarly to the Iranian Shahid Foundation. In 2007 the U.S. Treasury Department declared the Shahid Foundation illegal and the FBI raided and closed its U.S. branch, known as the Goodwill Charitable Organization, in Dearborn, Michigan.
Kashkoush met every two weeks with Dr. Hassan and also helped him administer the Orphaned Children Project. After three years Dr. Hassan put Kashkoush in contact with a Lebanese called “Rami” who turned out to be the senior Hezbollah recruiter Muhammad Hashem, well known to Israeli security.
Hashem gave Kashkoush a total of 13,000 euros. In return Kashkoush was supposed to provide information about Israeli nationals studying abroad who might be potential Hezbollah recruits, and to try and find work in an Israeli hospital so he could gather information about security personnel or soldiers being treated there. At one of their meetings Hashem also gave Kashkoush a map of the latter’s home village, Qalansuwa, that had been downloaded from Google Earth and asked him to locate buildings there.
According to Spiegel Online International’s report, Kashkoush was aiming to get a job at Rambam Hospital in the Israeli city of Haifa before being nabbed at the airport. Kashkoush and his handler, Hashem, had apparently been in touch only via unregistered cellphone and email.
The case is deeply troubling to Israeli security because it fits into a pattern where Hezbollah and other terror organizations have been using Israeli Arabs as a pool for recruits. Although in the cases of three terror attacks by Israeli Arabs in Jerusalem this year no clear links to organizations seem yet to have been found, also this year two Israeli Arabs have been indicted for passing information on strategic sites to Al Qaeda and six more have been arrested for allegedly setting up an Al Qaeda-affiliated network and plotting to shoot down President Bush’s helicopter while he was visiting Israel.
Hezbollah, for its part, particularly exploits the fact that Israeli Arabs can easily be contacted and recruited while abroad, of which Kashkoush’s case is a classic instance. Israel, thus, gets the worst of all worlds: while frequently being slandered as an “apartheid state” it grants its Arab minority full freedoms that the global jihad movement, and a small but increasing number of Israeli Arabs themselves, exploit to Israel’s detriment.
And making life still harder for Israel is the fact that in Europe particularly, Hezbollah can operate freely because it’s not defined as a terrorist organization. Given that Hezbollah is responsible, among countless other acts, for blowing up the U.S. embassy in Lebanon in 1983, the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, the AMIA Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994, and in 2006 for killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers on Israeli territory while firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, the fact that Europe does not classify it as terrorist may seem astonishing.
European countries claim to fear, though, that doing so would harm prospects for Middle East peace talks. European countries also, of course, have lucrative commercial ties with Hezbollah’s patron Iran.
In other words, the Israeli security services have their work cut out for them. In the case of Khaled Kashkoush they appear to have succeeded. Since—as in other Western countries—they’re the main or even only thing that stands between normal life and catastrophe, one hopes they’ll keep working very hard.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/13/2008
Information has come to light about an Israeli Arab who was arrested last month at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport after a return flight from Germany. Khaled Kashkoush, 29, comes from the village of Qalansuwa in central Israel and had been studying medicine for some years in Göttingen, Germany. His arrest was initially reported in Spiegel Online International.
Kashkoush has admitted during interrogation that while in Germany he was recruited by Hezbollah agents. In 2002 he made contact with Hisham Hassan, a Lebanese doctor who is also head of the German branch of the Orphaned Children Project Lebanon. That organization, in turn, raises funds for the Lebanese Martyr Institute—part of Hezbollah’s civilian network in Lebanon.
The Martyr Institute, which supports the families of Hezbollah terrorists killed during operations, spreads Khomeinist ideology both in Lebanon and abroad, and raises funds for Hezbollah, works similarly to the Iranian Shahid Foundation. In 2007 the U.S. Treasury Department declared the Shahid Foundation illegal and the FBI raided and closed its U.S. branch, known as the Goodwill Charitable Organization, in Dearborn, Michigan.
Kashkoush met every two weeks with Dr. Hassan and also helped him administer the Orphaned Children Project. After three years Dr. Hassan put Kashkoush in contact with a Lebanese called “Rami” who turned out to be the senior Hezbollah recruiter Muhammad Hashem, well known to Israeli security.
Hashem gave Kashkoush a total of 13,000 euros. In return Kashkoush was supposed to provide information about Israeli nationals studying abroad who might be potential Hezbollah recruits, and to try and find work in an Israeli hospital so he could gather information about security personnel or soldiers being treated there. At one of their meetings Hashem also gave Kashkoush a map of the latter’s home village, Qalansuwa, that had been downloaded from Google Earth and asked him to locate buildings there.
According to Spiegel Online International’s report, Kashkoush was aiming to get a job at Rambam Hospital in the Israeli city of Haifa before being nabbed at the airport. Kashkoush and his handler, Hashem, had apparently been in touch only via unregistered cellphone and email.
The case is deeply troubling to Israeli security because it fits into a pattern where Hezbollah and other terror organizations have been using Israeli Arabs as a pool for recruits. Although in the cases of three terror attacks by Israeli Arabs in Jerusalem this year no clear links to organizations seem yet to have been found, also this year two Israeli Arabs have been indicted for passing information on strategic sites to Al Qaeda and six more have been arrested for allegedly setting up an Al Qaeda-affiliated network and plotting to shoot down President Bush’s helicopter while he was visiting Israel.
Hezbollah, for its part, particularly exploits the fact that Israeli Arabs can easily be contacted and recruited while abroad, of which Kashkoush’s case is a classic instance. Israel, thus, gets the worst of all worlds: while frequently being slandered as an “apartheid state” it grants its Arab minority full freedoms that the global jihad movement, and a small but increasing number of Israeli Arabs themselves, exploit to Israel’s detriment.
And making life still harder for Israel is the fact that in Europe particularly, Hezbollah can operate freely because it’s not defined as a terrorist organization. Given that Hezbollah is responsible, among countless other acts, for blowing up the U.S. embassy in Lebanon in 1983, the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, the AMIA Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in 1994, and in 2006 for killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers on Israeli territory while firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, the fact that Europe does not classify it as terrorist may seem astonishing.
European countries claim to fear, though, that doing so would harm prospects for Middle East peace talks. European countries also, of course, have lucrative commercial ties with Hezbollah’s patron Iran.
In other words, the Israeli security services have their work cut out for them. In the case of Khaled Kashkoush they appear to have succeeded. Since—as in other Western countries—they’re the main or even only thing that stands between normal life and catastrophe, one hopes they’ll keep working very hard.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.
The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.
The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.
The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.
Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.
U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.
The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.
These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.
Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.
Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.
Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.
In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.
Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.
Obama's Republicans
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 13, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obamas-republicans/83788/
The Obama campaign's conference call yesterday on Republicans who back the presidential bid of the Democrat from Illinois showcased quite a crew. There was Rita Hauser, the PLO apologist whose law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, racked up millions of dollars in legal fees over the years as a registered foreign agent of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Ms. Hauser met with Mr. Arafat as early as 1988, when America still considered him a terrorist and refused even to allow him access to the United Nations headquarters in New York. Though the meeting may have had the tacit approval of the State Department, Israel publicly objected at the time, though it too chose eventually to treat with Arafat. Ms. Hauser helped fund the Edward Said chair at Columbia for Mr. Obama's pal Rashid Khalidi. "I made a contribution," Ms. Hauser told us back in 2003, describing the chair's namesake, Professor Edward Said, as "a friend of mine. I admire him." Ms. Hauser said she was happy with Mr. Khalidi's selection as a teacher there. "I like him very much. He's a splendid guy, a Palestinian intellectual, a first-class choice, and I think everybody's pleased," she said of the professor whose errors The Sun exposed in its August 5, 2004, editorial, "What the UAE Bought."
Mr. Obama also is boasting of Lincoln Chafee, who, as a senator representing Rhode Island, was responsible for blocking Secretary Bolton from being confirmed as the American ambassador at the United Nations on the grounds that the Bush administration had been too pro-Israel. He was one of two Republicans to vote against repeal of the estate tax, even though he gained his Senate seat in 1999 by being appointed to fill the remainder of his father's term. He voted against confirming Justice Alito. He was one of only three Republicans in 2006 who voted against an extension of the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains.
Back in 2006, a New York Sun article quoted a longtime pro-Israel activist in Washington, Morris Amitay, as saying Mr. Chafee "has one of the worst records of anyone in the Senate, definitely in the bottom 10% of class as far as pro-Israel initiatives are concerned." The Sun article noted that in 2003, Mr. Chafee was one of only four senators to vote against the Syria Accountability Act, a sanctions measure. In 2002, Mr. Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against giving President Bush the authority to take military action in Iraq. According to at least one press report, Mr. Chafee left the Republican party in 2007 after losing his 2006 campaign for re-election.
The third "Republican for Obama" after Ms. Hauser and Mr. Chafee — and the only other one who participated in the call — was a former congressman from Iowa, James Leach. Mr. Leach took to the House floor in 2004 to deliver a speech titled "The Case for Restraint in Iran," warning against American or Israeli attacks on the mullahs's nuclear facilities. "It is hard to believe that outside military intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of authoritarian mullah rule," Mr. Leach said, calling instead for America to agree to a comprehensive nuclear test ban. In 2006, when the House voted 397 to 21 to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act that toughened sanctions on Tehran, Mr. Leach was one of the 21 congressmen who opposed it.
Mr. Obama has made pro-Israel statements in his campaign. He spoke at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington and at a synagogue at Boca Raton, Fla., and at Jerusalem itself. What is one to make of it if he is then going to cart out Ms. Hauser and Messrs. Chafee and Leach? At the least, it exhibits a tone-deafness that weakens the argument that Mr. Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt on these matters. If these are the Republicans who are gravitating to Mr. Obama's campaign, it is an ill omen for the Democrats.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obamas-republicans/83788/
The Obama campaign's conference call yesterday on Republicans who back the presidential bid of the Democrat from Illinois showcased quite a crew. There was Rita Hauser, the PLO apologist whose law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, racked up millions of dollars in legal fees over the years as a registered foreign agent of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Ms. Hauser met with Mr. Arafat as early as 1988, when America still considered him a terrorist and refused even to allow him access to the United Nations headquarters in New York. Though the meeting may have had the tacit approval of the State Department, Israel publicly objected at the time, though it too chose eventually to treat with Arafat. Ms. Hauser helped fund the Edward Said chair at Columbia for Mr. Obama's pal Rashid Khalidi. "I made a contribution," Ms. Hauser told us back in 2003, describing the chair's namesake, Professor Edward Said, as "a friend of mine. I admire him." Ms. Hauser said she was happy with Mr. Khalidi's selection as a teacher there. "I like him very much. He's a splendid guy, a Palestinian intellectual, a first-class choice, and I think everybody's pleased," she said of the professor whose errors The Sun exposed in its August 5, 2004, editorial, "What the UAE Bought."
Mr. Obama also is boasting of Lincoln Chafee, who, as a senator representing Rhode Island, was responsible for blocking Secretary Bolton from being confirmed as the American ambassador at the United Nations on the grounds that the Bush administration had been too pro-Israel. He was one of two Republicans to vote against repeal of the estate tax, even though he gained his Senate seat in 1999 by being appointed to fill the remainder of his father's term. He voted against confirming Justice Alito. He was one of only three Republicans in 2006 who voted against an extension of the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains.
Back in 2006, a New York Sun article quoted a longtime pro-Israel activist in Washington, Morris Amitay, as saying Mr. Chafee "has one of the worst records of anyone in the Senate, definitely in the bottom 10% of class as far as pro-Israel initiatives are concerned." The Sun article noted that in 2003, Mr. Chafee was one of only four senators to vote against the Syria Accountability Act, a sanctions measure. In 2002, Mr. Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against giving President Bush the authority to take military action in Iraq. According to at least one press report, Mr. Chafee left the Republican party in 2007 after losing his 2006 campaign for re-election.
The third "Republican for Obama" after Ms. Hauser and Mr. Chafee — and the only other one who participated in the call — was a former congressman from Iowa, James Leach. Mr. Leach took to the House floor in 2004 to deliver a speech titled "The Case for Restraint in Iran," warning against American or Israeli attacks on the mullahs's nuclear facilities. "It is hard to believe that outside military intervention would lead to anything except greater ensconcement of authoritarian mullah rule," Mr. Leach said, calling instead for America to agree to a comprehensive nuclear test ban. In 2006, when the House voted 397 to 21 to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act that toughened sanctions on Tehran, Mr. Leach was one of the 21 congressmen who opposed it.
Mr. Obama has made pro-Israel statements in his campaign. He spoke at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington and at a synagogue at Boca Raton, Fla., and at Jerusalem itself. What is one to make of it if he is then going to cart out Ms. Hauser and Messrs. Chafee and Leach? At the least, it exhibits a tone-deafness that weakens the argument that Mr. Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt on these matters. If these are the Republicans who are gravitating to Mr. Obama's campaign, it is an ill omen for the Democrats.
"Remembering Gush Katif"
Arlene Kushner
It is now three years since the expulsion of Jews from the communities of Gush Katif in the southern Gaza Strip and other communities in the northern Strip. This was likely the single most shameful act in Israel's history and has wrought nothing but misery in all respects. What has been the result with regard to the Hamas takeover is there for all the world to see.Drawing less attention is the plight of those who were taken from their homes, many of whom remain in temporary quarters and have been slighted by the government in critical ways.
It is my experience that the residents of these communities are among the most Zionist in the nation, demonstrating courage and the most admirable of values. Their situation should not be ignored.
There are reports from Arabs who worked for these Jews in agricultural ventures that the communities -- most notably Netzer Hazani -- built with such devotion, have been razed so completely that nothing remains but the sand from which they rose.
The residents of the Gush Katif communities aspire not only to build again, but ultimately to return to Gaza. I applaud this.
Hopefully in time there will be the opportunity to explore this on-going situation in greater depth.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Haaretz, Olmert has offered the Palestinians a "peace plan": 93% of Judea and Samaria. The question of Jerusalem to be left up in the air for now. And a passage between Gaza and the West Bank area to be permitted only if Fatah were to re-take Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was obvious that this wouldn't fly: The Palestinians are not about to compromise -- cannot compromise with Hamas setting the agenda. Just days ago PA prime minister, Salaam Fayyad had said that the chances of a peace deal were "nonexistent."
(More on Fayyad below.)
~~~~~~~~~~
And sure enough, Abbas has already rejected the offer.
What Abbas's spokesman said was:
"The Israeli proposal is not acceptable. The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries."
Got that? June 4, 1967 boundaries. What he's referring to are armistice lines, not boundaries at all. But the point is that there is no compromise. And can be no deal.
The spokesman said that Israel's proposal was "a waste of time."
An Israeli official, cited by Haaretz and speaking on condition of anonymity, actually said something similar. Explaining that Olmert was merely trying to establish his legacy, he declared:
"There is going to be no agreement, period."
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Fayyad, who recently said:
"The whole world must know that ending the conflict requires an end to the Israeli occupation of the lands that were occupied in 1967, including east Jerusalem. We don't distinguish between a settlement that was built today and one that was built 35 years ago."
Please know, Fayyad is considered by far the most moderate of the PA leaders.
The Palestinians, he declared, won't make any more concessions. More?
He is, he says, incensed by our treatment of the West Bank and Gaza as two separate entities -- as if this is our invention, designed to split the people. The hard reality is that there are two entities and two peoples.
~~~~~~~~~~
Fayyad is proposing a new, transitional government for the PA that includes neither members of Fatah nor of Hamas, to govern until there are elections. I don't imagine this will play well.
He says the position he currently holds in the PA government is his last -- he has no intention of continuing and is putting to rest rumors that he will run for president.
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh has reported in the Post that Ahmed Qurei, who is head of the PA negotiating team, was in Washington recently and came away discouraged by the administration's unwillingness to put further pressure on Israel. Seems we're not "flexible" enough and need to make more far-reaching concessions.
Reportedly, Rice told Qurei that the Bush administration has itself concluded that a peace agreement will not be possible this year. There is unease about pressuring Olmert because it may backfire on Kadima's chances to form a new coalition after Olmert resigns. If Kadima fails to do this, and we go to elections, the chances of further negotiations taking place are a great deal slimmer.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, two days ago Qurei proposed something else. Likely a bargaining ruse from his side, it absolutely wouldn't play from ours in any terms. If, he declared, Israel won't pull back to the '67 lines and make a Palestinian state in everything beyond the Green Line a reality, then it will become time to work on one-state solution, with the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria demanding residency Blue Cards. A disaster in the making.
~~~~~~~~~~
WAFA, the Palestinian news agency reported today that Egypt is going to be inviting all Palestinian factions to Cairo for dialogue as of next week.
~~~~~~~~~~
Regularly now, the "ceasefire" is being broken by rockets fired on Israel from Gaza. Yesterday a rocket fell near a kindergarten in Sderot.
~~~~~~~~~~
In relation to this, it is important to note a stance Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to be taking now. While forever stalling, he has repeatedly made comments about the fact that a major military operation in Gaza is not far away. But now he's shifted.
In an interview on TV on Sunday, he said that even if the IDF went into Gaza and destroyed Hamas, "down to the last office and the last activist," in the end "we would have to achieve a truce, and we would have to deal with the same parties as before."
This is a reason to not go in? Excuse me, but this is one of the stupidest statements from a military man I've yet to hear. Sure you have to deal with your enemy after you defeat him. But the point is that you'd be dealing with him from the vantage of having vanquished him and the parameters of a truce would be decidedly different.
We also, it should be noted, would increase deterrence power across the board if we took out Hamas, giving many others serious pause.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
It is now three years since the expulsion of Jews from the communities of Gush Katif in the southern Gaza Strip and other communities in the northern Strip. This was likely the single most shameful act in Israel's history and has wrought nothing but misery in all respects. What has been the result with regard to the Hamas takeover is there for all the world to see.Drawing less attention is the plight of those who were taken from their homes, many of whom remain in temporary quarters and have been slighted by the government in critical ways.
It is my experience that the residents of these communities are among the most Zionist in the nation, demonstrating courage and the most admirable of values. Their situation should not be ignored.
There are reports from Arabs who worked for these Jews in agricultural ventures that the communities -- most notably Netzer Hazani -- built with such devotion, have been razed so completely that nothing remains but the sand from which they rose.
The residents of the Gush Katif communities aspire not only to build again, but ultimately to return to Gaza. I applaud this.
Hopefully in time there will be the opportunity to explore this on-going situation in greater depth.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Haaretz, Olmert has offered the Palestinians a "peace plan": 93% of Judea and Samaria. The question of Jerusalem to be left up in the air for now. And a passage between Gaza and the West Bank area to be permitted only if Fatah were to re-take Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was obvious that this wouldn't fly: The Palestinians are not about to compromise -- cannot compromise with Hamas setting the agenda. Just days ago PA prime minister, Salaam Fayyad had said that the chances of a peace deal were "nonexistent."
(More on Fayyad below.)
~~~~~~~~~~
And sure enough, Abbas has already rejected the offer.
What Abbas's spokesman said was:
"The Israeli proposal is not acceptable. The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries."
Got that? June 4, 1967 boundaries. What he's referring to are armistice lines, not boundaries at all. But the point is that there is no compromise. And can be no deal.
The spokesman said that Israel's proposal was "a waste of time."
An Israeli official, cited by Haaretz and speaking on condition of anonymity, actually said something similar. Explaining that Olmert was merely trying to establish his legacy, he declared:
"There is going to be no agreement, period."
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Fayyad, who recently said:
"The whole world must know that ending the conflict requires an end to the Israeli occupation of the lands that were occupied in 1967, including east Jerusalem. We don't distinguish between a settlement that was built today and one that was built 35 years ago."
Please know, Fayyad is considered by far the most moderate of the PA leaders.
The Palestinians, he declared, won't make any more concessions. More?
He is, he says, incensed by our treatment of the West Bank and Gaza as two separate entities -- as if this is our invention, designed to split the people. The hard reality is that there are two entities and two peoples.
~~~~~~~~~~
Fayyad is proposing a new, transitional government for the PA that includes neither members of Fatah nor of Hamas, to govern until there are elections. I don't imagine this will play well.
He says the position he currently holds in the PA government is his last -- he has no intention of continuing and is putting to rest rumors that he will run for president.
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh has reported in the Post that Ahmed Qurei, who is head of the PA negotiating team, was in Washington recently and came away discouraged by the administration's unwillingness to put further pressure on Israel. Seems we're not "flexible" enough and need to make more far-reaching concessions.
Reportedly, Rice told Qurei that the Bush administration has itself concluded that a peace agreement will not be possible this year. There is unease about pressuring Olmert because it may backfire on Kadima's chances to form a new coalition after Olmert resigns. If Kadima fails to do this, and we go to elections, the chances of further negotiations taking place are a great deal slimmer.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, two days ago Qurei proposed something else. Likely a bargaining ruse from his side, it absolutely wouldn't play from ours in any terms. If, he declared, Israel won't pull back to the '67 lines and make a Palestinian state in everything beyond the Green Line a reality, then it will become time to work on one-state solution, with the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria demanding residency Blue Cards. A disaster in the making.
~~~~~~~~~~
WAFA, the Palestinian news agency reported today that Egypt is going to be inviting all Palestinian factions to Cairo for dialogue as of next week.
~~~~~~~~~~
Regularly now, the "ceasefire" is being broken by rockets fired on Israel from Gaza. Yesterday a rocket fell near a kindergarten in Sderot.
~~~~~~~~~~
In relation to this, it is important to note a stance Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to be taking now. While forever stalling, he has repeatedly made comments about the fact that a major military operation in Gaza is not far away. But now he's shifted.
In an interview on TV on Sunday, he said that even if the IDF went into Gaza and destroyed Hamas, "down to the last office and the last activist," in the end "we would have to achieve a truce, and we would have to deal with the same parties as before."
This is a reason to not go in? Excuse me, but this is one of the stupidest statements from a military man I've yet to hear. Sure you have to deal with your enemy after you defeat him. But the point is that you'd be dealing with him from the vantage of having vanquished him and the parameters of a truce would be decidedly different.
We also, it should be noted, would increase deterrence power across the board if we took out Hamas, giving many others serious pause.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
"Incredulous U.N."
The Human Rights Council at the United Nations has now banned any criticism regarding Sharia Law and human rights in the Islamic World. According to President Doru Romulus Costea - and following the efforts of delegates from Egypt, Pakistan and Iran - the Council will no longer tolerate criticism of either Sharia or specific fatwas in the name of human rights. In many parts of the Islamic world, it is becomingly increasing clear not only that the Quran (the written record of the original oral transmissions of Muhammad's life teachings) and the Hadith (the later delineations of those teachings) are considered sacrosanct in their perfection, but also the various implementations of these teachings, known as Sharia Law. No evolution or refinements are required. No matter that nearly every multitudinous Muslim sect or group has a differing interpretation of this God-given Sharia Law. Nor that the stoning to death of women, beheading of men, and all the 6th century niceties of feudal Arabia are still part and parcel of the immovable Islamic tradition. Never mind that Sunni will decimate Shia--and vice versa--over differences of interpretations far more modest than those between (modern) Catholics and Protestants, between Hindus and Buddhists. Islamic sect can war on Islamic sect, Arab can criticize Arab.
Because Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions are imperfect, they are fair game for any and all attacks. Since Israel, Zionism, America and the Western World were created and developed outside the Islamic World and its divine perfection, they are likewise subject to criticism.
Now, not only has the Islamic God forbidden outside criticism of the Sharia Law, but the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is its enjoined messenger on earth.
Of course, observers of the HRC should not be surprised. The ostensibly prestigious body has become a revolving door for countries with an ambivalent (or even well nigh invisible) relationship with freedom and democracy. In the two years following its replacement of the equally dictatorship-friendly Human Rights Commission, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia have all been elected to the Council. As a majority of the Council's resolutions are concerned with Israel, it would effectively cease functioning were it not for its compulsive focus on the Jewish state.
Due to this resolution the Council - and thus, perversely, the UN - is endorsing a worldview in which human interpretation and understanding has been placed beyond the pale of critical thinking and investigation as long as it's part of Sharia Law or the Islamic tradition. Perhaps we should rename the United Nations and call it the "Nations of Islam - United in Unique and Ineffable Perfection." Sounds appropriate.
Sincerely,
Mr. Leslie J. Sacks
Because Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions are imperfect, they are fair game for any and all attacks. Since Israel, Zionism, America and the Western World were created and developed outside the Islamic World and its divine perfection, they are likewise subject to criticism.
Now, not only has the Islamic God forbidden outside criticism of the Sharia Law, but the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is its enjoined messenger on earth.
Of course, observers of the HRC should not be surprised. The ostensibly prestigious body has become a revolving door for countries with an ambivalent (or even well nigh invisible) relationship with freedom and democracy. In the two years following its replacement of the equally dictatorship-friendly Human Rights Commission, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia have all been elected to the Council. As a majority of the Council's resolutions are concerned with Israel, it would effectively cease functioning were it not for its compulsive focus on the Jewish state.
Due to this resolution the Council - and thus, perversely, the UN - is endorsing a worldview in which human interpretation and understanding has been placed beyond the pale of critical thinking and investigation as long as it's part of Sharia Law or the Islamic tradition. Perhaps we should rename the United Nations and call it the "Nations of Islam - United in Unique and Ineffable Perfection." Sounds appropriate.
Sincerely,
Mr. Leslie J. Sacks
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence
MAWASSI, Gaza - Three years have passed since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, and in that time the economy of this coastal territory of 1.4 million people has gone from bad to worse.
Gas and food shortages are now being compounded by cash shortages as tens of thousands of people were unable to withdraw money from banks on Monday Still, despite their economic hardships, most Gazans insist that they prefer life here without the Israelis.
But in Mawassi – a mixed ethnic Palestinian and Bedouin town that was completely isolated from the rest of Gaza inside a Jewish settlement enclave – it's a different story.
"I want [the Israelis] to come back," says Riyad al-Laham, an unemployed father of eight who worked in the area's Jewish settlements for nearly 20 years. "All the Mawassi people used to work in the settlements and make good money. Now there is nothing to do. Even our own agricultural land is barren."
Located in the middle of Gush Katif, the former block of Jewish settlements here, Mawassi fell within the security cordon the Israeli army threw around its citizens from 2002 to 2005, when attacks from the neighboring Palestinian town of Khan Yunis came almost daily.
During those years, the people of Mawassi continued to work in Gush Katif, mainly as farmhands in hundreds of greenhouses the Jewish settlers operated.
Mr. Laham and many others in Mawassi say they preferred the relative economic security of those days to the current destitution, even if they are now free from Israeli occupation.
"Freedom to go where?" Laham asks. "I have no fuel now for my car. Where can I go? Freedom is a slogan. Even for a donkey you need money – which I don't have."
Three years ago, before Israel withdrew, Mawassi was a town of fertile corn crops and greenhouses, which – like the ones in the Jewish settlements – grew cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, and strawberries.
Now, in the ethnic Palestinian section of town, nearly half the land lies barren.
Only shells remain of many of the greenhouses that were stripped of valuable materials.
A city that fed itself with its produce and the money its men made from working with the settlers, Mawassi is now dependent on food handouts from the United Nations.
Like the rest of Gaza, its people lack cooking gas and petrol, even if they feel more secure without Israeli soldiers all around them.
In the Bedouin section of town, Salem al-Bahabsa sits with five of his 24 grandchildren in front of his chicken coop. Goats and sheep wander around the other parts of the Bedouin quarter, where people live mostly in tents with tin roofs.
"We are all now unemployed and depend on charity for food," Mr. Bahabsa says. "My sons were farmers in the greenhouses. We worked in the settlements and had resources. Now, I don't think I could survive without [the UN].... Before was better."
There are voices in Mawassi who disagree, including Laham's brother, Iyad. Reclaiming their beachfront, which became the Jewish settlement of Shirat Hayam in 2001, and the ability to move around Gaza as they please, makes the quality of life here better even if there is no longer a market for their produce, Iyad says.
"It was dark days because of the occupation," says Iyad, an employed English teacher and father of three. "Working is not everything. The checkpoints made our city a prison.... We can't say the occupation days were better than today."
But interviews in the village appear to indicate that Iayd's point of view puts him in the minority.
One main reason that life is worse now, say many villagers, is the lack of attention paid to Mawassi by both the previous Fatah and current Hamas governments since the Israeli withdrawal.
The Israelis "used to take responsibility for us as occupiers," Riyad Laham says. "Neither [Hamas nor Fatah] knocked on the doors to ask what we need. People are fed up.... We have become beggars.
"At 9 a.m. in every other country, everyone is at his desk doing his work," Laham says. "Here, people are by the side of the road with their arms crossed together."
Gas and food shortages are now being compounded by cash shortages as tens of thousands of people were unable to withdraw money from banks on Monday Still, despite their economic hardships, most Gazans insist that they prefer life here without the Israelis.
But in Mawassi – a mixed ethnic Palestinian and Bedouin town that was completely isolated from the rest of Gaza inside a Jewish settlement enclave – it's a different story.
"I want [the Israelis] to come back," says Riyad al-Laham, an unemployed father of eight who worked in the area's Jewish settlements for nearly 20 years. "All the Mawassi people used to work in the settlements and make good money. Now there is nothing to do. Even our own agricultural land is barren."
Located in the middle of Gush Katif, the former block of Jewish settlements here, Mawassi fell within the security cordon the Israeli army threw around its citizens from 2002 to 2005, when attacks from the neighboring Palestinian town of Khan Yunis came almost daily.
During those years, the people of Mawassi continued to work in Gush Katif, mainly as farmhands in hundreds of greenhouses the Jewish settlers operated.
Mr. Laham and many others in Mawassi say they preferred the relative economic security of those days to the current destitution, even if they are now free from Israeli occupation.
"Freedom to go where?" Laham asks. "I have no fuel now for my car. Where can I go? Freedom is a slogan. Even for a donkey you need money – which I don't have."
Three years ago, before Israel withdrew, Mawassi was a town of fertile corn crops and greenhouses, which – like the ones in the Jewish settlements – grew cherry tomatoes, sweet peppers, and strawberries.
Now, in the ethnic Palestinian section of town, nearly half the land lies barren.
Only shells remain of many of the greenhouses that were stripped of valuable materials.
A city that fed itself with its produce and the money its men made from working with the settlers, Mawassi is now dependent on food handouts from the United Nations.
Like the rest of Gaza, its people lack cooking gas and petrol, even if they feel more secure without Israeli soldiers all around them.
In the Bedouin section of town, Salem al-Bahabsa sits with five of his 24 grandchildren in front of his chicken coop. Goats and sheep wander around the other parts of the Bedouin quarter, where people live mostly in tents with tin roofs.
"We are all now unemployed and depend on charity for food," Mr. Bahabsa says. "My sons were farmers in the greenhouses. We worked in the settlements and had resources. Now, I don't think I could survive without [the UN].... Before was better."
There are voices in Mawassi who disagree, including Laham's brother, Iyad. Reclaiming their beachfront, which became the Jewish settlement of Shirat Hayam in 2001, and the ability to move around Gaza as they please, makes the quality of life here better even if there is no longer a market for their produce, Iyad says.
"It was dark days because of the occupation," says Iyad, an employed English teacher and father of three. "Working is not everything. The checkpoints made our city a prison.... We can't say the occupation days were better than today."
But interviews in the village appear to indicate that Iayd's point of view puts him in the minority.
One main reason that life is worse now, say many villagers, is the lack of attention paid to Mawassi by both the previous Fatah and current Hamas governments since the Israeli withdrawal.
The Israelis "used to take responsibility for us as occupiers," Riyad Laham says. "Neither [Hamas nor Fatah] knocked on the doors to ask what we need. People are fed up.... We have become beggars.
"At 9 a.m. in every other country, everyone is at his desk doing his work," Laham says. "Here, people are by the side of the road with their arms crossed together."
Olmert Has Given 'Abbas Plan for 93% of West Bank
.jpg)
News and Analysis] The Israeli daily Haaretz is reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has given Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud 'Abbas a plan that would see Israel evacuate 93 percent of post-1967 territory; cede Israeli land to the Palestinians in order to make up the difference; and create a free-passage route between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Under the plan, Israel would retain 7% of the post-1967 territory – land upon which major communities have been built since then. According to Olmert, the border would be essentially the same as Israel's controversial security buffer – a charge frequently made by Palestinians and rejected by Israel. The Olmert plan rejects a Palestinian "right of return" for families who left their homes in what became the state of Israel in 1948 – an issue many Palestinians have insisted is non-negotiable. 'Abbas adviser and spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told The Media Line that the plan is not new and that the impression that it was just now submitted by Olmert to 'Abbas is misleading. He said it's been on the table for several weeks. Abu Rudeina said the plan remains unacceptable to the Palestinians, citing what he claims are Israeli deviations in issues already agreed upon within the context of the Road Map peace plan and Annapolis understandings. These include the need for parity in "size and quality" in any land swap and a return to the pre-1967 borders. Abu Rudeina charged that re-asserting the Olmert plan at this time "shows that Israel is still not serious about the peace process." Analysts at The Media Line caution that rather than focusing on point-counterpoint between the sides, notice two events should be viewed in concert: the Olmert plan's re-assertion immediately after Palestinian Chief Negotiator Ahmad Qurei's weekend threat that the Palestinians would shift position and call for a one-state solution if Israel doesn't cooperate. Analysts suggest there is more coordination than is at first apparent.
Israeli policy may look drastically different once Olmert leaves office
Leslie Susser Published: 08/05/2008
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision to resign after a new Kadima Party leader is elected in September has opened up the possibility of radical new directions in Israeli policy.
As of now Olmert has four potential successors, since Kadima’s new leader may not be able to stave off new general elections.
Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party and Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are inveterate hawks who see peace, if it is at all possible, being achieved only in drawn-out, painstaking stages. Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Ehud Barak of the Labor Party are pragmatic doves ready to cut to the chase but wary of illusory quick fixes. Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party and Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are inveterate hawks who see peace, if it is at all possible, being achieved only in drawn-out, painstaking stages. Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Ehud Barak of the Labor Party are pragmatic doves ready to cut to the chase but wary of illusory quick fixes.
Important differences exist within the two camps.
Netanyahu views the current attempt by the Olmert government to reach final peace deals with the Palestinians and the Syrians as foolhardy. He is against what he calls "endism" -- trying to end the complex Israeli-Arab conflict with a single stroke -- and instead advocates a measured, step-by-step approach.
For example, on the Syrian track, Damascus would have to break with Tehran and demonstrate over time that the breach is final before Israel returns any part of the Golan Heights. Other powers interested in moving Syria away from Iran, including the United States and the European Union, would be called on to provide much of the quid pro quo to Syria, making it possible for Israel to retain at least part of the strategic Golan.
On the Palestinian track, Netanyahu regards the "shelf agreement" Olmert is negotiating with the relatively moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank as meaningless. Under present conditions, with Hamas controlling Gaza, Netanyahu sees no way to implement an agreement now or in the foreseeable future.
Instead, he again advocates a step-by-step framework in which each side progresses only after the other has fulfilled a commitment. Under Ariel Sharon, this performance-based, reciprocal approach led to a stalemate.
Netanyahu hopes that the creation of new economic realities in the West Bank will provide the infrastructure for political progress. The former prime minister strongly backs efforts to that effect by Tony Blair, the special envoy of the Quartet grouping of the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia.
Like Blair, Netanyahu sees economic progress driving a peace process, not the other way round.
Netanyahu's top priority, however, would be stopping Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. He has been urging world leaders to impose stronger economic sanctions on Tehran to alleviate the need for force. But if Netanyahu becomes prime minister, a pre-emptive Israeli military strike cannot be ruled out.
Mofaz, although he abandoned the Likud for Kadima, is as hawkish as Netanyahu. In fact, were the current transportation minister to win the Kadima leadership, the split between Likud and Kadima could become a thing of the past. Mofaz left Likud reluctantly when pressed by Sharon, Kadima’s founder, and after Sharon promised to make him defense minister.
The Iranian-born Mofaz takes a long view of historic processes in the Middle East who sees change evolving slowly over decades. Peace, in his view, will come only when conditions are ripe and cannot be accelerated artificially.
On the Syrian track, Mofaz says he is ready to offer "peace for peace" -- an old Likud counter to the Arab land-for-peace formula. He also would be unlikely to make territorial concessions on the Palestinian front.
Indeed Mofaz, a former army chief of staff and defense minister, would likely be less industrious than Netanyahu in creating conditions for peace, but more proactive in trying to stop Iran from going nuclear.
Mofaz, who heads the Israeli team in strategic dialogue with the United States, has warned that Iran will cross the nuclear weapons threshold in 2009 or 2010 and said that if the international community fails to interdict the process, Israel will.
Like his colleagues on the right, Barak sees the Middle East as a tough, unforgiving neighborhood in which the weak are devoured -- he once famously described Israel as a "villa in the jungle."
The difference between Barak and the hard-line Netanyahu and Mofaz is his conviction that Israel to survive must be strong and divest itself of the West Bank to ensure a Jewish majority in a democratic state.
After the failure of the Camp David negotiations with Yasser Arafat in 2000, the then-prime minister Barak was quick to claim there was no genuine Palestinian peace partner. That led him to back the notion of unilateral withdrawal as the only way to establish a border between Israel and the Palestinians.
Barak modified his thinking, however, when Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was followed by ceaseless Kassam rocket attacks. He still seems to envisage an eventual unilateral pullout from the West Bank, but only after Israel has an effective anti-missile defense system.
As defense minister, Barak has made the development of a multilayered anti-missile system -- one that provides protection against long-, medium- and short-range missiles -- a top priority.
Livni, whose parents both fought for the prestate Irgun underground, entered politics in 1996 holding fiercely hawkish positions. But as minister for regional cooperation in the first Sharon government in 2001, she underwent a profound ideological metamorphosis, turning from hawk to relative dove.
A lawyer by training, Livni places supreme importance on Israel retaining international legitimacy by withdrawing to a line close to the 1967 borders and allowing the Palestinians to establish a state of their own.
Livni, now the foreign minister, sees one of the main tasks of government as securing the best post-withdrawal conditions for Israel. For example, she insists that no Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel proper, arguing that the Palestinians cannot simultaneously demand a state and insist that their refugees be settled somewhere else.
Livni was one of the chief backers of Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, but also after the Kassams from Gaza, she says Israel cannot simply leave the West Bank and "throw the keys over the fence."
Thus, unlike her three main rivals, Livni advocates intensive negotiations with the Palestinians on a final peace deal and bringing in an international force to help implement it. But Livni is in no hurry and would be less likely than Olmert to make concessions on key principles -- like the refugee issue -- for a deal.
The first stage in the battle to succeed Olmert is scheduled for Sept. 17, when Kadima holds its primary. Livni and Mofaz are the runaway front-runners: A recent poll in Israel’s daily Ma’ariv gave Livni 51 percent of the party vote to Mofaz’s 43 percent.
The second stage in the leadership stakes could come as soon as early 2009. If Kadima’s winner fails to assemble a coalition government, the Knesset will be dissolved and early general elections would be held, bringing Netanyahu and Barak into the picture.
Whoever finally emerges as the new prime minister, a break with Olmert’s policies seems certain.
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision to resign after a new Kadima Party leader is elected in September has opened up the possibility of radical new directions in Israeli policy.
As of now Olmert has four potential successors, since Kadima’s new leader may not be able to stave off new general elections.
Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party and Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are inveterate hawks who see peace, if it is at all possible, being achieved only in drawn-out, painstaking stages. Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Ehud Barak of the Labor Party are pragmatic doves ready to cut to the chase but wary of illusory quick fixes. Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party and Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are inveterate hawks who see peace, if it is at all possible, being achieved only in drawn-out, painstaking stages. Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Ehud Barak of the Labor Party are pragmatic doves ready to cut to the chase but wary of illusory quick fixes.
Important differences exist within the two camps.
Netanyahu views the current attempt by the Olmert government to reach final peace deals with the Palestinians and the Syrians as foolhardy. He is against what he calls "endism" -- trying to end the complex Israeli-Arab conflict with a single stroke -- and instead advocates a measured, step-by-step approach.
For example, on the Syrian track, Damascus would have to break with Tehran and demonstrate over time that the breach is final before Israel returns any part of the Golan Heights. Other powers interested in moving Syria away from Iran, including the United States and the European Union, would be called on to provide much of the quid pro quo to Syria, making it possible for Israel to retain at least part of the strategic Golan.
On the Palestinian track, Netanyahu regards the "shelf agreement" Olmert is negotiating with the relatively moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank as meaningless. Under present conditions, with Hamas controlling Gaza, Netanyahu sees no way to implement an agreement now or in the foreseeable future.
Instead, he again advocates a step-by-step framework in which each side progresses only after the other has fulfilled a commitment. Under Ariel Sharon, this performance-based, reciprocal approach led to a stalemate.
Netanyahu hopes that the creation of new economic realities in the West Bank will provide the infrastructure for political progress. The former prime minister strongly backs efforts to that effect by Tony Blair, the special envoy of the Quartet grouping of the United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia.
Like Blair, Netanyahu sees economic progress driving a peace process, not the other way round.
Netanyahu's top priority, however, would be stopping Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. He has been urging world leaders to impose stronger economic sanctions on Tehran to alleviate the need for force. But if Netanyahu becomes prime minister, a pre-emptive Israeli military strike cannot be ruled out.
Mofaz, although he abandoned the Likud for Kadima, is as hawkish as Netanyahu. In fact, were the current transportation minister to win the Kadima leadership, the split between Likud and Kadima could become a thing of the past. Mofaz left Likud reluctantly when pressed by Sharon, Kadima’s founder, and after Sharon promised to make him defense minister.
The Iranian-born Mofaz takes a long view of historic processes in the Middle East who sees change evolving slowly over decades. Peace, in his view, will come only when conditions are ripe and cannot be accelerated artificially.
On the Syrian track, Mofaz says he is ready to offer "peace for peace" -- an old Likud counter to the Arab land-for-peace formula. He also would be unlikely to make territorial concessions on the Palestinian front.
Indeed Mofaz, a former army chief of staff and defense minister, would likely be less industrious than Netanyahu in creating conditions for peace, but more proactive in trying to stop Iran from going nuclear.
Mofaz, who heads the Israeli team in strategic dialogue with the United States, has warned that Iran will cross the nuclear weapons threshold in 2009 or 2010 and said that if the international community fails to interdict the process, Israel will.
Like his colleagues on the right, Barak sees the Middle East as a tough, unforgiving neighborhood in which the weak are devoured -- he once famously described Israel as a "villa in the jungle."
The difference between Barak and the hard-line Netanyahu and Mofaz is his conviction that Israel to survive must be strong and divest itself of the West Bank to ensure a Jewish majority in a democratic state.
After the failure of the Camp David negotiations with Yasser Arafat in 2000, the then-prime minister Barak was quick to claim there was no genuine Palestinian peace partner. That led him to back the notion of unilateral withdrawal as the only way to establish a border between Israel and the Palestinians.
Barak modified his thinking, however, when Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was followed by ceaseless Kassam rocket attacks. He still seems to envisage an eventual unilateral pullout from the West Bank, but only after Israel has an effective anti-missile defense system.
As defense minister, Barak has made the development of a multilayered anti-missile system -- one that provides protection against long-, medium- and short-range missiles -- a top priority.
Livni, whose parents both fought for the prestate Irgun underground, entered politics in 1996 holding fiercely hawkish positions. But as minister for regional cooperation in the first Sharon government in 2001, she underwent a profound ideological metamorphosis, turning from hawk to relative dove.
A lawyer by training, Livni places supreme importance on Israel retaining international legitimacy by withdrawing to a line close to the 1967 borders and allowing the Palestinians to establish a state of their own.
Livni, now the foreign minister, sees one of the main tasks of government as securing the best post-withdrawal conditions for Israel. For example, she insists that no Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel proper, arguing that the Palestinians cannot simultaneously demand a state and insist that their refugees be settled somewhere else.
Livni was one of the chief backers of Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, but also after the Kassams from Gaza, she says Israel cannot simply leave the West Bank and "throw the keys over the fence."
Thus, unlike her three main rivals, Livni advocates intensive negotiations with the Palestinians on a final peace deal and bringing in an international force to help implement it. But Livni is in no hurry and would be less likely than Olmert to make concessions on key principles -- like the refugee issue -- for a deal.
The first stage in the battle to succeed Olmert is scheduled for Sept. 17, when Kadima holds its primary. Livni and Mofaz are the runaway front-runners: A recent poll in Israel’s daily Ma’ariv gave Livni 51 percent of the party vote to Mofaz’s 43 percent.
The second stage in the leadership stakes could come as soon as early 2009. If Kadima’s winner fails to assemble a coalition government, the Knesset will be dissolved and early general elections would be held, bringing Netanyahu and Barak into the picture.
Whoever finally emerges as the new prime minister, a break with Olmert’s policies seems certain.
Response to JTA
Regardless of political party,Israel's present leaders and most of those who would like to be, have not admitted that there is no solution to the M.E. conflict! It is not the Palestinian/
Israeli problem;it is a virulent campaign of anti-Semitism unleashed worldwide by those who support the enemies of the Jewish state.
Israel is at the forefront of the same battle that is being waged by radical Islam against the free world. The fight in the M.E. is not about territory; it is an effort to diminish Israel in size in order to weaken and destroy the only democracy in the region. By demonizing and delegitimizing her, destruction of the State would be justified! If Coalition troops leave Iraq, Iran plans to take over; it already holds sway over Syria and Lebanon. With Jordan, Egypt, and Israel out of the way, the region would become a grand paradise for terrorism from which to attack Europe (already called 'Eurabia' by Bat Yeor)and the rest of the free world where there are already 'sleeper cells' in place ready to spring into action.
Many of Israel's leaders, like many of those in the West, show weakness when they appease the world enemy, yielding territory and freeing terrorists as 'good will gestures'. To whom - and for what purpose? Recidivism is rampant among those whose profession is murder of innocent people by those to whom life means nothing; note their inclination to suicide for the rewards of 'paradise'.
Israel must have a govenment whose motto is 'peace for peace' rather than the fictitious 'land for peace'. Israel must insure her ability to defend her citizens regardless of changes within neigh-boring countries. The territories that were captured in defensive wars must remain in her hands. History has proven that the Golan was used for attack on the State; it must be retained.
Jerusalem, the historical and religious capital of Israel from ancient times, has been united and free for all religions since it was liberated in 1967. Between 1948-'67 when the eastern part of the city was illegally occupied by Jordan, the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and 56 of the 57 synagogues destroyed. Just three years ago, immediately following the expulsion from Gush Katif, the world saw the same torching and destruction of the beautiful modern synagogues of our day - by those who still want to erase Israel's presence.
While Israel is pressed to honor past agreements, Abbas' Palestinian Authority was excused from that obligation. It did not disarm and disband as required;the terrorist group Hamas was elected 'democratically' and continues to attack Israeli cities. In the north, UNIFIL has permitted terrorist Hizbollah to rearm - in defiance of Resolution 1701 that culminated the second Lebanon War. Iran has provided weapons for the same enemies in the north and the south.
Despite these facts, the Israeli government has continued on the destructive path of yielding to the enemies on both fronts. Its present failed, self-serving leadership lacks national vision and should step down immediately, in its entirety, in the interest of the country. New elections must bring to the helm those whose first concern is the return to the values that inspired the rebirth of Israel. The Israeli narrative must be restored and taught to the country's children - for only by knowing and taking pride in her rich past can they grow to be true leaders in the future. As today, they must be guided by wisdom rather than political incentive.
The immediate problem facing Israel today is choosing who will fill the shoes necessary to walk the path with integrity of purpose during these critical times. May they step forward with alacrity!
WTW
Israeli problem;it is a virulent campaign of anti-Semitism unleashed worldwide by those who support the enemies of the Jewish state.
Israel is at the forefront of the same battle that is being waged by radical Islam against the free world. The fight in the M.E. is not about territory; it is an effort to diminish Israel in size in order to weaken and destroy the only democracy in the region. By demonizing and delegitimizing her, destruction of the State would be justified! If Coalition troops leave Iraq, Iran plans to take over; it already holds sway over Syria and Lebanon. With Jordan, Egypt, and Israel out of the way, the region would become a grand paradise for terrorism from which to attack Europe (already called 'Eurabia' by Bat Yeor)and the rest of the free world where there are already 'sleeper cells' in place ready to spring into action.
Many of Israel's leaders, like many of those in the West, show weakness when they appease the world enemy, yielding territory and freeing terrorists as 'good will gestures'. To whom - and for what purpose? Recidivism is rampant among those whose profession is murder of innocent people by those to whom life means nothing; note their inclination to suicide for the rewards of 'paradise'.
Israel must have a govenment whose motto is 'peace for peace' rather than the fictitious 'land for peace'. Israel must insure her ability to defend her citizens regardless of changes within neigh-boring countries. The territories that were captured in defensive wars must remain in her hands. History has proven that the Golan was used for attack on the State; it must be retained.
Jerusalem, the historical and religious capital of Israel from ancient times, has been united and free for all religions since it was liberated in 1967. Between 1948-'67 when the eastern part of the city was illegally occupied by Jordan, the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and 56 of the 57 synagogues destroyed. Just three years ago, immediately following the expulsion from Gush Katif, the world saw the same torching and destruction of the beautiful modern synagogues of our day - by those who still want to erase Israel's presence.
While Israel is pressed to honor past agreements, Abbas' Palestinian Authority was excused from that obligation. It did not disarm and disband as required;the terrorist group Hamas was elected 'democratically' and continues to attack Israeli cities. In the north, UNIFIL has permitted terrorist Hizbollah to rearm - in defiance of Resolution 1701 that culminated the second Lebanon War. Iran has provided weapons for the same enemies in the north and the south.
Despite these facts, the Israeli government has continued on the destructive path of yielding to the enemies on both fronts. Its present failed, self-serving leadership lacks national vision and should step down immediately, in its entirety, in the interest of the country. New elections must bring to the helm those whose first concern is the return to the values that inspired the rebirth of Israel. The Israeli narrative must be restored and taught to the country's children - for only by knowing and taking pride in her rich past can they grow to be true leaders in the future. As today, they must be guided by wisdom rather than political incentive.
The immediate problem facing Israel today is choosing who will fill the shoes necessary to walk the path with integrity of purpose during these critical times. May they step forward with alacrity!
WTW
Dividing Jerusalem? Been There, Done That.
"The Tamar Yonah Show" - Tamar Yonah
(IsraelNN.com) Been there, done that.
Recently, our leaders, with the guidance of the Bush administration, the International Community and their vision of a 'New Middle East' through the Road Map, have been bandying about with the bright new idea that a divided Jerusalem would bring peace and security to its Jewish inhabitants from Arab terror. See PM Olmert's latest statement to the People of Israel:
Olmert: Undivided Jerusalem Means More Terrorism Prime Minister Ehud Olmert maintained Monday that retaining Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel would lead to more terrorism. "Whoever thinks it is possible to live with 270,000 Arabs in Jerusalem must take into account that there will be more bulldozers, more tractors, and more cars carrying out attacks," he said. Three eastern Jerusalem Arabs carried out terrorist attacks in the capital this year; two of them used a bulldozer and a tractor. The only problem is that it's been done before. Jerusalem WAS divided back from 1949-1967, and there was no peace, no quiet, no security for the Jerusalem residents near its border.
They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Please view below these photos, which anyone can find on the internet, and see what Jerusalem looked like when she was cut in two with ugly barbed wire fences. Take a look at the buildings in Jerusalem that were under constant sniper fire from the Arab side. Imagine how it must have been to try to get from one part of the city to another when it was divided and no Israeli security was able to neutralize the Arab snipers.
Tall fence (far left) with barbed wire. Jerusalem cordoned off by the British (before 1949).
Moshe Dayan walks through the newly liberated part of the eastern section of Jerusalem, 1967.
Anti-Sniper Wall by the Notre Dame Monastery, Jerusalem, 1949 (photo: Marli Shamir)
The wall that once divided Jerusalem. Photo from Reuters.
(Above) Shot up and pock-holed Jewish building on the periphery of Jerusalem by Arabs from the other side of the border fence.
If we fell for this 'new' old idea of dividing the city and ceding land, would we once again see ourselves taking positions like these in Jerusalem? Will Jerusalem once again look like this?
The future, according to our prophets, promises a united Israel, peace, and the building of the Third Temple, which will be in the eastern part of the city. The Road Map and any plans to re-divide Jerusalem is counter to that lofty goal. Somehow, people today forget why those of us who were exiled have been brought back to Israel. Re-dividing Jerusalem is a formula that will not work. Mr Olmert, Mr Bush, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL you are building.
Fighters of the past who died to liberate and re-unite Jerusalem, thanks, but no thanks. Bush & Olmert want to give it away to our enemies. - Oh, and you can cancel the holiday that celebrates the re-unification of the city called 'Jerusalem Day'. It will be redundant. How can we celebrate a liberation and re-unification when we have given it away?
So, the next time you hear anyone speak about dividing Jerusalem, just tell them, 'Been there, done that, and it didn't work."
Egypt and Hamas Clash Over Captive Israeli Soldier
Arab media
Saleh al Naeimi
Gaza, Asharq Al-Awsat - An official Palestinian source has revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Egypt has reduced its efforts to push for a national dialogue between the Fatah and Hamas movements to a great extent. The source who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity said that the reason behind the retreat of the Egyptian role is Cairo's displeasure with the recent events in the Palestinian territories following the Gaza bombings and Egyptian officials' feeling that the Al-shujaiyah and subsequent incidents widened the chasm between the Fatah and Hamas movements and made the prospect of bridging their stands more difficult.
The source said that Egypt puts the greater part of the responsibility for these incidents on Hamas after it became convinced of the view that the Palestinian presidency conveyed to it. The source noted that many manifestations of the tension in the relations between Hamas and Egypt began to surface. In this respect, the source cited statements made by Musa Abu-Marzuq, deputy chief of the Hamas Movement Political Bureau, who asked Egypt to stand at the same distance from both the Fatah and Hamas, hinting that Cairo is biased towards Fatah.
The source pointed out that Hamas was angered by Egypt's refusal last week to allow a parliamentary delegation of the Hmams Movement deputies, led by the [Legislative] Council's Acting Speaker Ahmad Bahr, to pass through to visit a number of Arab and Islamic counties.
The source went on to say that there are deep differences between Hamas and Egypt regarding the case of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. The source added that many within Hamas accuse Cairo of procrastination in the mediation with Israel and say that Cairo has not adopted the movement's conditions for the release of the soldier. The source noted that there are many calls within Hamas to take the Shalit case from Egypt and hand it over to a European mediator, and in particular the German mediator who mediated between Hezbollah and Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinian sources said that a number of Palestinian figures close to both Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and the Hamas are attempting to mediate between the two sides to defuse the crisis that broke out between the two parties. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, the sources said these figures have prepared lists of the names of Fatah Movement detainees who are held by the Hamas security agencies and the names of Hamas detainees who are held by the Fatah Movement. The sources added that these personalities presented the lists to both Abu-Mazin [President Abbas] and deposed Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
The same sources said that these figures received promises from both Abu-Mazin and Haniyeh to positively consider the release of political detainees, except those involved in the bombings. Two days ago, the security agencies of the government of [PA Prime Minister] Salam Fayyad closed four charity societies and two shops in Hebron City in the southernmost part of the West Bank on the pretext that they are associated with Hamas. A Palestinian security source said the societies that were closed down were used by Hamas to collect money for itself and incite people against the PA. For its part, the Hamas said in a statement issued by its spokesman Fawzi Barhum that the closure of these charity societies in Hebron "confirms PA Chairman Mahmud Abbas's policy to continue to eliminate the Hamas Movement and pressure the Palestinian people." The movement added that these repressive acts are carried out "to prepare the climate for the Zionist-American projects."
Barhum said that these campaigns of closure and arrest, which are carried out by the PA in the occupied West Bank, "are part of efforts to make the Palestinian people kneel down, hunger them, and compel them to accept any insignificant solutions imposed by the US Administration and the Zionist entity."
Monday, August 11, 2008
Stop cking on the Orthodox
Exaggerated media coverage of religious girl forgotten at airport reflects anti-haredi bias
Uri Orbach
Israel Opinion
I chuckled bitterly when I saw the bogus shock of newscasters in the wake of repots about a girl forgotten by her parents at the airport. I saw the newspaper headlines and the journalists who made sure not to mention that this was an ultra-Orthodox family, but also made sure to note that police officers bought the girl strictly kosher candy. I heard a radio host reprimanding a family friend who said it was merely a “small mishap” and I realized again, for the hundredth time, that this is the era of the herd. Do you like children? Because at any given moment, thousands of children are being driven in cars without wearing safety belts, and that is more dangerous and more malicious than any girl who was forgotten because of a momentary misunderstanding at the duty-free store. Many children are neglected, beaten, and attacked, and that is much worse and much more shocking that this nonsense about the little girl.
The girl who was forgotten at Ben-Gurion International Airport is an excellent news item because it’s rare, not because of the story’s severity. “Kid was left behind, parents off to Paris” is certainly a nice headline, but it also makes people forget that much more terrible things happen to many other parents.
After all, this (abandoned! Neglected!) girl (whose parents don’t care about her at all!) did not face any kind of danger. She was walking around at a highly secure area full of police officers and good Samaritans.
What about the seculars?
When it comes to secular families, and I truly apologize for the generalization, other things happen to the children, and they happen more frequently. Not all parents know where exactly their kids hang out on a Friday night; not every secular parent can swear that his son isn’t familiar with the neighborhood drug dealer.
And what about the younger children? They have different traumas. Many secular parents abandon them for too many hours in front of TV shows that are too much for adults even. Many secular parents divorce easily without thinking too much about the ongoing trauma and damage caused to their children, even if they only have two.
Secular children are not forgotten at the airport (although last year, a strictly secular kid got lost at a Jerusalem market,) but they certainly suffer from various syndromes that are typical of the secular lifestyle.
The exaggerated coverage of the girl forgotten at the airport stems from populism, which embodies a hidden charge against families with many children that mostly happen to be religious. The subtext here is that “if you didn’t make so many children, you wouldn’t be forgetting them.” This exaggeration allows secular Israelis who view themselves as modern to look down on religious parents.
A girl was forgotten at Ben-Gurion Airport because of a mistake by her parents. This is the whole story. It shouldn’t have happened, it’s a bit odd, and it featured a happy ending, so in retrospect we can even joke about this case. Instead of turning it into a dramatic story about parents abandoning their children, it would be better if each one of us, both religious and secular, simply check where our kids are hanging out.
Full disclosure: Uri Orbach is one of five siblings; his grandparents had eight children. In 1965, when he was only five-years-old, he got lost at the (religious) beach in Tel Aviv. He was eventually found alive and well.
Uri Orbach
Israel Opinion
I chuckled bitterly when I saw the bogus shock of newscasters in the wake of repots about a girl forgotten by her parents at the airport. I saw the newspaper headlines and the journalists who made sure not to mention that this was an ultra-Orthodox family, but also made sure to note that police officers bought the girl strictly kosher candy. I heard a radio host reprimanding a family friend who said it was merely a “small mishap” and I realized again, for the hundredth time, that this is the era of the herd. Do you like children? Because at any given moment, thousands of children are being driven in cars without wearing safety belts, and that is more dangerous and more malicious than any girl who was forgotten because of a momentary misunderstanding at the duty-free store. Many children are neglected, beaten, and attacked, and that is much worse and much more shocking that this nonsense about the little girl.
The girl who was forgotten at Ben-Gurion International Airport is an excellent news item because it’s rare, not because of the story’s severity. “Kid was left behind, parents off to Paris” is certainly a nice headline, but it also makes people forget that much more terrible things happen to many other parents.
After all, this (abandoned! Neglected!) girl (whose parents don’t care about her at all!) did not face any kind of danger. She was walking around at a highly secure area full of police officers and good Samaritans.
What about the seculars?
When it comes to secular families, and I truly apologize for the generalization, other things happen to the children, and they happen more frequently. Not all parents know where exactly their kids hang out on a Friday night; not every secular parent can swear that his son isn’t familiar with the neighborhood drug dealer.
And what about the younger children? They have different traumas. Many secular parents abandon them for too many hours in front of TV shows that are too much for adults even. Many secular parents divorce easily without thinking too much about the ongoing trauma and damage caused to their children, even if they only have two.
Secular children are not forgotten at the airport (although last year, a strictly secular kid got lost at a Jerusalem market,) but they certainly suffer from various syndromes that are typical of the secular lifestyle.
The exaggerated coverage of the girl forgotten at the airport stems from populism, which embodies a hidden charge against families with many children that mostly happen to be religious. The subtext here is that “if you didn’t make so many children, you wouldn’t be forgetting them.” This exaggeration allows secular Israelis who view themselves as modern to look down on religious parents.
A girl was forgotten at Ben-Gurion Airport because of a mistake by her parents. This is the whole story. It shouldn’t have happened, it’s a bit odd, and it featured a happy ending, so in retrospect we can even joke about this case. Instead of turning it into a dramatic story about parents abandoning their children, it would be better if each one of us, both religious and secular, simply check where our kids are hanging out.
Full disclosure: Uri Orbach is one of five siblings; his grandparents had eight children. In 1965, when he was only five-years-old, he got lost at the (religious) beach in Tel Aviv. He was eventually found alive and well.
The PRIVILAGE to year and long for a home and homeland
Anita Tucker
Dearest friends who care and feel
It is Tisha B'Av morning, marking for caring people the world over the end of an extended, so sad period, marking the enemy's penetrating the walls of Jerusalem, destroying the city and the Beit Hamikdash and all our people being sent to exile many many years ago. In four days, on the 13th of Av, our community will commemorate the long year and half from the time our hometown was declared an area to be destroyed, the long struggle to protest and prevent this via democratic means that were trampled, until the very black day that our own IDF soldiers were sent under the flag of our State of Israel to expel us from our homes and destroy all, when 30 years of tears, sweat, hard work, investments, were turned into a pile of rubble.
All this to enable the enemy terrorists to prepare a base to attack and eventual G-d forbid try to destroy and conquer all of Israel.
We learn by reading the Tenach, the Bible, how beautiful were the people of Israel and their life style when the Beit Hamikdash stood and the people of Israel hugged the Torah's guidance, and how we joyfully made a place from which the plentiful could be showered upon all that adhered to the Source of Goodness,. We learn how we were then a powerful nation and how the powerful nations around the world respected Israel and wanted to make peace with Israel.
I have told over the last three years on endless occasions, in endless locations my lifetime stories of how barren Netzer Hazani, Gush Katif was when we first were sent there by the Government of Israel.
I have told endless times how it turned into a most beautiful area filled with marvelous homes and families , synagogues, productive agriculture, institutes of learning and research, tourism.
The Arabs around respected us up until Israel agreed to bend to demands of others in ways that weakened Israel .The Arab culture is very different than ours and saw this as a sign of weakness and began trying to trample us down because we showed weakness.
Yet we in Gush Katif had fortitude to ride the waves of the most difficult of times with assurances that G-d was behind us with doses of daily miracles to help us hold up. In Netzer Hazani three of our dear ones were murdered by Arab terror including our dear Rav Yitchak Arama H.Y.D.thousand of missles and rockets were launched against us by the Arab terrorists. Our personal dialogue with the Almighty gave us strength and faith.
Each time I tell the story, and I have told it thousand of times, my longing for my home and for my homeland become intensified.
Each time I tell the story of Netzer Hazani, of the communities of Gush Katif, my determination to succeed to build our town anew, to succeed in getting the funds that the Prime Minister's office is demanding of us to meet the shortfall they insist we pay to acquire the agricultural lands for the officially approved town to be built for all the families of our community.
Each time I tell the story of our beautiful town having been built in inert sand dunes that had been barren since Abraham and Isaac.
Each time I retell how the Muchtars (mayor's religious leaders) of the then sleepy Arab towns came to welcome us with bread and salt in their tradition and tell us we are crazy to want to build here because in their tradition this area is called "the cursed land".
I tell how the cursed land became the blessed land, and our children grew up feeling and knowing they lived in a blessed land.
As I tell for the umpteen times how all we built with G-d's help was destroyed to rubble, my yearning and longing for my home and homeland becomes so very intense that it is hard to describe. This yearning and longing is what I hear in the voices and see in the eyes of all my friends and neighbors of my community of Netzer Hazani.
This year is the third anniversary of the destruction of our town of Netzer Hazani, the first of the civilian towns built in Gush Katif. It is the third anniversary of the destruction of the 23 towns that were Gush Katif..
The number three has a painful ring of permanence, as the halachic concept of three makes a "chazaka "- It is as if the number three yells at us -
"nu!! Finally now accept that all is destroyed, move on...."
This year I realize and feel in my heart and soul that one of the positive sides of this aching yearning for our home and homeland is that I have the zchut, the privilege, to feel intensely, a bit like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and Rabbi Yehoshua who stood on Mt. Scopus looking at Mt. Zion and saw the foxes roaming in the abandon of the ruins of destruction of the Holy Temple and cried bitter tears over this destruction as he yearned so intensely for what was.
When I saw the video news strips of the terrorists practicing their killing of Jews in the ruins of Neve Dekalim and Atzmona I felt a bit like these Rabbi's and their students.
This year though, I and my neighbors had the privilege to feel a bit like Rabbi Akiva who stood looking towards Mt Zion and laughed --because as he saw the fulfillment of the prophesies of destruction he knew the prophesies of comfort and rebuilding would as well be fulfilled.
Recently Arab acquaintances in the Gaza strip told some of my friends that in the ruins of Netzer Hazani one can barely recall the town that was all of Netzer Hazani looks again like the barren sand dunes that it was when we first came.
This makes it easier to believe that soon our people and our land will have a bracha, a blessing and with it we will build anew when the time is ripe.
Meanwhile we are struggling desperately to raise the two million dollars that the Prime Minister's office of Israel is demanding of us before we can sign the contract for the farm land acquisition, and the infrastructure to build a town for our community.
It is a shortfall that they have between what was budgeted for the acquisition of the town and what they realized it would actually cost after the Government of Israel made and approved the detailed plans for this new town.
We had a town, it was destroyed with a law ensuring it would be replaced, and all we ask is to finally ensure this will be.
Our families are living in the stomach of a question mark (?)--will we ever be able to build anew and have a town for our community?
What will happen in one year when the interim shoddy caravillas are scheduled to be destroyed as indicated in the contract between Kibbutz Ein Tzurim and the Prime Minister's office? Will our families have to buy new containers to pack their belongings to be stored again until another interim site is located?
We MUST AND WILL build anew . The values and spirit salvaged from the rubble of our lifetime cannot be destroyed. We must have the land to build anew where the values and spirit that our country so needs will again blossom and flourish.
We have till now raised over $800,000 towards the $ two million dollars demanded of us. You can make a difference with whatever sum you participate with towards this effort.
Please recall our story of having built beautiful Gush Katif from barren sand dunes and yearn with me for my home, for my homeland. Yearn with me today for Jerusalem standing in its glory, yearn with me for the Beit Hamikdash in the best of times.
Smile with me as Rabbi Akiva, with the belief that the prophesies of comfort, of good times, of building anew will be.
Thanks for caring, caring gives strength, anita
Please contact me if you would like to make a difference
Israel 0547775268
USA and others countries 972-547775268
tucker.anita@gmail.com
www.netzach.org.il (press English and then donate for details )
Comment: I have written about this many times but my words cannot measure up to those of Anita Tucker, of Netzer Hazani, who tells the story of the expulsion from Gush Katif firsthand. She was known as 'the celery lady' and whenever we visited that community she welcomed us enthusiastically with a talk about how she felt blessed to be where she was living, doing what she was doing - raising her celery - and we had a taste of her delicious vegetable.
I remember that terrible day 3 years ago when we watched on tv, unbelieving, the forced evacuation of Jews from their communities. Later that evening we stood in the plaza in front of the Kotel waiting for the buses that were bringing in our weeping Jewish refugees from Netzer Hazani. As they approached I saw Anita; as she passed me, holding her head high she said, " "I am a spiritual person - I have no home now - I am coming to the house of the Lord!".. and she walked on with others to the Wall .....
Those who had favored the 'disengagement' thought it a 'great success'.....maybe 'a painful concession ' in the interest of peace. Others thought that it was a necessary exercise to test the intentions of the enemy ( who has never been required to do anything in the interest of that same 'peace'. As if we had not had ample proof of the results. Even with that we have a government that wants to expel up to 250,000 more citizens of Israel; they have not learned a thing from the fiasco of 3 years ago that involved 'only' 10,000!
The stress has caused family separations, divorces, teen problems, financial difficulties, and more. It has brought the enemy closer and Jewish communities are in greater danger of attack.
Exactly 3 years later, Anita has written the moving letter that follows and has asked that it be forwarded. For that reason I am sending this out ---that everyone may learn and understand -- that we must never allow a repetition of that horrendous chapter in our history.
Finally, lest those who live in other countries believe that it has nothing to do with them, it is time to connect the dots. Israel's enemies are part of the network of international enemies. The sooner we all learn this the better chance we have of protecting ourselves. Anita's letter follows:
Chana
Dearest friends who care and feel
It is Tisha B'Av morning, marking for caring people the world over the end of an extended, so sad period, marking the enemy's penetrating the walls of Jerusalem, destroying the city and the Beit Hamikdash and all our people being sent to exile many many years ago. In four days, on the 13th of Av, our community will commemorate the long year and half from the time our hometown was declared an area to be destroyed, the long struggle to protest and prevent this via democratic means that were trampled, until the very black day that our own IDF soldiers were sent under the flag of our State of Israel to expel us from our homes and destroy all, when 30 years of tears, sweat, hard work, investments, were turned into a pile of rubble.
All this to enable the enemy terrorists to prepare a base to attack and eventual G-d forbid try to destroy and conquer all of Israel.
We learn by reading the Tenach, the Bible, how beautiful were the people of Israel and their life style when the Beit Hamikdash stood and the people of Israel hugged the Torah's guidance, and how we joyfully made a place from which the plentiful could be showered upon all that adhered to the Source of Goodness,. We learn how we were then a powerful nation and how the powerful nations around the world respected Israel and wanted to make peace with Israel.
I have told over the last three years on endless occasions, in endless locations my lifetime stories of how barren Netzer Hazani, Gush Katif was when we first were sent there by the Government of Israel.
I have told endless times how it turned into a most beautiful area filled with marvelous homes and families , synagogues, productive agriculture, institutes of learning and research, tourism.
The Arabs around respected us up until Israel agreed to bend to demands of others in ways that weakened Israel .The Arab culture is very different than ours and saw this as a sign of weakness and began trying to trample us down because we showed weakness.
Yet we in Gush Katif had fortitude to ride the waves of the most difficult of times with assurances that G-d was behind us with doses of daily miracles to help us hold up. In Netzer Hazani three of our dear ones were murdered by Arab terror including our dear Rav Yitchak Arama H.Y.D.thousand of missles and rockets were launched against us by the Arab terrorists. Our personal dialogue with the Almighty gave us strength and faith.
Each time I tell the story, and I have told it thousand of times, my longing for my home and for my homeland become intensified.
Each time I tell the story of Netzer Hazani, of the communities of Gush Katif, my determination to succeed to build our town anew, to succeed in getting the funds that the Prime Minister's office is demanding of us to meet the shortfall they insist we pay to acquire the agricultural lands for the officially approved town to be built for all the families of our community.
Each time I tell the story of our beautiful town having been built in inert sand dunes that had been barren since Abraham and Isaac.
Each time I retell how the Muchtars (mayor's religious leaders) of the then sleepy Arab towns came to welcome us with bread and salt in their tradition and tell us we are crazy to want to build here because in their tradition this area is called "the cursed land".
I tell how the cursed land became the blessed land, and our children grew up feeling and knowing they lived in a blessed land.
As I tell for the umpteen times how all we built with G-d's help was destroyed to rubble, my yearning and longing for my home and homeland becomes so very intense that it is hard to describe. This yearning and longing is what I hear in the voices and see in the eyes of all my friends and neighbors of my community of Netzer Hazani.
This year is the third anniversary of the destruction of our town of Netzer Hazani, the first of the civilian towns built in Gush Katif. It is the third anniversary of the destruction of the 23 towns that were Gush Katif..
The number three has a painful ring of permanence, as the halachic concept of three makes a "chazaka "- It is as if the number three yells at us -
"nu!! Finally now accept that all is destroyed, move on...."
This year I realize and feel in my heart and soul that one of the positive sides of this aching yearning for our home and homeland is that I have the zchut, the privilege, to feel intensely, a bit like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and Rabbi Yehoshua who stood on Mt. Scopus looking at Mt. Zion and saw the foxes roaming in the abandon of the ruins of destruction of the Holy Temple and cried bitter tears over this destruction as he yearned so intensely for what was.
When I saw the video news strips of the terrorists practicing their killing of Jews in the ruins of Neve Dekalim and Atzmona I felt a bit like these Rabbi's and their students.
This year though, I and my neighbors had the privilege to feel a bit like Rabbi Akiva who stood looking towards Mt Zion and laughed --because as he saw the fulfillment of the prophesies of destruction he knew the prophesies of comfort and rebuilding would as well be fulfilled.
Recently Arab acquaintances in the Gaza strip told some of my friends that in the ruins of Netzer Hazani one can barely recall the town that was all of Netzer Hazani looks again like the barren sand dunes that it was when we first came.
This makes it easier to believe that soon our people and our land will have a bracha, a blessing and with it we will build anew when the time is ripe.
Meanwhile we are struggling desperately to raise the two million dollars that the Prime Minister's office of Israel is demanding of us before we can sign the contract for the farm land acquisition, and the infrastructure to build a town for our community.
It is a shortfall that they have between what was budgeted for the acquisition of the town and what they realized it would actually cost after the Government of Israel made and approved the detailed plans for this new town.
We had a town, it was destroyed with a law ensuring it would be replaced, and all we ask is to finally ensure this will be.
Our families are living in the stomach of a question mark (?)--will we ever be able to build anew and have a town for our community?
What will happen in one year when the interim shoddy caravillas are scheduled to be destroyed as indicated in the contract between Kibbutz Ein Tzurim and the Prime Minister's office? Will our families have to buy new containers to pack their belongings to be stored again until another interim site is located?
We MUST AND WILL build anew . The values and spirit salvaged from the rubble of our lifetime cannot be destroyed. We must have the land to build anew where the values and spirit that our country so needs will again blossom and flourish.
We have till now raised over $800,000 towards the $ two million dollars demanded of us. You can make a difference with whatever sum you participate with towards this effort.
Please recall our story of having built beautiful Gush Katif from barren sand dunes and yearn with me for my home, for my homeland. Yearn with me today for Jerusalem standing in its glory, yearn with me for the Beit Hamikdash in the best of times.
Smile with me as Rabbi Akiva, with the belief that the prophesies of comfort, of good times, of building anew will be.
Thanks for caring, caring gives strength, anita
Please contact me if you would like to make a difference
Israel 0547775268
USA and others countries 972-547775268
tucker.anita@gmail.com
www.netzach.org.il (press English and then donate for details )
Comment: I have written about this many times but my words cannot measure up to those of Anita Tucker, of Netzer Hazani, who tells the story of the expulsion from Gush Katif firsthand. She was known as 'the celery lady' and whenever we visited that community she welcomed us enthusiastically with a talk about how she felt blessed to be where she was living, doing what she was doing - raising her celery - and we had a taste of her delicious vegetable.
I remember that terrible day 3 years ago when we watched on tv, unbelieving, the forced evacuation of Jews from their communities. Later that evening we stood in the plaza in front of the Kotel waiting for the buses that were bringing in our weeping Jewish refugees from Netzer Hazani. As they approached I saw Anita; as she passed me, holding her head high she said, " "I am a spiritual person - I have no home now - I am coming to the house of the Lord!".. and she walked on with others to the Wall .....
Those who had favored the 'disengagement' thought it a 'great success'.....maybe 'a painful concession ' in the interest of peace. Others thought that it was a necessary exercise to test the intentions of the enemy ( who has never been required to do anything in the interest of that same 'peace'. As if we had not had ample proof of the results. Even with that we have a government that wants to expel up to 250,000 more citizens of Israel; they have not learned a thing from the fiasco of 3 years ago that involved 'only' 10,000!
The stress has caused family separations, divorces, teen problems, financial difficulties, and more. It has brought the enemy closer and Jewish communities are in greater danger of attack.
Exactly 3 years later, Anita has written the moving letter that follows and has asked that it be forwarded. For that reason I am sending this out ---that everyone may learn and understand -- that we must never allow a repetition of that horrendous chapter in our history.
Finally, lest those who live in other countries believe that it has nothing to do with them, it is time to connect the dots. Israel's enemies are part of the network of international enemies. The sooner we all learn this the better chance we have of protecting ourselves. Anita's letter follows:
Chana
Sunday, August 10, 2008
"Tisha B'Av Reflections"
Arlene Kushner
With full acknowledgement to Rav Ari Kahn, whose Tisha B'Av shiur (lesson) I attended this morning. Sharing the essence of the message...
We are taught that the Second Temple was destroyed because of the sin of the spies. The children of Israel had been brought out of Egypt by God, and received the Torah at Sinai and had come to the edge of Canaan, which had been promised to the people by the Almighty. Moses sent 12 spies, one from each tribe, to check out the Land. They returned with disastrous stories of the impossibility of entering and conquering the Land. Ten of the 12 spies were exceedingly negative (the two who were not were Caleb and Joshua, who later inherited the mantle of leadership from Moses).
What did they say? "...we were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and so we were in their eyes!"
There was no way for the spies to know how they were perceived by the inhabitants of Canaan -- what they said was a projection. For it was in their OWN eyes that they were like grasshoppers.
~~~~~~~~~~
The sin was in seeing themselves as being no more than "like grasshoppers," and thus incapable of fulfilling their God-given mission: In not understanding who they were, not remembering what had already been done for them, and ultimately not rallying to see through what they were charged to do.
When they conveyed this negative perception to the people on their return, they generated fear, and the people wept. And so God delayed the entry of the people into the Land by 40 years.
~~~~~~~~~~
For me, the parallel of this lesson to today's situation is painful. Those in positions of power here, almost to a person, see themselves "like grasshoppers." They are unable to comprehend the strength of our nation, or grasp our purpose. After 2,000 years of exile, following that Second Destruction, we have been given the merit of returning to the Land. But we do not have leaders who stand strong in this recognition. They are, instead, always afraid, unable to claim our heritage and our rights -- worrying what the world will say, making concessions, conceding fault.
In seeing themselves "like grasshoppers," those at the helm of our nation risk all that we are meant to be.
~~~~~~~~~~
An essay by Rabbi David Algaze, shared with me by Izzy Kaplan, on this very theme, is called "Fear of Power." I have not discovered a URL for this piece, which would enable you to access in its entirety, but I wish to share portions of it here:
"...They [the spies] instilled fear in the hearts of the nation. That fear is the feebleness that has plagued the people of Israel until the present and that is the reason for the perpetuity of the night of Tish’a be’Ab. The same lack of courage that afflicted our ancestors continued to trouble their children. Sadly, as long as that absence of vigor continues to rule our hearts there is going to be a Tish’a Be’Ab in our calendar...
"In our times we need to reflect on the reason why Tish’a Be’Ab still exists among us....Have we developed the courage that Hashem expects from us and are [we] ready to ascend to the Land? Would we become heirs of the weak-minded, whining and weeping men of that generation or would we be the children of Caleb and Joshua who did not doubt the strength and power of Israel?
"...Rav Filber suggests that our generation suffers from a sense of inferiority that is the result of our experience in Exile. The return of Israel to its land requires a new spirit, the courage to fight for what is ours and a determination not to flinch at the hour of confrontation with the enemies of Israel.
"...Tish’a Be’Ab is indeed a sad reminiscence but it can also become the beginning of the Redemption. The Rabbis predict that the Messiah will be born on this day and that Tish’a Be’Ab will one day become a major holiday of rejoicing (mo’ed). This promise will be realized only when Israel will shed its weeping stance and affirm its power and strength in front of the whole world."
With full acknowledgement to Rav Ari Kahn, whose Tisha B'Av shiur (lesson) I attended this morning. Sharing the essence of the message...
We are taught that the Second Temple was destroyed because of the sin of the spies. The children of Israel had been brought out of Egypt by God, and received the Torah at Sinai and had come to the edge of Canaan, which had been promised to the people by the Almighty. Moses sent 12 spies, one from each tribe, to check out the Land. They returned with disastrous stories of the impossibility of entering and conquering the Land. Ten of the 12 spies were exceedingly negative (the two who were not were Caleb and Joshua, who later inherited the mantle of leadership from Moses).
What did they say? "...we were like grasshoppers in our eyes, and so we were in their eyes!"
There was no way for the spies to know how they were perceived by the inhabitants of Canaan -- what they said was a projection. For it was in their OWN eyes that they were like grasshoppers.
~~~~~~~~~~
The sin was in seeing themselves as being no more than "like grasshoppers," and thus incapable of fulfilling their God-given mission: In not understanding who they were, not remembering what had already been done for them, and ultimately not rallying to see through what they were charged to do.
When they conveyed this negative perception to the people on their return, they generated fear, and the people wept. And so God delayed the entry of the people into the Land by 40 years.
~~~~~~~~~~
For me, the parallel of this lesson to today's situation is painful. Those in positions of power here, almost to a person, see themselves "like grasshoppers." They are unable to comprehend the strength of our nation, or grasp our purpose. After 2,000 years of exile, following that Second Destruction, we have been given the merit of returning to the Land. But we do not have leaders who stand strong in this recognition. They are, instead, always afraid, unable to claim our heritage and our rights -- worrying what the world will say, making concessions, conceding fault.
In seeing themselves "like grasshoppers," those at the helm of our nation risk all that we are meant to be.
~~~~~~~~~~
An essay by Rabbi David Algaze, shared with me by Izzy Kaplan, on this very theme, is called "Fear of Power." I have not discovered a URL for this piece, which would enable you to access in its entirety, but I wish to share portions of it here:
"...They [the spies] instilled fear in the hearts of the nation. That fear is the feebleness that has plagued the people of Israel until the present and that is the reason for the perpetuity of the night of Tish’a be’Ab. The same lack of courage that afflicted our ancestors continued to trouble their children. Sadly, as long as that absence of vigor continues to rule our hearts there is going to be a Tish’a Be’Ab in our calendar...
"In our times we need to reflect on the reason why Tish’a Be’Ab still exists among us....Have we developed the courage that Hashem expects from us and are [we] ready to ascend to the Land? Would we become heirs of the weak-minded, whining and weeping men of that generation or would we be the children of Caleb and Joshua who did not doubt the strength and power of Israel?
"...Rav Filber suggests that our generation suffers from a sense of inferiority that is the result of our experience in Exile. The return of Israel to its land requires a new spirit, the courage to fight for what is ours and a determination not to flinch at the hour of confrontation with the enemies of Israel.
"...Tish’a Be’Ab is indeed a sad reminiscence but it can also become the beginning of the Redemption. The Rabbis predict that the Messiah will be born on this day and that Tish’a Be’Ab will one day become a major holiday of rejoicing (mo’ed). This promise will be realized only when Israel will shed its weeping stance and affirm its power and strength in front of the whole world."
How to Produce Real Change
Ken Connor
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Change!
It's the mantra of the political season. But what kind of change—from what to what?
Will taxes go up or down? Will we stay in Iraq or get out? Will marriage be protected or abandoned? Will we get restrained judges or judicial activists? Will our children have fewer or more educational choices? Will we go nuclear or stay with coal and oil? Will our foreign policy be interventionist or isolationist? The list of questions goes on and on, and voters should demand concrete answers. "Change" can't be evaluated in a vacuum. Before voters can make an assessment of the wisdom of change, they have to know what's on the table. What are they giving up and what can they expect to get in its place?
And let's face it—it's easier to talk about change than produce it. There are lots people who talk the talk, but only a few who have walked the walk.
Wilberforce: An Agent of Change
One of the most effective agents of change in his time was William Wilberforce. A member of the British Parliament from 1780 to 1825, Wilberforce is a model for anyone who wants to change their culture and create a more just society. Through bold leadership, tremendous personal sacrifice, and unflagging effort, Wilberforce changed not only his world, but ours as well. His leadership led to the elimination of the slave trade in the British Empire, a change that had enormous social and economic repercussions. His achievements spurred the abolitionist movement in our own country and the rest is history.
Sadly, Wilberforce is little known in contemporary society. Heroes are out, pop tarts are in. Britney and Paris are household words but Wilberforce is not. When people say "May the Force be with you," they aren't talking about William Wilberforce. Yet, in the annals of history, Wilberforce is a shining example of a man who lived out his convictions and, in the process, transformed his culture. But, as great as his achievements are, perhaps even more impressive is how Wilberforce did what he did.
A devout Christian, Wilberforce believed that all men have equal standing under God and that neither race nor ethnicity diminishes human worth. He was convinced that Christ died for the slave and the free, and that slavery was not only a terrible tragedy, but also an affront to both God and man.
How He Did What He Did
In his endeavors to cure the evil of slavery, Wilberforce employed a multi-pronged approach, attacking the problem on a variety of fronts. His theaters of engagement included the political, legal, social, and religious arenas. He engaged both the elites and the common folk in each arena in pursuit of his goals. In doing so, he marshaled the consensus necessary to bring about seismic change.
The recently-released book, Creating the Better Hour: Lessons from William Wilberforce, contains a wonderful collection of essays focused on Wilberforce's life, his principles, and the implications of his work for today. Wilberforce saw slavery as a great injustice, but he realized that it could not be cured merely by passing a law.
So Wilberforce focused on changing the moral climate of society. He developed a strong core of friends, known as the Clapham Circle, who supported his ideas and worked with him to advance his twin causes of abolishing the slave trade and reforming morals in Britain. They published books, poems, and pamphlets in an attempt to persuade their fellow Britons. Wilberforce convinced King George III to issue a "Proclamation for the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue and for the Preventing of Vice, Profaneness and Immorality." Wilberforce understood that the reformation of morals required changing the mindset of both the upper and lower classes. He realized that he could achieve his goal of abolishing slavery only if morality became "fashionable" and if it produced authentic virtue over time.
In their essay within Creating the Better Hour, Mark Rodgers and Bill Wichterman explain Wilberforce's understanding of cultural change: "Compliance with a particular law presupposes a particular kind of civilization. Once that civilization morphs into something new, old laws fall into disuse. In short, cultural mores dictate which laws pass and are obeyed, and which laws are defeated or ignored. There is a tendency on the part of many to overstate the importance of politics in shaping culture."
According to Rodgers and Wichterman, Wilberforce thought, "Creating a just society is only partially a function of law, and much more a product of other institutions—family, religion, education, entertainment, journalism, civic associations, etc.—institutions that help us to shape what we love and what we hate." Wilberforce held a traditional conservative view of society. He believed government could not be the savior of a society and law could not form a culture. He understood that only the people themselves could maintain a moral culture and a just society. If the people became corrupt, there was no saving society.
Wilberforce also understood the importance of substantive, respectful discussion for changing minds and hearts. According to Kevin Belmonte and Chuck Stetson in their essay in Creating the Better Hour, Wilberforce recognized "the difficulty of judging right in complicated cases, which should teach those who think differently on political subjects, mutual moderation, forbearance, and candor." He understood that proper Christian conduct requires humility and love even when speaking harsh truths. Wilberforce wrote, "Walk charitably. Wherever you are, remember that your conduct and conversation may have some effect on the minds of those with whom you are."
Wilberforce did not limit his arguments to the Bible. While he employed explicitly religious arguments, he did not hesitate to employ "secular" arguments based on statistics and pragmatism. Wilberforce pursued his goal on all possible levels and with all possible arguments, while maintaining humility and respect for his audience.
One particularly impressive instance of Wilberforce's creative tactics is explained by Chuck Stetson: The abolitionists made a wood cameo featuring a slave kneeling in shackles and the phrase, "Am I Not a Man and a Brother?" This cameo became a public symbol worn by pro-abolitionist women as jewelry and was integrated into other goods, including snuff boxes. A single picture became the symbol for a movement.
While Wilberforce understood the limitations of laws, he worked as hard in the political realm as any other. Wilberforce was politically savvy and willing to work with those who had vastly different agendas as long as they advanced his cause. Wilberforce understood that legal change and cultural change are co-dependent, so he worked incessantly for both. His twenty years of work within Parliament led to the passage of the Abolition Bill on February 23, 1807.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Wilberforce saw his goals as God-given. He began his strong quest for the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners after coming to a strong faith in God. As a fervent Christian, he based his quest to abolish slavery on biblical morality. He exhorted Parliament, "Never, never will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name, released ourselves from the load of guilt, under which we at present labour, and extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country."
Lessons To Be Learned
There are lessons to be learned from Wilberforce's great efforts. He understood better than most that it is not just what you say, but how you say it that convinces others of the truth. He held steadfastly to his Christian convictions in the face of demagogues of all types and, while he spent twenty years waging war over a controversial issue, charity always tempered his passion.
The world still contains many grave affronts to human dignity. Men, women, and children are still enslaved around the world through forced labor, bonded labor, and sex trafficking (at least 12.3 million according to Beth Herzfeld's essay in Creating the Better Hour). Women are forced into marriages, widows are burned to death, some people are discriminated against because of their skin color, and others are starved to death by tyrannical governments. Here at home we give license to the powerful to exterminate the young or old or handicapped whenever we find them inconvenient. Wilberforce's pursuit of human equality and freedom is certainly far from finished.
We would do well to remember Wilberforce's work and emulate it. We must advocate ceaselessly for the equality and dignity of all human beings, even as we retain a spirit of charity toward our opponents and those whom we are trying to persuade.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Change!
It's the mantra of the political season. But what kind of change—from what to what?
Will taxes go up or down? Will we stay in Iraq or get out? Will marriage be protected or abandoned? Will we get restrained judges or judicial activists? Will our children have fewer or more educational choices? Will we go nuclear or stay with coal and oil? Will our foreign policy be interventionist or isolationist? The list of questions goes on and on, and voters should demand concrete answers. "Change" can't be evaluated in a vacuum. Before voters can make an assessment of the wisdom of change, they have to know what's on the table. What are they giving up and what can they expect to get in its place?
And let's face it—it's easier to talk about change than produce it. There are lots people who talk the talk, but only a few who have walked the walk.
Wilberforce: An Agent of Change
One of the most effective agents of change in his time was William Wilberforce. A member of the British Parliament from 1780 to 1825, Wilberforce is a model for anyone who wants to change their culture and create a more just society. Through bold leadership, tremendous personal sacrifice, and unflagging effort, Wilberforce changed not only his world, but ours as well. His leadership led to the elimination of the slave trade in the British Empire, a change that had enormous social and economic repercussions. His achievements spurred the abolitionist movement in our own country and the rest is history.
Sadly, Wilberforce is little known in contemporary society. Heroes are out, pop tarts are in. Britney and Paris are household words but Wilberforce is not. When people say "May the Force be with you," they aren't talking about William Wilberforce. Yet, in the annals of history, Wilberforce is a shining example of a man who lived out his convictions and, in the process, transformed his culture. But, as great as his achievements are, perhaps even more impressive is how Wilberforce did what he did.
A devout Christian, Wilberforce believed that all men have equal standing under God and that neither race nor ethnicity diminishes human worth. He was convinced that Christ died for the slave and the free, and that slavery was not only a terrible tragedy, but also an affront to both God and man.
How He Did What He Did
In his endeavors to cure the evil of slavery, Wilberforce employed a multi-pronged approach, attacking the problem on a variety of fronts. His theaters of engagement included the political, legal, social, and religious arenas. He engaged both the elites and the common folk in each arena in pursuit of his goals. In doing so, he marshaled the consensus necessary to bring about seismic change.
The recently-released book, Creating the Better Hour: Lessons from William Wilberforce, contains a wonderful collection of essays focused on Wilberforce's life, his principles, and the implications of his work for today. Wilberforce saw slavery as a great injustice, but he realized that it could not be cured merely by passing a law.
So Wilberforce focused on changing the moral climate of society. He developed a strong core of friends, known as the Clapham Circle, who supported his ideas and worked with him to advance his twin causes of abolishing the slave trade and reforming morals in Britain. They published books, poems, and pamphlets in an attempt to persuade their fellow Britons. Wilberforce convinced King George III to issue a "Proclamation for the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue and for the Preventing of Vice, Profaneness and Immorality." Wilberforce understood that the reformation of morals required changing the mindset of both the upper and lower classes. He realized that he could achieve his goal of abolishing slavery only if morality became "fashionable" and if it produced authentic virtue over time.
In their essay within Creating the Better Hour, Mark Rodgers and Bill Wichterman explain Wilberforce's understanding of cultural change: "Compliance with a particular law presupposes a particular kind of civilization. Once that civilization morphs into something new, old laws fall into disuse. In short, cultural mores dictate which laws pass and are obeyed, and which laws are defeated or ignored. There is a tendency on the part of many to overstate the importance of politics in shaping culture."
According to Rodgers and Wichterman, Wilberforce thought, "Creating a just society is only partially a function of law, and much more a product of other institutions—family, religion, education, entertainment, journalism, civic associations, etc.—institutions that help us to shape what we love and what we hate." Wilberforce held a traditional conservative view of society. He believed government could not be the savior of a society and law could not form a culture. He understood that only the people themselves could maintain a moral culture and a just society. If the people became corrupt, there was no saving society.
Wilberforce also understood the importance of substantive, respectful discussion for changing minds and hearts. According to Kevin Belmonte and Chuck Stetson in their essay in Creating the Better Hour, Wilberforce recognized "the difficulty of judging right in complicated cases, which should teach those who think differently on political subjects, mutual moderation, forbearance, and candor." He understood that proper Christian conduct requires humility and love even when speaking harsh truths. Wilberforce wrote, "Walk charitably. Wherever you are, remember that your conduct and conversation may have some effect on the minds of those with whom you are."
Wilberforce did not limit his arguments to the Bible. While he employed explicitly religious arguments, he did not hesitate to employ "secular" arguments based on statistics and pragmatism. Wilberforce pursued his goal on all possible levels and with all possible arguments, while maintaining humility and respect for his audience.
One particularly impressive instance of Wilberforce's creative tactics is explained by Chuck Stetson: The abolitionists made a wood cameo featuring a slave kneeling in shackles and the phrase, "Am I Not a Man and a Brother?" This cameo became a public symbol worn by pro-abolitionist women as jewelry and was integrated into other goods, including snuff boxes. A single picture became the symbol for a movement.
While Wilberforce understood the limitations of laws, he worked as hard in the political realm as any other. Wilberforce was politically savvy and willing to work with those who had vastly different agendas as long as they advanced his cause. Wilberforce understood that legal change and cultural change are co-dependent, so he worked incessantly for both. His twenty years of work within Parliament led to the passage of the Abolition Bill on February 23, 1807.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Wilberforce saw his goals as God-given. He began his strong quest for the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners after coming to a strong faith in God. As a fervent Christian, he based his quest to abolish slavery on biblical morality. He exhorted Parliament, "Never, never will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name, released ourselves from the load of guilt, under which we at present labour, and extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country."
Lessons To Be Learned
There are lessons to be learned from Wilberforce's great efforts. He understood better than most that it is not just what you say, but how you say it that convinces others of the truth. He held steadfastly to his Christian convictions in the face of demagogues of all types and, while he spent twenty years waging war over a controversial issue, charity always tempered his passion.
The world still contains many grave affronts to human dignity. Men, women, and children are still enslaved around the world through forced labor, bonded labor, and sex trafficking (at least 12.3 million according to Beth Herzfeld's essay in Creating the Better Hour). Women are forced into marriages, widows are burned to death, some people are discriminated against because of their skin color, and others are starved to death by tyrannical governments. Here at home we give license to the powerful to exterminate the young or old or handicapped whenever we find them inconvenient. Wilberforce's pursuit of human equality and freedom is certainly far from finished.
We would do well to remember Wilberforce's work and emulate it. We must advocate ceaselessly for the equality and dignity of all human beings, even as we retain a spirit of charity toward our opponents and those whom we are trying to persuade.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)