Arlene Kushner
Let me begin here by sharing my just completed report, "UNRWA: Its Role in Gaza," which addresses UNRWA actions and accusations against Israel during "Cast Lead."
http://israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/MY_UNRWA_Report_2009_US_.pdf
This has been a prime focus of my work for some many weeks, and I sincerely trust that the result justifies the effort. Now work on yet another project of major dimensions has begun, which will be duly shared in good time.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I have touched on this issue now and again. There are small settlements in Judea and Samaria that are referred to as "illegal" or, more properly, "unauthorized." Both terms are misnomers -- for they imply a black and white situation in which settlements are either legal or illegal, authorized or unauthorized.
The reality is actually far more complex. Almost always when housing goes up, there is SOME authorization. The appropriate department signs off on a road that is constructed, or the electric authority signs off on bringing in electric wires, or the water authority authorizes piping. Whatever. Often, not only were several departments of the government on board, but government officials smiled upon the venture. What's missing, ultimately, to make it legal or authorized, is that last signature from the Minister of Defense (because it's outside the Green Line in area that is not governed by Israeli civil law).
~~~~~~~~~~
Now this perspective is being addressed by certain high level ministers -- Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas), Science Minister Daniel Hershkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi), Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud) and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein (Likud) -- who toured outposts in Samaria yesterday as a show of support for residents.
Said Yishai:
"These settlements were established by Israeli governments and approved by them...the people of Israel should know this settlement is legal. If someone thinks otherwise and plans to evacuate them, it will have to be approved by the government. You cannot just evacuate people from their homes without due process."
Yaalon, in a subsequent radio interview explained that "unapproved" outposts are not "illegal." He said that Israel should explain this to the Americans and complete the missing paperwork.
Aaron Lerner points out on IMRA that:
"...a reading of the exchange of letters between Israel and the United States finds that Israel did not commit to physically remove the 'unapproved' outposts but instead end the existence of 'unapproved'
outposts and this can be achieved by changing their status to 'approved.' This is not a new concept - negotiations between DM Barak and communities always were on the basis that the status of some outposts would be changed to 'approved' and thus removed from the list."
~~~~~~~~~~
Someone on my list -- expressing great and appropriate concern -- sent to me an article regarding the purchase of farm land in the Galil by buyers funded by Gulf state tycoons. We do not want Arabs buying up Israel.
But there is, I think, a bit of conflation here regarding two different issues, and I want to touch on this briefly. According to the article, the land was privately owned and thus there was nothing the Israel Land Authority could do to stop the sale.
In a related series of events, earlier this month, the Knesset passed a reform to the law regarding the Israel Land Authority. Put very simply, 93% of the land of the State of Israel is owned by Israel, via the ILA, and not privately. People who build or buy homes here don't acquire the property the home sits on, but, rather, lease it for 99 years. Or so it has been until now.
The reform pushed through by PM Netanyahu permits individuals to now buy land. His reasons for supporting this are economic, e.g., bringing down property values. But the concern is very real regarding a loss of control of the land. The Galil purchase -- while not made under the reform -- serves as a potent example of what might happen.
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon was so concerned about the implications of this reform to the land that he threatened to quit the government. He has been appointed as head of a committee to determine what restrictions will apply to this reform. And so, as it is all not very clear yet, I have nothing further to add at this time.
~~~~~~~~~~
I had wanted to write about biased charges against Israel with regard to our actions in Gaza during "Cast Lead," and, indeed, there is still a great deal to say about so-called "human rights" NGOs in this regard.
But as far as the approach by the equally biased UN is concerned -- via its Goldstone Commission -- I find I can pass on making comment and instead share an article by Irwin Cotler, former minister of justice of Canada:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418620191&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Diplomacy: What are the odds?
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
If you were to trip over Shelley Berkley in the lobby of a five-star Jerusalem hotel, you might be excused for thinking you just bumped into your long lost Aunt Sadie.
She dresses like Aunt Sadie, talks like her, has a passion for Israel like her and exudes warmth like her. Except for one major difference: Aunt Sadie was the head of her local Hadassah chapter, while Shelley Berkley, 58, is a six-term Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas, five of those terms as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As such, Berkley is in an interesting position. On the one hand, as the Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas, it's safe to assume she is a firm supporter of US President Barack Obama.
On the other, she is an avid supporter of Israel who thinks, and openly says, that the administration's public "dressing down" of Israel over the settlement issue has been counterproductive. She also has little faith that either Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, or the moderate Arab world, will deliver the goods that Obama expects.
So how does she square this particular circle? "Look," she said, sipping an iced tea in the coffee shop of Jerusalem's David Citadel Hotel, overlooking the walls of the Old City, "the Obama administration is six months old. I wouldn't call it a learning curve, that would be insulting to the administration, and there is a lot of talent in the administration. But I think with time one of two things will happen. Either they will succeed, and nobody would be happier than I if we could come up with a two-state solution with a functioning government on the Palestinian side, which I'm not convinced Abu Mazen (Abbas) is capable of creating for his people."
Or, she said, the administration will simply change strategies. "I don't see this administration being stubborn in a way, or arrogant in a way, that would prevent it from taking a different tack if necessary." And it is clear, after spending time talking with Berkley, that she doesn't think the administration's particular strategy will work.
She was here this week as part of a mammoth, 29-member Democratic congressional delegation brought to the country by the American Israel Education Foundation, a nonprofit charitable organization affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A similar Republican delegation was in the country last week.
"I am quite disappointed in Abu Mazen, I always have been," said Berkley, a day before meeting him. "I think he has it within his power to bring a peaceful resolution to this issue, to create a state for the Palestinian people, to move forward to a brighter future for Palestinian children.
"And yet, year after year we seem to be stuck in the same situation, and I think he has done very little over the years in preparing his own people for peace," she said, pointing to this week's Fatah conference in Bethlehem as an example.
"Are we still hurling accusations against the Israelis that they are somehow responsible for the death of Yasser Arafat?" she asked. "Isn't that somewhat counterproductive to moving forward toward peace?"
Berkley said she raised this issue in a meeting her delegation had with US Gen. Keith Dayton, who advised the group not to pay too much attention to what was being said at Fatah's "political convention." Berkley told Dayton she remembered the heady days of the Oslo Accords, when Arafat would say what the US and Europeans wanted to hear in English, but then repeated "the usual anti-Israel, anti-Semitic rants to his own people."
Back then, she said, "administration and State Department officials said the exact same thing: Don't pay any attention to what Arafat is saying; we know what he has to say in order to survive; we know what he really feels. But we didn't, we really miscalculated that. I think words are very powerful; they have meaning."
Asked what Dayton's reply was, she let out a belly laugh and replied, "He said that was a good question."
IN JUNE, before Obama's Cairo speech, Berkley was one of a few US legislators who publicly broke with the president's Mideast strategy and called into question his placing pressure primarily on Israel.
"My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute," she said at the time. And she still believes it, even though the tone coming out of the Obama administration - at least in its public statements - has been less strident of late.
"I don't think it was particularly productive to publicly dress down our most reliable ally," she said. "I think it puts both countries, who are in fact very close friends, strategic partners and allies, in a bit of a bind. And I think the Palestinians and the Arabs are using this to create a division that might not necessarily be there: using Obama's words against the Israelis and the US, and making it more difficult in some ways to move forward."
While saying the overall state of US-Israel relations "is a very strong one based on history, shared values and security reliance on each other," Berkley admitted the relationship was currently in a valley.
"Like any relationship, there are good times,and not so good times. And I think this hasn't been the best time right now," she said.
As to whether Obama was going to lose his Jewish base of support if he pushed Israel too hard, Berkley said it was much too early to tell. "I think that if he pushes too hard on Israel, he is going to find that the Arabs he is trying to court are not going to come around to his way of thinking," she said.
With that, Berkley added there was growing concern, coupled with some hope, in the American Jewish community. "I think people appreciate that President Obama is just six months into his administration, and we have differences," she said. "But if this was 31⁄2 years into his administration, I think there would be cause for concern."
Berkley has heard anxiety about Obama's Israel policies voiced by colleagues in the House, as well as by Jews around the country. "Given the fact that President Obama did get as much Jewish support as he did, ultimately he is going to start hearing from those Jews who supported him - that they are a little bit worried about their [the administration's] positions.
"I believe Israel has given up a great deal over the years for peace," Berkley said. "It gave up the Sinai to have peace with Egypt. It withdrew from Lebanon and got Hizbullah. It unilaterally left Gaza. So to suggest that natural growth in the settlements is the cause for Palestinian inaction is, I think, absurd. There is nothing in history to demonstrate that if all the settlements went away tomorrow, the Arabs would then be any more willing to recognize Israel's right to exist."
She went even one step further and, amid all the reports of no support at all in Congress for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the settlement issue, actually admitted that she supported natural growth there, saying it was "appropriate" to ensure normal life in settlements near the Green Line that would remain part of Israel in any agreement.
And, bear in mind, Berkley is a Democrat, an Obama supporter, and from Nevada, not traditionally a state that the Walt and Mearsheimer school of thought would classify as states with huge Jewish populations and politicians deep in Israel's pocket.
But still, the Walt and Mearsheimer Israel-lobby bashers probably look at Berkley and view her as a poster child for their argument that the "lobby" has a stranglehold on American foreign policy.
Berkley released another belly laugh at the notion, and shrugged it off, making no apologies and making it clear she didn't need AIPAC to convince her of the importance of the Israeli-US relationship.
"I'm a second generation American, and grew up in a Jewish household," said Berkley, who was born in New York but moved to Las Vegas with her family when she was in junior high school. "My mother was an ardent Zionist, and I didn't need an organization telling me about the importance of Israel's survival. While I know that the Jewish people are a people of the Diaspora, I believe that our survival and our strength very much comes from the survival and strength of Israel. This is personal to me."
So personal, in fact, that she bristled at the thought that the US, as State Department spokesman Robert Wood intimated last month, might at some point use economic sanctions as leverage against the Netanyahu government.
Berkley said that soon after Wood said it was "premature" to talk about placing financial sanctions on Israel to get it to stop building beyond the Green Line, she called House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Howard Berman to complain. Berman, she said, assured her that he would speak to the administration about the matter.
It is not premature to discuss sanctions, she said, "it is beyond the pale for the US to even suggest economic sanctions against Israel." In fact, she added, "I can't imagine a scenario where the administration would even suggest this."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418603210&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
If you were to trip over Shelley Berkley in the lobby of a five-star Jerusalem hotel, you might be excused for thinking you just bumped into your long lost Aunt Sadie.
She dresses like Aunt Sadie, talks like her, has a passion for Israel like her and exudes warmth like her. Except for one major difference: Aunt Sadie was the head of her local Hadassah chapter, while Shelley Berkley, 58, is a six-term Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas, five of those terms as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As such, Berkley is in an interesting position. On the one hand, as the Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas, it's safe to assume she is a firm supporter of US President Barack Obama.
On the other, she is an avid supporter of Israel who thinks, and openly says, that the administration's public "dressing down" of Israel over the settlement issue has been counterproductive. She also has little faith that either Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, or the moderate Arab world, will deliver the goods that Obama expects.
So how does she square this particular circle? "Look," she said, sipping an iced tea in the coffee shop of Jerusalem's David Citadel Hotel, overlooking the walls of the Old City, "the Obama administration is six months old. I wouldn't call it a learning curve, that would be insulting to the administration, and there is a lot of talent in the administration. But I think with time one of two things will happen. Either they will succeed, and nobody would be happier than I if we could come up with a two-state solution with a functioning government on the Palestinian side, which I'm not convinced Abu Mazen (Abbas) is capable of creating for his people."
Or, she said, the administration will simply change strategies. "I don't see this administration being stubborn in a way, or arrogant in a way, that would prevent it from taking a different tack if necessary." And it is clear, after spending time talking with Berkley, that she doesn't think the administration's particular strategy will work.
She was here this week as part of a mammoth, 29-member Democratic congressional delegation brought to the country by the American Israel Education Foundation, a nonprofit charitable organization affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A similar Republican delegation was in the country last week.
"I am quite disappointed in Abu Mazen, I always have been," said Berkley, a day before meeting him. "I think he has it within his power to bring a peaceful resolution to this issue, to create a state for the Palestinian people, to move forward to a brighter future for Palestinian children.
"And yet, year after year we seem to be stuck in the same situation, and I think he has done very little over the years in preparing his own people for peace," she said, pointing to this week's Fatah conference in Bethlehem as an example.
"Are we still hurling accusations against the Israelis that they are somehow responsible for the death of Yasser Arafat?" she asked. "Isn't that somewhat counterproductive to moving forward toward peace?"
Berkley said she raised this issue in a meeting her delegation had with US Gen. Keith Dayton, who advised the group not to pay too much attention to what was being said at Fatah's "political convention." Berkley told Dayton she remembered the heady days of the Oslo Accords, when Arafat would say what the US and Europeans wanted to hear in English, but then repeated "the usual anti-Israel, anti-Semitic rants to his own people."
Back then, she said, "administration and State Department officials said the exact same thing: Don't pay any attention to what Arafat is saying; we know what he has to say in order to survive; we know what he really feels. But we didn't, we really miscalculated that. I think words are very powerful; they have meaning."
Asked what Dayton's reply was, she let out a belly laugh and replied, "He said that was a good question."
IN JUNE, before Obama's Cairo speech, Berkley was one of a few US legislators who publicly broke with the president's Mideast strategy and called into question his placing pressure primarily on Israel.
"My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute," she said at the time. And she still believes it, even though the tone coming out of the Obama administration - at least in its public statements - has been less strident of late.
"I don't think it was particularly productive to publicly dress down our most reliable ally," she said. "I think it puts both countries, who are in fact very close friends, strategic partners and allies, in a bit of a bind. And I think the Palestinians and the Arabs are using this to create a division that might not necessarily be there: using Obama's words against the Israelis and the US, and making it more difficult in some ways to move forward."
While saying the overall state of US-Israel relations "is a very strong one based on history, shared values and security reliance on each other," Berkley admitted the relationship was currently in a valley.
"Like any relationship, there are good times,and not so good times. And I think this hasn't been the best time right now," she said.
As to whether Obama was going to lose his Jewish base of support if he pushed Israel too hard, Berkley said it was much too early to tell. "I think that if he pushes too hard on Israel, he is going to find that the Arabs he is trying to court are not going to come around to his way of thinking," she said.
With that, Berkley added there was growing concern, coupled with some hope, in the American Jewish community. "I think people appreciate that President Obama is just six months into his administration, and we have differences," she said. "But if this was 31⁄2 years into his administration, I think there would be cause for concern."
Berkley has heard anxiety about Obama's Israel policies voiced by colleagues in the House, as well as by Jews around the country. "Given the fact that President Obama did get as much Jewish support as he did, ultimately he is going to start hearing from those Jews who supported him - that they are a little bit worried about their [the administration's] positions.
"I believe Israel has given up a great deal over the years for peace," Berkley said. "It gave up the Sinai to have peace with Egypt. It withdrew from Lebanon and got Hizbullah. It unilaterally left Gaza. So to suggest that natural growth in the settlements is the cause for Palestinian inaction is, I think, absurd. There is nothing in history to demonstrate that if all the settlements went away tomorrow, the Arabs would then be any more willing to recognize Israel's right to exist."
She went even one step further and, amid all the reports of no support at all in Congress for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the settlement issue, actually admitted that she supported natural growth there, saying it was "appropriate" to ensure normal life in settlements near the Green Line that would remain part of Israel in any agreement.
And, bear in mind, Berkley is a Democrat, an Obama supporter, and from Nevada, not traditionally a state that the Walt and Mearsheimer school of thought would classify as states with huge Jewish populations and politicians deep in Israel's pocket.
But still, the Walt and Mearsheimer Israel-lobby bashers probably look at Berkley and view her as a poster child for their argument that the "lobby" has a stranglehold on American foreign policy.
Berkley released another belly laugh at the notion, and shrugged it off, making no apologies and making it clear she didn't need AIPAC to convince her of the importance of the Israeli-US relationship.
"I'm a second generation American, and grew up in a Jewish household," said Berkley, who was born in New York but moved to Las Vegas with her family when she was in junior high school. "My mother was an ardent Zionist, and I didn't need an organization telling me about the importance of Israel's survival. While I know that the Jewish people are a people of the Diaspora, I believe that our survival and our strength very much comes from the survival and strength of Israel. This is personal to me."
So personal, in fact, that she bristled at the thought that the US, as State Department spokesman Robert Wood intimated last month, might at some point use economic sanctions as leverage against the Netanyahu government.
Berkley said that soon after Wood said it was "premature" to talk about placing financial sanctions on Israel to get it to stop building beyond the Green Line, she called House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Howard Berman to complain. Berman, she said, assured her that he would speak to the administration about the matter.
It is not premature to discuss sanctions, she said, "it is beyond the pale for the US to even suggest economic sanctions against Israel." In fact, she added, "I can't imagine a scenario where the administration would even suggest this."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418603210&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Cabinet Ministers Yishai, Yaalon: Outposts Not Illegal
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
Four Cabinet ministers toured several of the outposts that were termed “unauthorized” in a report by Meretz Knesset candidate Talia Sasson, and said that a new report is needed. Sasson prepared the report seven years ago at the request of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.The four ministers who were hosted by leaders of the Jewish settlement enterprise in the Shomron (Samaria) are Moshe Yaalon and Yuli Edelstein of the Likud, Eli Yishai of Shas, and Daniel Herskovitz of the Jewish Home. They were hosted by Shomron Regional Council head Gershon Mesika, and Amanah settlement organization head Zev Chever (Zambish) and veteran Yesha Council leader Pinchas Wallerstein were on hand as well.
The tour took place in Rechelim, Bruchin, and Nofei Nechemiah – all listed as illegal or unauthorized outposts that must be destroyed. Rechelim, near Tapuach, was established in 1991 and has 45 families; Bruchin, 1999, west of Ariel, has 100 families; and Nofei Nechemiah, founded in 2002-3, has 21 families.
Minister Edelstein recalled that in the previous Knesset, he established the "Homesh First" forum: "It was a mistake to destroy Homesh, and the government should now rebuild it," he said. Minister Herskovitz said, "No other country would allow other countries to let it determine where its citizens should live."
Yaalon on Homesh, Outposts, and the Conflict
The ministers also visited the Gilad Farm, as well as Homesh, the full-fledged town that was destroyed in the Disengagement four years ago. Former residents and other supporters have attempted to resettle the site over the past two years, facing opposition and repeated evacuations on the part of the army. Yaalon, Minister of Strategic Affairs, stated that he thinks that rebuilding Homesh should be considered.
He added, “We were mistaken in thinking that the battle [with the Arab is over part of the Land of Israel. It is over the entire Land of Israel.” He explained how important it is that Israel control the mountain ridge heights.
Speaking from Homesh with Voice of Israel Radio, Yaalon explained that the only reason many of the outposts are not yet legal is because of missing paperwork: “The people who live there received government mortgages, and water and electricity were hooked up by Israel’s water and electric companies, and the Housing Ministry built many of the housing projects. Israel must explain to the Americans that they are legal.”
Understandings with the U.S.
Analyst Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA writes, “A reading of the exchange of letters between Israel and the United States finds that Israel did not commit to physically remove the ‘unapproved’ outposts, but just to end the existence of ‘unapproved’ outposts. This can be achieved by changing their status to ‘approved.’ This is not a new concept; negotiations between Defense Minister Barak and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria always were on the basis that the status of some outposts would be changed to ‘approved’ and thus removed from the list.”
Interior Minister Yishai said, “There is no such thing as an illegal outpost. We must tell the truth to the public and to the Americans. These are sites that were established by the Government of Israel, and they should be further developed.”
This is Minister Yishai’s second visit in one week to controversial areas in Judea and Samaria. Touring Maaleh Adumim last week, Yishai said that construction must continue “at least in the future settlement blocs,” even if the United States cannot be persuaded of its importance.
Evangelicals: An appreciation
Isi Leibler
August 17, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1759
A prominent American Jewish leader recently told me that the passionate standing ovation he received after addressing 4,000 participants at John Hagee's Christians United for Israel rally in Washington was reminiscent of the fervent Zionist gatherings he attended as a youngster. The two-day Evangelical Christian parley was designed to express support for Israel, receive updates on the current challenges facing the Jewish state and lobby congressmen in support of Israel. They heard addresses from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu via satellite, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ambassador Michael Oren, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Presidents' Conference and others.
At a time when much of global public opinion views Israel through the distorted lenses of Arab and anti-Semitic defamation, millions of Evangelicals have emerged as our most devoted supporters.
The evolution of this relationship is extraordinary and defies logic. It is only over the past three decades that support for Israel assumed such a high priority among this Christian denomination, which is rapidly expanding at a time when other churches are in dramatic decline.
Until recently, most Jews regarded Evangelicals as zealots obsessed with a desire to convert everyone. They also believed that their philo-Semitism was not "genuine" because it was based on an eschatology which predicted that the second coming of the messiah would only come after the Jewish people had returned to Israel and brought about the end of days.
In addition, the strongly liberal American Jewish community, obsessed with separation of church and state, gay rights and abortion, regarded Evangelicals as dangerous right-wing extremists and until recently were complaining that politicians like Netanyahu, who addressed their gatherings, embarrassed them.
YET DESPITE this hostility, the Evangelicals continued to upgrade support for Israel, to the point where it is now a central feature of their world outlook.
As though divine providence had intervened, the change took place precisely when liberals, the traditional supporters of the Jews, embraced postmodernism and began turning against Israel, which was no longer an underdog. Alas, today, many liberals engage in campaigns demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state.
Evangelical support for Israel is not matched by other Christian denominations. Many Protestant churches have in fact transformed their antipathy toward Israel into hatred. The Catholic Church made enormous progress identifying the evil of anti-Semitism, but due to a combination of realpolitik and an unwillingness to swallow the bitter theological pill of recognizing Jewish statehood, it is still far from evenhanded in relation to the Arab-Israel conflict.
The truth is that Evangelicals are no more monolithic than Jews. They do include fringe groups who are fanatics, believers in the apocalyptic end of the Jewish people, missionaries and even anti-Semites. But the vast majority are God-fearing people who pray for the welfare of Israel and share an unconditional love for Jews as God's chosen people.
The principal reason for Evangelical support is that unlike other Christian groups, they reject replacement theology, which teaches that God forsook the Jews for having rejected Jesus. They respect Judaism as the foundation of Christianity and believe that the Jews will always remain God's chosen people. They believe that the Jewish claim to Israel is based on the biblical promise from God. That may embarrass secular Jews, but for traditional Jews it remains the core of their relationship with the Holy Land.
Evangelicals also believe that when God told Abraham that those who bless the "Children of Israel" will also be blessed (Genesis 12:3) this meant that God would bless Christians who love the Jewish people and support the State of Israel. They also believe that the ingathering of the Jews will precede the return of the messiah, and quote Isaiah 60:14 saying: "The sons of your oppressors will come bowing before you" as a prophecy that righteous gentiles can partake in this process.
These feelings nurtured the early 19th century Christian Zionists and subsequently motivated people like Lord Balfour, who authored the Balfour Declaration; Orde Wingate, who helped create the Hagana; Rev John Stanley Grauel, the hero on board the Exodus, who disclosed what happened in a firsthand report which had a crucial impact on the UN Special Committee on Palestine; writers like Pierre van Paassen, who promoted the Zionist cause; and many others.
EVANGELICALS' SUPPORT for the Jewish state today manifests itself primarily by advocacy for Israel. However, they insist that they will never publicly "pressure or oppose policies adopted by Israel's democratically elected government."
Evangelical political clout with the Democratic administration is considerably weaker than it was under president George W. Bush. Nevertheless, with more than 60 million adherents, they still represent one of the most powerful political forces in the United States. They recently formed a Christian counterpart to AIPAC to lobby congressmen and canvass against legislation hostile to Israel.
Many rank-and-file church-goers donate generously to projects designed to strengthen Israel. For example, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews initiated by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein today represents the largest single donor to the Jewish Agency and was among those who contributed seed money to launch Nefesh B'Nefesh.
The 50 dedicated representatives of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, which has branches in 80 nations, spearhead the noble Christian Zionist presence in the Holy Land. They publish and broadcast information about Israel to the world. From generous contributions from members, they fund substantial social programs including assistance to integrate immigrants and support for former Gush Katif residents. They actively promote missions to Israel and host major pilgrim tours. They now represent one of the most dynamic sources of Israeli tourism.
Although most Israelis and Jews now appreciate the enormous value of Evangelical support, some liberal Jews continue to criticize the relationship, and ill-informed Orthodox Jews persist in mistakenly perceiving all Evangelicals as missionaries. It is axiomatic that we differ with Evangelicals over theology. But an alliance based on specific goals does not oblige both parties to adopt each other's approach on broader issues.
On Israel-related issues, a pragmatic cooperation is not a matter of creed but of political common sense. Besides, Evangelical support has never been conditional on a quid pro quo. It is thus surely unbecoming for us to remain passive while misguided Jews behave in a churlish manner to our greatest supporters.
On a personal level, I am proud to be associated with Evangelicals on various projects to promote Israel. I also enjoy being able to discuss political issues with people who still recognize the existence of good and evil instead of dealing with mind-numbing postmodernism and the moral equivalency that one continuously encounters with confused liberals.
The alliance with the Evangelicals represents one of the few bright lights in an otherwise dismal political environment. Indeed, were there more Evangelicals in Protestant/Catholic Europe, the prevailing hostility against Israel in that region might yet be substantially modified.
As an observant Jew, I appreciate their support and hope that they will be blessed for their friendship.
ileibler@netvision.net
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post
Three More No's to Peace
http://www.aish.com/jw/me/53114802.html
Three More No's to Peace
No negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel.
by Mitchell Bard
Echoing the Arab rejection of peace with Israel expressed at Khartoum almost exactly 42 years ago ("no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel"), the Palestinians declared at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem in August 2009 three no's: no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel. The delegates to the conference, the first Fatah has convened in two decades, were competing among themselves to see whose position toward Israel would be more radical. Though deeply divided over who will control the movement, the Palestinians were united in their obduracy toward Israel.
In fact, in addition to the three no's to peace, the Palestinians had more than a dozen other demands, including Israeli acceptance of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees, the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, the freezing of all settlement construction and the lifting of the Gaza blockade. They also vowed to continue the struggle against Israel "until Jerusalem returns to the Palestinians void of settlers and settlements." These recalcitrant positions come after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's previous statements that he will not negotiate with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and expects President Obama to bring about Netanyahu's downfall.
Fatah officials also discussed the possibility of forming a strategic alliance with Iran, the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, which opposes the peace process and has threatened to destroy Israel. Fatah's Jerusalem Affairs Liaison, Hatim Abdul Qader, said that in light of the stalled peace process, Fatah had no choice but to seek help from Iran and, last month, Palestinian Chief Negotiator, Saeb Erekat, met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Egypt. Paradoxically, Iran has funded Fatah's opponents, Hamas, which prevented Palestinians in Gaza from participating in the conference.
The Fatah conference demonstrated once again that the range of Palestinian opinion is not from radicals opposing peace with Israel to moderates who favor a negotiated settlement, but from radical to even more radical opponents of an end to the conflict. Sadly, the desire of the Palestinian people to coexist with their Israeli neighbors has once again been sublimated to the irredentist ideology of their fanatical leaders leaving Israel with no partner for negotiations. Roughly half of the population is under the thumb of Hamas, which is at war with Fatah. Meanwhile, Fatah is at war with itself and divided into at least three factions. And none of the men (and they are all men) who claim to represent the people are interested in peace with Israel.
The Palestinian position, combined with that of the king of Saudi Arabia and other Arab leaders who rejected President Obama's pleas to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel, has driven a stake through the heart of the administration's entire Middle East strategy. The administration approach was built on the premise that publicly pressuring Israel would win support from the Arab states, who would then take steps to normalize ties with Israel, which would lead to a peace agreement, which, in turn would result in Arab cooperation on the Iranian nuclear issue and make all of the other problems in the region melt away.
The question now is whether the administration can recalibrate its policy to the reality that negotiating with Abbas is a dead end and that pressuring Israel alienated the Israelis while emboldening the Arabs to believe he would force Israel to capitulate to their demands without them having to do anything in return.
Three More No's to Peace
No negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel.
by Mitchell Bard
Echoing the Arab rejection of peace with Israel expressed at Khartoum almost exactly 42 years ago ("no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel"), the Palestinians declared at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem in August 2009 three no's: no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel. The delegates to the conference, the first Fatah has convened in two decades, were competing among themselves to see whose position toward Israel would be more radical. Though deeply divided over who will control the movement, the Palestinians were united in their obduracy toward Israel.
In fact, in addition to the three no's to peace, the Palestinians had more than a dozen other demands, including Israeli acceptance of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees, the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, the freezing of all settlement construction and the lifting of the Gaza blockade. They also vowed to continue the struggle against Israel "until Jerusalem returns to the Palestinians void of settlers and settlements." These recalcitrant positions come after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's previous statements that he will not negotiate with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and expects President Obama to bring about Netanyahu's downfall.
Fatah officials also discussed the possibility of forming a strategic alliance with Iran, the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, which opposes the peace process and has threatened to destroy Israel. Fatah's Jerusalem Affairs Liaison, Hatim Abdul Qader, said that in light of the stalled peace process, Fatah had no choice but to seek help from Iran and, last month, Palestinian Chief Negotiator, Saeb Erekat, met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Egypt. Paradoxically, Iran has funded Fatah's opponents, Hamas, which prevented Palestinians in Gaza from participating in the conference.
The Fatah conference demonstrated once again that the range of Palestinian opinion is not from radicals opposing peace with Israel to moderates who favor a negotiated settlement, but from radical to even more radical opponents of an end to the conflict. Sadly, the desire of the Palestinian people to coexist with their Israeli neighbors has once again been sublimated to the irredentist ideology of their fanatical leaders leaving Israel with no partner for negotiations. Roughly half of the population is under the thumb of Hamas, which is at war with Fatah. Meanwhile, Fatah is at war with itself and divided into at least three factions. And none of the men (and they are all men) who claim to represent the people are interested in peace with Israel.
The Palestinian position, combined with that of the king of Saudi Arabia and other Arab leaders who rejected President Obama's pleas to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel, has driven a stake through the heart of the administration's entire Middle East strategy. The administration approach was built on the premise that publicly pressuring Israel would win support from the Arab states, who would then take steps to normalize ties with Israel, which would lead to a peace agreement, which, in turn would result in Arab cooperation on the Iranian nuclear issue and make all of the other problems in the region melt away.
The question now is whether the administration can recalibrate its policy to the reality that negotiating with Abbas is a dead end and that pressuring Israel alienated the Israelis while emboldening the Arabs to believe he would force Israel to capitulate to their demands without them having to do anything in return.
Tending Someone Else’s Garden
Norma Zager
“This land is mine. God gave this land to me…” Theme from Exodus
These words of the theme from the movie Exodus bring a tear to the eye of any Zionist. Ironic they were written by a Christian. Penned by American icon Pat Boone, they have become the battle cry for Israel’s right to survive.
Boone’s deeply heartfelt belief in the Bible and the words contained in both Testaments provide true insights into the Christian commitment to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. “God gave this land to me” connotes the Christian conviction in God’s promise to the Jewish people. I find it shocking so many Jews do not share this belief, all-too-willing to hand over the keys to the kingdom to their enemies.
The settlements in Judea and Samaria have become the eye at the center of the hurricane raging over Israel’s soul. Settlements are the icing on the cake of hatred and propaganda baked daily in Islam’s kitchen. The hypocrisy of the United States attitude toward Judea and Samaria would be laughable were it not so egregiously bias.
The Administration’s demand to halt expansion in these areas is one for the books. In a country where a newly elected president jeopardized the economic future of generations to ensure Americans remained in their homes, it is ironic he be so determined to rob Israelis of theirs.
This is so far beyond chutzpah; it exceeds the light years between Earth and Mars.
I apologize for dredging up ancient history, but I cannot resist this one. Although the U.S. did pay $24 for Manhattan Island, we got some terrific deal. At least they paid in beads. Other tribal lands were simply taken by force or treaty. Can one spell hypocrite?
In a recent meeting with Democratic Congressmen, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Liberman addressed a dialogue on Palestinian issues. He said:
“The current situation—in which no one authority represents all of the Palestinians; in which there is 'Hamastan' in Gaza and 'Fatahland' in Judea and Samaria; together with the platform presented at the Fatah party’s 6th General Assembly – buries any possibility to reach a comprehensive settlement with the Palestinians in the next few years. The uncompromising, extremist positions of the Palestinians concerning Jerusalem, the 'right of return' and the Jewish settlements create an unbridgeable gap between us.”
Lieberman explained the importance of Israel’s policy reflecting what is and not what may or may not be feasible in the future:
“… continuing the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians, improving security arrangements, and continuing to improve the Palestinians’ economic situation. That is the most that can be achieved in the next few years. Any other ostentatious goal, such as forcing an agreement in a set period of time, will end again in failure, disappointment, frustration, and conflict as well. We must concentrate as much as possible on the interim stage and not produce ultimatums. This is a realistic policy; all the rest is 'spin', public relations and a misunderstanding of the processes going on in the present stage,” he concluded.
The current Administration sees history through a prism of left wing ideology – in word (e.g.usage of Czars) and action. Consistent proof that past attempts at a peaceful resolution have failed miserably seems to escape its notice. Could the intentions of Islam to destroy Israel be any clearer? It is not peace at what cost. It is NO peace at any cost.
The Administration’s efforts are about Israel’s right to define its own destiny. President Obama’s desire to be King of the World could not be more obvious than when he attempts to dictate Israeli policy to appease the Muslim world and barely condemns Iran or North Korea’s murderous agendas.
Acorn, the right arm of the left, is an agency created solely to ensure by whatever means, legal or otherwise, every American owns property. It mattered little if they could afford the costs of home ownership. God Bless the USA.
If it bankrupted America to keep these people in their homes, so be it. It is well worth the cost, at least as far as this Administration is concerned.
Israeli settlers are not asking the U.S. to pay for their homes. They are not asking anyone to do anything shady like, say, collect signatures from dead people or from fictional characters like Mickey Mouse. They are just living their lives, raising their families, creating an oasis in the desert, as Israelis have done since they were allowed access to their own land.
How can it be okay for the United States government to destroy our country to ensure families remain in their houses, and not be okay for Israelis? Do I smell the stench of a ripe double standard here? Is someone sticking their nose in business where they do not belong? Do I smell the stench of Louis Farrakhan in this recipe?
Perhaps if Israelis created an Acorn Middle East branch, they would be entitled to the same courtesies as those who bought houses they could not afford, signed papers without reading them and were used and swindled by greedy banks and realtors.
But this is not the Israeli way. Jewish housewives and mothers pick up guns to defend their homes, serve in the military and often lead in the battle to defend the Jewish Homeland. Israeli Jews serve God and then devote their lives to their country and their families. Their only expectation from others is to be able to live in peace, not to have a Palestinian come with an axe and murder their 13 year old kids. They know how to share the land and live together, despite the propaganda that denies the existence of such positive partnerships.
Those who preach contradictions as the current Administration by “ordering” Israelis to stop building and growing as a nation, speak from both sides of their mouths. So how can one ever discern which side speaks the truth?
I noticed when the President visited Israel, he wrote a prayer to insert into the Wailing Wall, as is the custom of Jewish people. I also found it interesting he had trouble getting the paper to stay within the Wall’s small crevice. It took a couple of tries on his part for the Wall to accept his prayer.
Perhaps someone was trying to tell us something? Hmmm, this gives new credence to all those stories about the power of the “Wall” we have heard for centuries.
Whether we agree or disagree with the President’s beliefs and agenda, he will serve his term. Then the American people will decide whether or not they care to entertain him in the White House for another four. Thankfully, that is how it is done here.
Israel and America have always been kindred spirits in democracy, their citizens living and working to enjoy the fruits of their labors. They have enhanced the world with their achievements and advances. Shared the knowledge that although the world may be overrun with fascist, oppressive rulers and fanatics, sanity and reason will prevail when democratic society is left to its own devices. The blossoming communities created in Judea and Samaria enhanced civilization. The U.S. should get back to the business of allowing its citizens to do the same without interference.
It is impossible to tend one’s own garden when you are busy planting weeds in someone else’s. Americans are capable of defining their own destiny; the people of Israel deserve no less.
Thanks Ari
“This land is mine. God gave this land to me…” Theme from Exodus
These words of the theme from the movie Exodus bring a tear to the eye of any Zionist. Ironic they were written by a Christian. Penned by American icon Pat Boone, they have become the battle cry for Israel’s right to survive.
Boone’s deeply heartfelt belief in the Bible and the words contained in both Testaments provide true insights into the Christian commitment to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. “God gave this land to me” connotes the Christian conviction in God’s promise to the Jewish people. I find it shocking so many Jews do not share this belief, all-too-willing to hand over the keys to the kingdom to their enemies.
The settlements in Judea and Samaria have become the eye at the center of the hurricane raging over Israel’s soul. Settlements are the icing on the cake of hatred and propaganda baked daily in Islam’s kitchen. The hypocrisy of the United States attitude toward Judea and Samaria would be laughable were it not so egregiously bias.
The Administration’s demand to halt expansion in these areas is one for the books. In a country where a newly elected president jeopardized the economic future of generations to ensure Americans remained in their homes, it is ironic he be so determined to rob Israelis of theirs.
This is so far beyond chutzpah; it exceeds the light years between Earth and Mars.
I apologize for dredging up ancient history, but I cannot resist this one. Although the U.S. did pay $24 for Manhattan Island, we got some terrific deal. At least they paid in beads. Other tribal lands were simply taken by force or treaty. Can one spell hypocrite?
In a recent meeting with Democratic Congressmen, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Liberman addressed a dialogue on Palestinian issues. He said:
“The current situation—in which no one authority represents all of the Palestinians; in which there is 'Hamastan' in Gaza and 'Fatahland' in Judea and Samaria; together with the platform presented at the Fatah party’s 6th General Assembly – buries any possibility to reach a comprehensive settlement with the Palestinians in the next few years. The uncompromising, extremist positions of the Palestinians concerning Jerusalem, the 'right of return' and the Jewish settlements create an unbridgeable gap between us.”
Lieberman explained the importance of Israel’s policy reflecting what is and not what may or may not be feasible in the future:
“… continuing the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians, improving security arrangements, and continuing to improve the Palestinians’ economic situation. That is the most that can be achieved in the next few years. Any other ostentatious goal, such as forcing an agreement in a set period of time, will end again in failure, disappointment, frustration, and conflict as well. We must concentrate as much as possible on the interim stage and not produce ultimatums. This is a realistic policy; all the rest is 'spin', public relations and a misunderstanding of the processes going on in the present stage,” he concluded.
The current Administration sees history through a prism of left wing ideology – in word (e.g.usage of Czars) and action. Consistent proof that past attempts at a peaceful resolution have failed miserably seems to escape its notice. Could the intentions of Islam to destroy Israel be any clearer? It is not peace at what cost. It is NO peace at any cost.
The Administration’s efforts are about Israel’s right to define its own destiny. President Obama’s desire to be King of the World could not be more obvious than when he attempts to dictate Israeli policy to appease the Muslim world and barely condemns Iran or North Korea’s murderous agendas.
Acorn, the right arm of the left, is an agency created solely to ensure by whatever means, legal or otherwise, every American owns property. It mattered little if they could afford the costs of home ownership. God Bless the USA.
If it bankrupted America to keep these people in their homes, so be it. It is well worth the cost, at least as far as this Administration is concerned.
Israeli settlers are not asking the U.S. to pay for their homes. They are not asking anyone to do anything shady like, say, collect signatures from dead people or from fictional characters like Mickey Mouse. They are just living their lives, raising their families, creating an oasis in the desert, as Israelis have done since they were allowed access to their own land.
How can it be okay for the United States government to destroy our country to ensure families remain in their houses, and not be okay for Israelis? Do I smell the stench of a ripe double standard here? Is someone sticking their nose in business where they do not belong? Do I smell the stench of Louis Farrakhan in this recipe?
Perhaps if Israelis created an Acorn Middle East branch, they would be entitled to the same courtesies as those who bought houses they could not afford, signed papers without reading them and were used and swindled by greedy banks and realtors.
But this is not the Israeli way. Jewish housewives and mothers pick up guns to defend their homes, serve in the military and often lead in the battle to defend the Jewish Homeland. Israeli Jews serve God and then devote their lives to their country and their families. Their only expectation from others is to be able to live in peace, not to have a Palestinian come with an axe and murder their 13 year old kids. They know how to share the land and live together, despite the propaganda that denies the existence of such positive partnerships.
Those who preach contradictions as the current Administration by “ordering” Israelis to stop building and growing as a nation, speak from both sides of their mouths. So how can one ever discern which side speaks the truth?
I noticed when the President visited Israel, he wrote a prayer to insert into the Wailing Wall, as is the custom of Jewish people. I also found it interesting he had trouble getting the paper to stay within the Wall’s small crevice. It took a couple of tries on his part for the Wall to accept his prayer.
Perhaps someone was trying to tell us something? Hmmm, this gives new credence to all those stories about the power of the “Wall” we have heard for centuries.
Whether we agree or disagree with the President’s beliefs and agenda, he will serve his term. Then the American people will decide whether or not they care to entertain him in the White House for another four. Thankfully, that is how it is done here.
Israel and America have always been kindred spirits in democracy, their citizens living and working to enjoy the fruits of their labors. They have enhanced the world with their achievements and advances. Shared the knowledge that although the world may be overrun with fascist, oppressive rulers and fanatics, sanity and reason will prevail when democratic society is left to its own devices. The blossoming communities created in Judea and Samaria enhanced civilization. The U.S. should get back to the business of allowing its citizens to do the same without interference.
It is impossible to tend one’s own garden when you are busy planting weeds in someone else’s. Americans are capable of defining their own destiny; the people of Israel deserve no less.
Thanks Ari
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Belman confronts Women in Black
Ted Belman
Friday, in Jerusalem, is like Saturday in America only ten times better. In America, Saturday is a day unto itself. In Jerusalem, Friday is a prelude to the Shabbat. And most people here honour the Shabbat. The Shabbat is not just a day of worship like Sunday used to be in America, it is a day that is much anticipated and much prepared for. Food must be bought and cooked prior to Shabbat, a bottle of wine must be bought for saying Kiddish, flowers must be bought to grace the home and the children and their clothes must be scrubbed in preparation. All this so that the families can welcome in the Shabbat, considered a bride, at sundown On Friday, I usually travel to the Jewish Market, also known as the Shuk to buy everything I need for Shabbat. Wow, what an experience that is. The place is jam-packed with thousands getting ready for Shabbat. Nobody is casual, Everyone is rushing to get everything done on time. The vendors are capitalizing on this business by working as fast as they can to take your money and give your change. They are also hocking their wares with the loudest voices I have ever heard. I guess there is an art to it.
Sure I could buy my stuff elsewhere but I would miss the atmosphere and miss the fruits that are straight from the farms and much better than what can be bought elsewhere. And everything is cheaper. Fruit, of all kinds, sell for about $1.00 a pound. Then there are fresh dates, figs and nuts in great abundance. And did I mention Halvah? Mmmm delicious.
On the way home on my bike, I came upon Women in Black who were protesting the “occupation”. About twenty men and women in all, Jews and gentiles. Most of them were retired, all spoke excellent English. Then there was a beautiful Arab woman about thirty and a beautiful American girl about twenty. I went over to talk with all of them.
“What occupation are you protesting”. I asked. They knew it was rhetorical. The Arab woman said that we were occupying Palestinian land. What makes it “Palestinian Land”? “My grandfather has a deed to land and you built on it.” “Why didn’t you go to the courts?” “We did and they turned us down.” “There must have been a good legal reason.” ” Jewish Courts are biased.” “Yeah, tell me about it.” But we weren’t talking about the same bias.
I said that anyone with a deed is entitled to own the land but asked about all the rest of the land. “What makes that Arab?” “Palestinians are the indigenous people. We lived there before Jews came. In fact Palestinians lived there since 70 AD.” She was careful to make the case for Palestinians rather than Arabs. You can imagine what I had to say about that whopper. But she wasn’t buying.
I kept pressing the issue of what makes it their land and many said the UN in ‘48 divided the land. I pointed out that that resolution was contrary to the legal rights the Jews had since 1922 and had no legal basis. Most had no idea what I was talking about. Finally one said that was only a letter, referring, I am sure, to the Balfour Declaration. “The Mandate, what’s that?” The Arab woman added that the Mandate only gave the Jews the right to emigrate to Palestine and that it also gave the Arabs the right. I pointed out the truth about it. She would have none of that.
“You are building all these settlements and surrounding the Arab villages” “On the contrary, it is the Arab villages that are surrounding the Jewish settlements.” “Israel provides water to all the settlements but not to the Arab villages.” “Who told you?”
“What are you doing here?” “I made aliyah. I am participating in the Jewish National Liberation Movement.” “What???” That got them going.
They couldn’t resist attacking Israel as the worst of the worst, in sound bite fashion without any depth. You see, they were all basking in their self righteousness. The worse Israelis are, the more self righteous they are for standing up to them. But the American beauty seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say.
Finally a young policewoman who had been attempting to get me to move along got insistent. I am not sure why she didn’t want such a discussion to take place. It was very civil, though at times, heated. I decided not to give her a hard time, though it would have been interesting to see if I could be arrested for exercising my freedom of speech or not obeying.
Besides, I had to hurry home to welcome in, the Shabbat.
Friday, in Jerusalem, is like Saturday in America only ten times better. In America, Saturday is a day unto itself. In Jerusalem, Friday is a prelude to the Shabbat. And most people here honour the Shabbat. The Shabbat is not just a day of worship like Sunday used to be in America, it is a day that is much anticipated and much prepared for. Food must be bought and cooked prior to Shabbat, a bottle of wine must be bought for saying Kiddish, flowers must be bought to grace the home and the children and their clothes must be scrubbed in preparation. All this so that the families can welcome in the Shabbat, considered a bride, at sundown On Friday, I usually travel to the Jewish Market, also known as the Shuk to buy everything I need for Shabbat. Wow, what an experience that is. The place is jam-packed with thousands getting ready for Shabbat. Nobody is casual, Everyone is rushing to get everything done on time. The vendors are capitalizing on this business by working as fast as they can to take your money and give your change. They are also hocking their wares with the loudest voices I have ever heard. I guess there is an art to it.
Sure I could buy my stuff elsewhere but I would miss the atmosphere and miss the fruits that are straight from the farms and much better than what can be bought elsewhere. And everything is cheaper. Fruit, of all kinds, sell for about $1.00 a pound. Then there are fresh dates, figs and nuts in great abundance. And did I mention Halvah? Mmmm delicious.
On the way home on my bike, I came upon Women in Black who were protesting the “occupation”. About twenty men and women in all, Jews and gentiles. Most of them were retired, all spoke excellent English. Then there was a beautiful Arab woman about thirty and a beautiful American girl about twenty. I went over to talk with all of them.
“What occupation are you protesting”. I asked. They knew it was rhetorical. The Arab woman said that we were occupying Palestinian land. What makes it “Palestinian Land”? “My grandfather has a deed to land and you built on it.” “Why didn’t you go to the courts?” “We did and they turned us down.” “There must have been a good legal reason.” ” Jewish Courts are biased.” “Yeah, tell me about it.” But we weren’t talking about the same bias.
I said that anyone with a deed is entitled to own the land but asked about all the rest of the land. “What makes that Arab?” “Palestinians are the indigenous people. We lived there before Jews came. In fact Palestinians lived there since 70 AD.” She was careful to make the case for Palestinians rather than Arabs. You can imagine what I had to say about that whopper. But she wasn’t buying.
I kept pressing the issue of what makes it their land and many said the UN in ‘48 divided the land. I pointed out that that resolution was contrary to the legal rights the Jews had since 1922 and had no legal basis. Most had no idea what I was talking about. Finally one said that was only a letter, referring, I am sure, to the Balfour Declaration. “The Mandate, what’s that?” The Arab woman added that the Mandate only gave the Jews the right to emigrate to Palestine and that it also gave the Arabs the right. I pointed out the truth about it. She would have none of that.
“You are building all these settlements and surrounding the Arab villages” “On the contrary, it is the Arab villages that are surrounding the Jewish settlements.” “Israel provides water to all the settlements but not to the Arab villages.” “Who told you?”
“What are you doing here?” “I made aliyah. I am participating in the Jewish National Liberation Movement.” “What???” That got them going.
They couldn’t resist attacking Israel as the worst of the worst, in sound bite fashion without any depth. You see, they were all basking in their self righteousness. The worse Israelis are, the more self righteous they are for standing up to them. But the American beauty seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say.
Finally a young policewoman who had been attempting to get me to move along got insistent. I am not sure why she didn’t want such a discussion to take place. It was very civil, though at times, heated. I decided not to give her a hard time, though it would have been interesting to see if I could be arrested for exercising my freedom of speech or not obeying.
Besides, I had to hurry home to welcome in, the Shabbat.
Gulf State Arabs Buy Up Galilee Lands
Hana Levi Julian
A7 News
(IsraelNN.com) Wealthy foreign Arabs have bought up hundreds of dunams of land in the Galilee, according to a report broadcast Saturday on Voice of Israel government radio. The land, which was owned privately and which was zoned for agricultural use, was sold due to economic hardship. The buyers were wealthy citizens of Arab states in the Persian Gulf that do not have any diplomatic relations with the State of Israel.
Groups of Galilee Jewish farmers who tried to organize a counter-offer failed to raise enough money to purchase the land from its owners.
Israeli lands are being sold to the highest bidder.
Agriculture Minister Shalom Simchon said he had no legal authority to intervene in the matter. The Israel Lands Authority, which owns most of the land in Israel, told the radio station it could not stop a transaction involving privately-owned land.
The Knesset last month passed a bill that mandates the sale of 400,000 dunams of the Land of Israel by 2014, the equivalent of 400 square kilometers, or 155 square miles (nearly 99,000 acres). The law allows another 400,000 dunams to be sold after 2014.
Kadima Knesset Member Nachman Shai slammed the same in a news release, saying "Israeli lands are being sold to the highest bidder," just as expected and feared during the vote on land reform.
"The Israel Land Authorities reform is a loophole calling out to the robber, and it will attract, as expected, Arab investors from abroad, who will eventually gain control over significant pieces of land in Israel," Shai said.
Meretz head Chaim Oron also pointed to the sale as proof that the land reform bill had been "misguided."
A7 News
(IsraelNN.com) Wealthy foreign Arabs have bought up hundreds of dunams of land in the Galilee, according to a report broadcast Saturday on Voice of Israel government radio. The land, which was owned privately and which was zoned for agricultural use, was sold due to economic hardship. The buyers were wealthy citizens of Arab states in the Persian Gulf that do not have any diplomatic relations with the State of Israel.
Groups of Galilee Jewish farmers who tried to organize a counter-offer failed to raise enough money to purchase the land from its owners.
Israeli lands are being sold to the highest bidder.
Agriculture Minister Shalom Simchon said he had no legal authority to intervene in the matter. The Israel Lands Authority, which owns most of the land in Israel, told the radio station it could not stop a transaction involving privately-owned land.
The Knesset last month passed a bill that mandates the sale of 400,000 dunams of the Land of Israel by 2014, the equivalent of 400 square kilometers, or 155 square miles (nearly 99,000 acres). The law allows another 400,000 dunams to be sold after 2014.
Kadima Knesset Member Nachman Shai slammed the same in a news release, saying "Israeli lands are being sold to the highest bidder," just as expected and feared during the vote on land reform.
"The Israel Land Authorities reform is a loophole calling out to the robber, and it will attract, as expected, Arab investors from abroad, who will eventually gain control over significant pieces of land in Israel," Shai said.
Meretz head Chaim Oron also pointed to the sale as proof that the land reform bill had been "misguided."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Call the UN! Hamas attacks Gaza mosque!
Jihad Watch
Israel hit a mosque in Gaza that was being used to store weapons, and the international condemnation was fierce. Somehow I doubt that those who were so angry about that attack on a mosque will be upset about this one at all. More on this story. "Mosque gun battle rages in Gaza," from the BBC, August 14 (thanks to Dupont): At least six people have been killed and dozens injured in a fierce gun battle in Gaza, emergency services say.
Eyewitnesses say hundreds of Hamas fighters and policemen surrounded then raided a mosque where followers of a radical Islamist cleric were holed up.
They had fired rocket-propelled grenades at the mosque in Rafah, near the Egyptian border, witnesses say.
It is thought that at least 100 supporters of the al-Qaeda-linked group, Jund Ansar Allah, were inside.
Hamas said a grenade fired from the mosque killed one of its fighters. The other fatalities were reported to be gunmen, and a child was also killed.
Fighting pledge
Earlier, during Friday prayers, hundreds of worshippers at Ibn-Taymiyah mosque declared Gaza an "Islamic emirate".
The mosque's imam - Abdul-Latif Moussa - and armed supporters swore to fight to the death rather than hand over authority of the mosque to Hamas.
Jund Ansar Allah (Army of the Helpers of God) gained some prominence two months ago when it staged a failed attack on a border crossing between Gaza and Israel.
The group is very critical of Hamas, which governs Gaza, accusing the Islamist group of not being Islamist enough....
"I would have such a fellow whipped for overdoing Termagant; it out-Herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."
Anyway, I guess now Hamas is officially and undeniably "moderate." Let the jizya flow!
Israel hit a mosque in Gaza that was being used to store weapons, and the international condemnation was fierce. Somehow I doubt that those who were so angry about that attack on a mosque will be upset about this one at all. More on this story. "Mosque gun battle rages in Gaza," from the BBC, August 14 (thanks to Dupont): At least six people have been killed and dozens injured in a fierce gun battle in Gaza, emergency services say.
Eyewitnesses say hundreds of Hamas fighters and policemen surrounded then raided a mosque where followers of a radical Islamist cleric were holed up.
They had fired rocket-propelled grenades at the mosque in Rafah, near the Egyptian border, witnesses say.
It is thought that at least 100 supporters of the al-Qaeda-linked group, Jund Ansar Allah, were inside.
Hamas said a grenade fired from the mosque killed one of its fighters. The other fatalities were reported to be gunmen, and a child was also killed.
Fighting pledge
Earlier, during Friday prayers, hundreds of worshippers at Ibn-Taymiyah mosque declared Gaza an "Islamic emirate".
The mosque's imam - Abdul-Latif Moussa - and armed supporters swore to fight to the death rather than hand over authority of the mosque to Hamas.
Jund Ansar Allah (Army of the Helpers of God) gained some prominence two months ago when it staged a failed attack on a border crossing between Gaza and Israel.
The group is very critical of Hamas, which governs Gaza, accusing the Islamist group of not being Islamist enough....
"I would have such a fellow whipped for overdoing Termagant; it out-Herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."
Anyway, I guess now Hamas is officially and undeniably "moderate." Let the jizya flow!
Nasrallah: We can hit any Israeli city
Hezbollah leader says Israeli warnings 'psychological warfare,' predicts war not on horizon
Associated Press
YNET News
Recent Israeli warnings were part of a "psychological war" aimed at preventing Hezbollah from joining a new Lebanese unity government, group leader Hassan Nasrallah said Friday. Speaking on the anniversary of the end of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, Nasrallah said the Shiite group was now capable of striking any Israeli city.
"Today we are capable of striking any city or village" in Israel, Nasrallah said. He promised "surprises" if Israel launches a new war on Lebanon. He did not elaborate.
"It is our right to make (Israel) understand that if it bombs Beirut or the southern suburbs, we will strike Tel Aviv," Nasrallah said, drawing the cheers of supporters.
Nasrallah, appearing on a giant screen from his hiding place, addressed thousands of supporters waving yellow Hezbollah flags who gathered for the rally in south Beirut. He said recent Israeli warnings against Lebanon do not signal that Israel is planning to attack soon.
Last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that in the event of renewed hostilities in the north, Israel would "go after not only Hezbollah but the entire state of Lebanon."
Hamas crushes 'al-Qaeda uprising'
YNET News
At least 16 people killed, scores wounded in battles between Hamas forces, al-Qaeda followers in Strip; unconfirmed report says suicide bomber blew up amidst Hamas men. Earlier, radical cleric pledges allegiance to Bin Laden
Ali Waked
Mayhem in Gaza: After hours of fighting Friday, Hamas' security forces were able to crush an uprising by gunmen associated with al-Qaeda, in the wake of a provocative speech by a local imam critical of Gaza's current rulers. At least 16 people were killed in the clashes and more than 80 were reportedly wounded.
Earlier, the leader of the radical Salafi faction in Gaza, Abdul Latif Musa, slammed Hamas' conduct as not sufficiently Islamic, as he declared the Strip an "Islamic emirate" and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
Following fierce gunfights, eyewitnesses reported that Hamas was able to take over most rebel strongholds. Friday night, Hamas forces reportedly bombed the last stronghold, where Imam Musa and his men were apparently barricaded.
According to one report, the commander of the al-Qaeda faction's military wing, Abu-Abdullah al-Suri, may have been killed in the attack.
'Ideological deterioration'
Unconfirmed reports said a Musa loyalist blew himself up within a group of Hamas men near the mosque where the radical cleric spoke earlier. According to other reports, Hamas members, some of them masked, were pursuing more Salafi loyalists in the Strip.
Hamas Spokesman Sami Abu-Zuhari addressed the fierce clashes in Rafah, characterizing the views presented by the Salafi faction as "ideological deterioration."
"This group has no connection to any outside organization," he said. "No element or group has the authority to take the law into its own hands, and those who do not respect that will be dealt with by the security establishment."
Meanwhile, members of the Salafi group, Jund al-Ansar Allah, said they were completely loyal to Musa and warned against any attempt to undermine the Islamic emirate he declared.
According to other reports, the secretary general of the Popular Resistance Committees was leading mediation efforts between the warring factions.
Friday, August 14, 2009
"Backlash"
Arlene Kushner
That's a backlash against the Fatah Conference in Bethlehem, and it couldn't be happening to "nicer" people.
According to Khaled Abu Toameh, a large number of Fatah's top representatives are questioning the elections for Central Committee held earlier this week. Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) -- who failed to receive re-election -- has now pronounced what went on in Iran "nothing" as compared to these Fatah elections: Speaking to Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), Qurei said:
"There are many big question marks about the election, the way it was conducted and the way votes were counted.
"There were behind-the-scenes arrangements that removed some names and added others to the [winning] list."
Gee, could you imagine that?
Pointing out that three of the men who won -- Jibril Rajoub, Muhammad Dahlan and Tawfik Tirawi -- worked with Israel in their former roles as security commanders, he charged: "...someone wants to see rubber stamps.
"This is a harsh and difficult phase and there are offers for a temporary state without Jerusalem and the refugees. Apparently there are some people who have taken this into consideration."
Qurei has hinted that Abbas and his supporters had a hand in what went on. He and others were particularly distressed by the "extremely disgraceful" last-minute inclusion of Tayeb Abdel Rahim -- an "old-guard" long time colleague of Abbas -- in the list of winners. A preliminary result had shown that Rahim did not have enough votes to be included on the Committee.
~~~~~~~~~~
Every member of Fatah's Higher Committee in Gaza has submitted his resignation in protest against what has been called, "massive fraud." Said Ahmed Abu Nasr,a Fatah leader in Gaza, "These elections have damaged Fatah's reputation." This, says Abu Toameh, represents a serious embarrassment for Abbas.
Dozens of Fatah members have signed a petition rejecting the outcome of the election and calling for an independent probe.
With all of this, the results of the election to the Revolutionary Council, second in importance to the Central Committee, have yet to be announced.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ziad Abu Zayyad, a former PA minister has hailed the Fatah resulting from the Bethlehem Conference "a brand new Fatah."
But Abu Toameh is saying, not so fast: "Some Fatah representatives are now talking about the possibility of forming a breakaway group called Fatah - the Awakening (Fath al-Sahwa ). Others said that the reaction of the Fatah representatives in the Gaza Strip also indicated that there's a high probability that they would try to establish their own Fatah party."
(Sorry I cannot locate a URL for Abu Toameh's Post analysis, "Showdown in Bethlehem," which I have in hard copy.)
~~~~~~~~~~
This past week, Obama, shamefully, award the US Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, had overseen the horrendously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Durban I.
With this crass and insensitive act, Obama has made a clear statement.
I would like to share two commentaries on this event.
The first, by John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN and a really good guy. Bolton analyzes the reasons why Robinson should not have received the award.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342152496390582.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
~~~~~~~~~~
The second by Jennifer Rubin (and I thank Yisrael M. for calling this to my attention) addresses the effect of Obama's decision on the American Jewish community and Jewish politicians.
"I have a slightly different take on the Mary Robinson fiasco. Whether it becomes a 'tipping point' for the American Jewish community in political allegiance is not yet clear. But it marked a sharp departure in the behavior and, I think, perception of mainstream Jewish organizations. A combination of support for Obama’s liberal domestic agenda, a desire to maintain access to the White House, and a heavy dose of wishful thinking had contributed to an almost total absence of sharp public criticism of the White House’s increasingly hostile stance toward Israel.
"No more. The inhibition has been broken with the recognition now dawning on Jewish Democrats that this is a president lacking in affection and respect for Israel and for the sensibilities of pro-Israel voters. The aversion to conflict with the administration has been overcome, and I suspect the administration won’t face as pliant a Jewish community in the future."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/blogs/index.php/rubin/76102
~~~~~~~~~~
There are rumors afloat about the specifics on US-Israel negotiations with regard to a "temporary" freeze on settlement building.
Shimon Schiffer, in Yediot Ahronot today, says the US wants a two year freeze because Obama figures that's how long forging a peace deal will take (in his dreams).
Netanyahu, says Schiffer, is offering three months, with Israel retaining the right to start building again after that if the Arab states haven't made their appropriate gestures of normalization.
Understand that this is not officially confirmed. But I don't like it in any event. If there are "gestures of normalization" does this mean we're permanently frozen?
Both Netanyahu and Barak (who reportedly would accept a six-month freeze) want the deal in writing, since Obama claimed there was no deal with Bush that had to be honored because there was nothing that was an explicit written commitment. Obama is said to be balking at this as he doesn't want to go on record as formally authorizing building in the settlements under any conditions.
Schiffer points out that there is also the issue of precisely what constitutes appropriate gestures of normalization -- "for example the reopening of a single interest office by one of the Gulf states" -- suggesting that Netanyahu might settle for a minor gesture. But, again, we don't know this. (See the next item.)
~~~~~~~~~~
According a message relayed by the US, Oman and Qatar may be willing to renew relations with Israel if we freeze settlement construction. (Oman broke ties at the time of the Second Intifada in 2000, and Qatar expelled Israeli in a delegation office during "Cast Lead" earlier this year.)
The Netanyahu government is not responding to this with any particular enthusiasm, as there is no agreement yet on freezing settlements in any event.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please see this information on J Street, the far left political action committee that claims to be pro-Israel but works decidedly against Israel's true interests. Every concerned American Jew ought know this: Donors to J Street include Arabs, Muslim Americans, and those doing political advocacy for the Palestinians:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Now Shabbat preparations call. Issues of significance to be considered soon, as time allows (there is NEVER enough time and there are always hot issues):
A tense situation on our northern border, pressure from the US regarding negotiations with Syria, and a report, highly biased, from the UN Human Rights Council regarding our actions in "Cast Lead."
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
That's a backlash against the Fatah Conference in Bethlehem, and it couldn't be happening to "nicer" people.
According to Khaled Abu Toameh, a large number of Fatah's top representatives are questioning the elections for Central Committee held earlier this week. Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) -- who failed to receive re-election -- has now pronounced what went on in Iran "nothing" as compared to these Fatah elections: Speaking to Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), Qurei said:
"There are many big question marks about the election, the way it was conducted and the way votes were counted.
"There were behind-the-scenes arrangements that removed some names and added others to the [winning] list."
Gee, could you imagine that?
Pointing out that three of the men who won -- Jibril Rajoub, Muhammad Dahlan and Tawfik Tirawi -- worked with Israel in their former roles as security commanders, he charged: "...someone wants to see rubber stamps.
"This is a harsh and difficult phase and there are offers for a temporary state without Jerusalem and the refugees. Apparently there are some people who have taken this into consideration."
Qurei has hinted that Abbas and his supporters had a hand in what went on. He and others were particularly distressed by the "extremely disgraceful" last-minute inclusion of Tayeb Abdel Rahim -- an "old-guard" long time colleague of Abbas -- in the list of winners. A preliminary result had shown that Rahim did not have enough votes to be included on the Committee.
~~~~~~~~~~
Every member of Fatah's Higher Committee in Gaza has submitted his resignation in protest against what has been called, "massive fraud." Said Ahmed Abu Nasr,a Fatah leader in Gaza, "These elections have damaged Fatah's reputation." This, says Abu Toameh, represents a serious embarrassment for Abbas.
Dozens of Fatah members have signed a petition rejecting the outcome of the election and calling for an independent probe.
With all of this, the results of the election to the Revolutionary Council, second in importance to the Central Committee, have yet to be announced.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ziad Abu Zayyad, a former PA minister has hailed the Fatah resulting from the Bethlehem Conference "a brand new Fatah."
But Abu Toameh is saying, not so fast: "Some Fatah representatives are now talking about the possibility of forming a breakaway group called Fatah - the Awakening (Fath al-Sahwa ). Others said that the reaction of the Fatah representatives in the Gaza Strip also indicated that there's a high probability that they would try to establish their own Fatah party."
(Sorry I cannot locate a URL for Abu Toameh's Post analysis, "Showdown in Bethlehem," which I have in hard copy.)
~~~~~~~~~~
This past week, Obama, shamefully, award the US Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, had overseen the horrendously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Durban I.
With this crass and insensitive act, Obama has made a clear statement.
I would like to share two commentaries on this event.
The first, by John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN and a really good guy. Bolton analyzes the reasons why Robinson should not have received the award.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342152496390582.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
~~~~~~~~~~
The second by Jennifer Rubin (and I thank Yisrael M. for calling this to my attention) addresses the effect of Obama's decision on the American Jewish community and Jewish politicians.
"I have a slightly different take on the Mary Robinson fiasco. Whether it becomes a 'tipping point' for the American Jewish community in political allegiance is not yet clear. But it marked a sharp departure in the behavior and, I think, perception of mainstream Jewish organizations. A combination of support for Obama’s liberal domestic agenda, a desire to maintain access to the White House, and a heavy dose of wishful thinking had contributed to an almost total absence of sharp public criticism of the White House’s increasingly hostile stance toward Israel.
"No more. The inhibition has been broken with the recognition now dawning on Jewish Democrats that this is a president lacking in affection and respect for Israel and for the sensibilities of pro-Israel voters. The aversion to conflict with the administration has been overcome, and I suspect the administration won’t face as pliant a Jewish community in the future."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/blogs/index.php/rubin/76102
~~~~~~~~~~
There are rumors afloat about the specifics on US-Israel negotiations with regard to a "temporary" freeze on settlement building.
Shimon Schiffer, in Yediot Ahronot today, says the US wants a two year freeze because Obama figures that's how long forging a peace deal will take (in his dreams).
Netanyahu, says Schiffer, is offering three months, with Israel retaining the right to start building again after that if the Arab states haven't made their appropriate gestures of normalization.
Understand that this is not officially confirmed. But I don't like it in any event. If there are "gestures of normalization" does this mean we're permanently frozen?
Both Netanyahu and Barak (who reportedly would accept a six-month freeze) want the deal in writing, since Obama claimed there was no deal with Bush that had to be honored because there was nothing that was an explicit written commitment. Obama is said to be balking at this as he doesn't want to go on record as formally authorizing building in the settlements under any conditions.
Schiffer points out that there is also the issue of precisely what constitutes appropriate gestures of normalization -- "for example the reopening of a single interest office by one of the Gulf states" -- suggesting that Netanyahu might settle for a minor gesture. But, again, we don't know this. (See the next item.)
~~~~~~~~~~
According a message relayed by the US, Oman and Qatar may be willing to renew relations with Israel if we freeze settlement construction. (Oman broke ties at the time of the Second Intifada in 2000, and Qatar expelled Israeli in a delegation office during "Cast Lead" earlier this year.)
The Netanyahu government is not responding to this with any particular enthusiasm, as there is no agreement yet on freezing settlements in any event.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please see this information on J Street, the far left political action committee that claims to be pro-Israel but works decidedly against Israel's true interests. Every concerned American Jew ought know this: Donors to J Street include Arabs, Muslim Americans, and those doing political advocacy for the Palestinians:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Now Shabbat preparations call. Issues of significance to be considered soon, as time allows (there is NEVER enough time and there are always hot issues):
A tense situation on our northern border, pressure from the US regarding negotiations with Syria, and a report, highly biased, from the UN Human Rights Council regarding our actions in "Cast Lead."
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
All Process, No Peace
David Solway
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, August 14, 2009
The Annapolis peace conference has come and gone, the dilemma it was meant to resolve has only gotten worse, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has sunk ever deeper into the bog of internal recrimination, self-division and political intransigence. Annapolis—or as I prefer to call it, PAnnapolis—proved only that, whatever concessions the Israelis put on the table and regardless of America’s indulgent bothering, the PA is not a viable negotiating partner. Indeed, it has, arguably, no interest whatsoever in brokering a peace agreement with Israel.
“What exactly do we want?” asks PA spokesperson Kiffah Radaya in a TV interview. She answers her question rather decisively. “It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; and the goal is Palestine.” By which she means: Israel. Similarly, at the most recent PA General Assembly held in August 2009, speaker after speaker insisted on the right of “resistance,” the need to continue the “armed struggle” against the Jewish state, and the obligation to “liberate” Jerusalem. Rubbing salt in the wounds of Oslo, the Assembly ratified the terrorist Aksa Martyrs Brigade as Fatah’s official armed wing, despite the promise of the Fatah leadership to dismantle it.
Following the conclave, many newspapers trumpeted a new Fatah, ready to make peace with Israel. This is complete nonsense. What was renewed was Fatah intransigence, as was made patently obvious by the election of younger hardliners like Marwan Barghouti, Tawfik Tirawi. Jibril Rajoub and Muhammad Dahlan who are determined to pursue “the struggle” against “the occupation.” As Arab-Israeli political journalist Khaled Abu Toameh writes, “It’s unrealistic to expect changes in Fatah’s policies now that the younger leaders are sitting in the Central Committee.” In fact, the latter three served “as Yasser Arafat’s henchman and enforcers.” On all important issues, he continues, “there’s almost no difference” between young guard activists and their older compatriots.
The obsessive focus on Israel and territorial conquest, however, merely distracts the Palestinians from the necessary task of getting their own house in order, an obstacle they are plainly unwilling to confront. Whatever Palestinian ambitions may be, nation-building appears beyond their means. Toameh earlier quotes a Palestinian Authority official who, briefing U.S. Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, confessed that: “Even if Binyamin Netanyahu were to offer us a Palestinian state tomorrow morning, I’m not sure that we are prepared to meet such a huge challenge.”
Failing a new and enlightened Mandate for the West Bank and Gaza, robustly enforced by the Western powers (forget the U.N.), it is highly unlikely that the Palestinians would be able to successfully manage their own independence. They are simply not ready and there is no forcing the process. Perhaps, as former American ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk proposed in Foreign Affairs for May 2003, the “road map” must be replaced by the political concept of trusteeship if a sovereign and self-sustaining Palestine is ever to see the light of history.
In any event, whatever spin is put on it for the benefit of public relations or the sunny rodomontade of press releases, the much-touted Annapolis conference was no exception to the general rule of blunder and desuetude, though not without causing even more damage, mostly to Israel. Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, the weakest and most unqualified in the history of the country and author of that revelatory phrase, “We are tired of winning,” did everything in his power to lose. Luckily his attempt to give away the store, as was the case with Ehud Barak at Camp David, was foiled by his putative beneficiaries who wanted the whole block.
Additionally, when one considers the fundamental Arab/Palestinian demands, like shrinking Israel’s borders so that they are rendered indefensible and inundating the country with millions of so-called “refugees,” the auguries for eventual reconciliation are nugatory. From the Israeli perspective, the process seems more like commiting national suicide than reaching a modus vivendi. There is no reason to expect a different result under any future Annapolis II, III or IV, which, like Hollywood movie sequels, merely grow progressively embarrassing as one clunker wearily follows another. P. David Hornik is on the mark when he suggests that the U.S. administration should adopt “the Israeli understanding of the Middle East as an arena of survival rather than conciliation.” Nor does it help that the Palestinians remain trapped in the oddly sustainable rubble of a failed ideology.
Which is Palestine? Gaza or the West Bank, two entities themselves ridden by internal dissension and threatening further mitosis? And when one reflects that Palestinian society has been educated from grassroots to tree tops to hate Israelis, embrace “martyrdom” for the cause and regard peace agreements and international accords—to adapt Clausewitz’s famous aphorism—as merely war by another name, it should become obvious that we are embarking on the wrong track.
PA leader Mahmoud Abbas himself has made this amply clear. Speaking at a memorial rally in Ramallah in October 2008, he pledged that “The Palestinian leadership will continue to follow Yasser Arafat's path until a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is established…. The path of the shahids—Arafat, George Habash and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin—is the path that we cherish….” Having extolled the three arch-terrorists, his subsequent statements revealed that the Palestinian administration has no interest in flexible and reasoned negotiation: “We rejected Israeli proposals that stipulated making concessions including on Jerusalem and the refugees…. We either get all six points—Jerusalem, settlements, borders, refugees, water and security—or nothing at all.” All or nothing is as good a description as any of Palestinian negotiating technique and “nothing at all” the most likely result.
Further, on April 27, 2009, in an address to the Palestinian Youth Parliament, Abbas adamantly refused to recognize Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. Of course, he neglected to mention the diverse Muslim states which define themselves as precisely what they are, Muslim states (the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, etc.) Abbas suppressed the fact that Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution explicitly declares that “Islam is the State religion,” that both Egypt and Syria require the President to be a Muslim, and that the Palestinian Authority itself stipulates in Article 5 of its Constitution that Islam is the “official Palestinian religion.”
But what’s good for the gander is obviously not good for the goose. Even a hint of pragmatic reflection would suggest there can be no honorable treating with so contradictory and hypocritical a mindset. Interviewed in the London-based Al-Kuds-al-Arabi newspaper in August 2009, Fatah official Rafik Natsheh affirmed that Fatah would never recognize Israel. Why, then, go on with the charade? Nothing has changed since the last PA General Assembly meeting in Tunis twenty years ago.
The superficial counsels for the success of the Annapolis conference and similar peace intiatives which take the Palestinians at their word, ignore Israeli security interests, acknowledge rogue actors like Syria and even Hamas, cancel the reasons for Israel’s very founding, and misconstrue the animating impulse of Arab diplomacy are a surefire recipe for ever greater chaos and hostility in the region. Even with the change in the U.S. administration, the Annapolis principles are being held in what housewives call a “cold oven,” that is, quietly kept warm until the time comes to serve them up again or raise the temperature.
President Obama’s May 28 meeting with Abbas was only another of these rechauffés. Nabil Abu Rudeina, one of Abbas’ top aides, had proleptically labelled this encounter “a turning point for the Middle East peace process” (The Jordan Times, April 23, 2009). There have, of course, been so many such turning points that one is reminded of the frenzied and hilarious roundabout car chase scene in Peter Sellers’ The Pink Panther, leading to nothing more than vertigo and the inevitable collision. It is hard to deny the element of bathos and even of farce in these proceedings. Despite visionary hopes and occasional tenebrous indications of some sort of resolution, the “peace process” is going in circles.
Massad Yousef, the son of popular Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, who fled Ramallah and is now living in exile in California, is someone who knows what he is talking about. In an interview with Haaretz.com (July 31, 2008), he asserts without the slightest hesitation that Israel “will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews…More than that. An entire society sanctifies death and the suicide terrorists.” To believe otherwise, I’m afraid, is to yield to the Sirens who tempt us with our own febrile infatuations, to which Western (and much Israeli) political thought seems incurably predisposed.
An addled President Bush and his presbyopic Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should have taken heed, had they only been able to. And by inviting terrorist states like Syria to participate in Annapolis and thereby lavishing credibility upon them, the Americans were only courting disaster. Nor has the situation improved under President Obama, who seems to be suffering from selective amnesia. In an interview with a klatch of Middle East reporters in the wake of his June 4, 2009 Cairo address, Obama apparently forgot about Ehud Barak’s overly magnanimous offer to Yasser Arafat at Camp David II in 2000 and subsequently at Taba in 2001 to establish a Palestinian state, preferring to put the onus of failure on the so-called “occupation,” by which he intends precisely those settlements vetted by the previous administration—and, ultimately, Israel itself.
The Obama administration’s recent overtures to the PA, Syria and Iran are just more of the same old hummus with the difference that it has surrendered not only its intelligence but its dignity, acting on the one hand like a bully (toward Israel) and on the other as an apologist (toward the Arab world). Obama postures that he knows what is best for Israel, just as he knows what is best for America (and for Honduras). But the beneficiaries of his wisdom will suffer greatly as they swallow or are force-fed his nostrums and panaceas.
Israel in particular must remain alert as the situation continues to devolve. When Obama knows what is best, prepare for the worst.
David Solway is the award-winning author of over twenty-five books of poetry, criticism, educational theory, and travel. He is a contributor to magazines as varied as the Atlantic, the Sewanee Review, Books in Canada, and the Partisan Review. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity. A new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, will be released by CanadianValuesPress this fall.
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, August 14, 2009
The Annapolis peace conference has come and gone, the dilemma it was meant to resolve has only gotten worse, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has sunk ever deeper into the bog of internal recrimination, self-division and political intransigence. Annapolis—or as I prefer to call it, PAnnapolis—proved only that, whatever concessions the Israelis put on the table and regardless of America’s indulgent bothering, the PA is not a viable negotiating partner. Indeed, it has, arguably, no interest whatsoever in brokering a peace agreement with Israel.
“What exactly do we want?” asks PA spokesperson Kiffah Radaya in a TV interview. She answers her question rather decisively. “It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; and the goal is Palestine.” By which she means: Israel. Similarly, at the most recent PA General Assembly held in August 2009, speaker after speaker insisted on the right of “resistance,” the need to continue the “armed struggle” against the Jewish state, and the obligation to “liberate” Jerusalem. Rubbing salt in the wounds of Oslo, the Assembly ratified the terrorist Aksa Martyrs Brigade as Fatah’s official armed wing, despite the promise of the Fatah leadership to dismantle it.
Following the conclave, many newspapers trumpeted a new Fatah, ready to make peace with Israel. This is complete nonsense. What was renewed was Fatah intransigence, as was made patently obvious by the election of younger hardliners like Marwan Barghouti, Tawfik Tirawi. Jibril Rajoub and Muhammad Dahlan who are determined to pursue “the struggle” against “the occupation.” As Arab-Israeli political journalist Khaled Abu Toameh writes, “It’s unrealistic to expect changes in Fatah’s policies now that the younger leaders are sitting in the Central Committee.” In fact, the latter three served “as Yasser Arafat’s henchman and enforcers.” On all important issues, he continues, “there’s almost no difference” between young guard activists and their older compatriots.
The obsessive focus on Israel and territorial conquest, however, merely distracts the Palestinians from the necessary task of getting their own house in order, an obstacle they are plainly unwilling to confront. Whatever Palestinian ambitions may be, nation-building appears beyond their means. Toameh earlier quotes a Palestinian Authority official who, briefing U.S. Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, confessed that: “Even if Binyamin Netanyahu were to offer us a Palestinian state tomorrow morning, I’m not sure that we are prepared to meet such a huge challenge.”
Failing a new and enlightened Mandate for the West Bank and Gaza, robustly enforced by the Western powers (forget the U.N.), it is highly unlikely that the Palestinians would be able to successfully manage their own independence. They are simply not ready and there is no forcing the process. Perhaps, as former American ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk proposed in Foreign Affairs for May 2003, the “road map” must be replaced by the political concept of trusteeship if a sovereign and self-sustaining Palestine is ever to see the light of history.
In any event, whatever spin is put on it for the benefit of public relations or the sunny rodomontade of press releases, the much-touted Annapolis conference was no exception to the general rule of blunder and desuetude, though not without causing even more damage, mostly to Israel. Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, the weakest and most unqualified in the history of the country and author of that revelatory phrase, “We are tired of winning,” did everything in his power to lose. Luckily his attempt to give away the store, as was the case with Ehud Barak at Camp David, was foiled by his putative beneficiaries who wanted the whole block.
Additionally, when one considers the fundamental Arab/Palestinian demands, like shrinking Israel’s borders so that they are rendered indefensible and inundating the country with millions of so-called “refugees,” the auguries for eventual reconciliation are nugatory. From the Israeli perspective, the process seems more like commiting national suicide than reaching a modus vivendi. There is no reason to expect a different result under any future Annapolis II, III or IV, which, like Hollywood movie sequels, merely grow progressively embarrassing as one clunker wearily follows another. P. David Hornik is on the mark when he suggests that the U.S. administration should adopt “the Israeli understanding of the Middle East as an arena of survival rather than conciliation.” Nor does it help that the Palestinians remain trapped in the oddly sustainable rubble of a failed ideology.
Which is Palestine? Gaza or the West Bank, two entities themselves ridden by internal dissension and threatening further mitosis? And when one reflects that Palestinian society has been educated from grassroots to tree tops to hate Israelis, embrace “martyrdom” for the cause and regard peace agreements and international accords—to adapt Clausewitz’s famous aphorism—as merely war by another name, it should become obvious that we are embarking on the wrong track.
PA leader Mahmoud Abbas himself has made this amply clear. Speaking at a memorial rally in Ramallah in October 2008, he pledged that “The Palestinian leadership will continue to follow Yasser Arafat's path until a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is established…. The path of the shahids—Arafat, George Habash and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin—is the path that we cherish….” Having extolled the three arch-terrorists, his subsequent statements revealed that the Palestinian administration has no interest in flexible and reasoned negotiation: “We rejected Israeli proposals that stipulated making concessions including on Jerusalem and the refugees…. We either get all six points—Jerusalem, settlements, borders, refugees, water and security—or nothing at all.” All or nothing is as good a description as any of Palestinian negotiating technique and “nothing at all” the most likely result.
Further, on April 27, 2009, in an address to the Palestinian Youth Parliament, Abbas adamantly refused to recognize Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. Of course, he neglected to mention the diverse Muslim states which define themselves as precisely what they are, Muslim states (the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, etc.) Abbas suppressed the fact that Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution explicitly declares that “Islam is the State religion,” that both Egypt and Syria require the President to be a Muslim, and that the Palestinian Authority itself stipulates in Article 5 of its Constitution that Islam is the “official Palestinian religion.”
But what’s good for the gander is obviously not good for the goose. Even a hint of pragmatic reflection would suggest there can be no honorable treating with so contradictory and hypocritical a mindset. Interviewed in the London-based Al-Kuds-al-Arabi newspaper in August 2009, Fatah official Rafik Natsheh affirmed that Fatah would never recognize Israel. Why, then, go on with the charade? Nothing has changed since the last PA General Assembly meeting in Tunis twenty years ago.
The superficial counsels for the success of the Annapolis conference and similar peace intiatives which take the Palestinians at their word, ignore Israeli security interests, acknowledge rogue actors like Syria and even Hamas, cancel the reasons for Israel’s very founding, and misconstrue the animating impulse of Arab diplomacy are a surefire recipe for ever greater chaos and hostility in the region. Even with the change in the U.S. administration, the Annapolis principles are being held in what housewives call a “cold oven,” that is, quietly kept warm until the time comes to serve them up again or raise the temperature.
President Obama’s May 28 meeting with Abbas was only another of these rechauffés. Nabil Abu Rudeina, one of Abbas’ top aides, had proleptically labelled this encounter “a turning point for the Middle East peace process” (The Jordan Times, April 23, 2009). There have, of course, been so many such turning points that one is reminded of the frenzied and hilarious roundabout car chase scene in Peter Sellers’ The Pink Panther, leading to nothing more than vertigo and the inevitable collision. It is hard to deny the element of bathos and even of farce in these proceedings. Despite visionary hopes and occasional tenebrous indications of some sort of resolution, the “peace process” is going in circles.
Massad Yousef, the son of popular Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, who fled Ramallah and is now living in exile in California, is someone who knows what he is talking about. In an interview with Haaretz.com (July 31, 2008), he asserts without the slightest hesitation that Israel “will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews…More than that. An entire society sanctifies death and the suicide terrorists.” To believe otherwise, I’m afraid, is to yield to the Sirens who tempt us with our own febrile infatuations, to which Western (and much Israeli) political thought seems incurably predisposed.
An addled President Bush and his presbyopic Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should have taken heed, had they only been able to. And by inviting terrorist states like Syria to participate in Annapolis and thereby lavishing credibility upon them, the Americans were only courting disaster. Nor has the situation improved under President Obama, who seems to be suffering from selective amnesia. In an interview with a klatch of Middle East reporters in the wake of his June 4, 2009 Cairo address, Obama apparently forgot about Ehud Barak’s overly magnanimous offer to Yasser Arafat at Camp David II in 2000 and subsequently at Taba in 2001 to establish a Palestinian state, preferring to put the onus of failure on the so-called “occupation,” by which he intends precisely those settlements vetted by the previous administration—and, ultimately, Israel itself.
The Obama administration’s recent overtures to the PA, Syria and Iran are just more of the same old hummus with the difference that it has surrendered not only its intelligence but its dignity, acting on the one hand like a bully (toward Israel) and on the other as an apologist (toward the Arab world). Obama postures that he knows what is best for Israel, just as he knows what is best for America (and for Honduras). But the beneficiaries of his wisdom will suffer greatly as they swallow or are force-fed his nostrums and panaceas.
Israel in particular must remain alert as the situation continues to devolve. When Obama knows what is best, prepare for the worst.
David Solway is the award-winning author of over twenty-five books of poetry, criticism, educational theory, and travel. He is a contributor to magazines as varied as the Atlantic, the Sewanee Review, Books in Canada, and the Partisan Review. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity. A new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, will be released by CanadianValuesPress this fall.
The People's Genie Is out of the Bottle
Lee Cary
American Thinker
Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders uncorked the bottle and the peoples' Genie is out.
He's not happy, this Genie. In normal times, he sits there quietly inside the bottle. Sometimes watching. Mostly not. He finds politics boring, if not disgusting.
He sat and watched in silence as the TARP bill passed. Told the sky was falling, he looked up and saw it wasn't. But he shrugged, trusting the bipartisan nature of the effort. Then, as TARP rolled out, he stood up. The bailouts plowed a furrow across his forehead; his eyebrows lowered; his gaze intensified. But he stayed inside the bottle. Along came the Stimulus Bill. Or, in the language of the big spenders, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Genie smelled the bacon through the glass bottle. He heard the squeals coming next from the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Another stampede of pigs.
Inside the bottle, the Genie's leaned forward, pressing his hands and nose flat against the glass. As he watched banks and car companies yield to government control, his jaw slid up. His lips pressed tight. His breathing shortened. But he stayed inside the bottle.
In his peripheral vision he saw a dancing troupe dressed like Cossacks enter the side door of the White House and disappear within. The Czars had come. The Genie watched, and wondered.
Events outside the bottle picked up speed. More crisis talk was in the air. He checked the sky again. Still no signs of a falling.
Then, ever heavier and more complicated legislative tomes rolled out of Congress in carriages drawn by hubris and arrogance. Cap & Trade and Healthcare Reform. Their long official titles no longer impressed the Genie. But their huge price tags did. As did the mounting federal budget deficit for 2009. Now at $1.84 trillion, with more to come.
By this time, the Genie was rocking his bottle back-and-forth. He tried and failed to get the big spenders' attention. His mouth moved, but no sound escaped his bottle, at least in the ears of the big spenders and the old news media, becoming ever more irrelevant with each news cycle as they peddle into obscurity.
The people felt powerless because they were. They had no voice that carried. The big spenders pretended to listen, but then condescendingly told the people that everything happening was for their own good. It was meant to be, they said. Doing nothing, they said, is worse.
When the people protested, they were called rightwing extremists, disruptive malcontents, organized mobs, Nazis brown shirts, and other names which they are not. In fact, they're average American citizens in a nation where nothing is average about them. On the planet, they are the most extraordinary of citizens.
Calling the people names was the last straw. The Genie tipped the bottle over, put his feet against the cork, and kick his way out. Beware of an uncorked Genie.
As this happened, the people started coming to town hall meetings, meant mostly to convince them to go-along to get-along. They held the heavy healthcare bill in their hands. Dog-eared from having been read.
The big spenders were shocked to learn that the people had taken time to do what they, the professional legislators, had not done - they'd read the bill! The people came armed with enlightened questions, reasoned arguments, and impassioned opinions. All things the big spenders lacked. In some cases, numbers were handed out at the entry door to qualify and order those who could speak. Then, one after the other, questioners asked clear, targeted questions. Sharpshooters picked at random. Remarkable.
The people stood, a furrow plowed across their foreheads. Their eyebrows lowered. Their chins up, lips pressed tight, gaze intensified. The Genie was out. When the big spenders told them that their reading of the bill was incorrect, the people found their voice. And, though some quivered with nervousness, they pushed against the glass. This time their voice was most definitely heard.
Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership let the Genie out of the bottle. It was an unintended consequence of their crass and heavy-handed methods of leadership. They forgot, if they ever knew, that Americans can be led, but they cannot be herded.
Obama and Friends though it possible to ride roughshod over the Genie's people. They remembered the swooning crowds seduced by the oratorical skills of their leader. They assumed his charisma would carry the day, again. The people would fold and comply, even if they might not commit. And, for those who would not fold easily, there was always the muscle mustered from Obama's acolytes and allies. There was always the hype served up on demand by the old media. There was always the cumulative ridicule and name-calling spit from the lips of their Party leaders. These things would deflect the people's skepticism and temper their anger. So they thought.
They were wrong. All these things did was make the people angrier and harden their determination to be heard, and more - to be heeded.
One young woman at a town hall meeting said that, for the first time in her life, she was taking politics seriously because so much is at stake. Her freedoms mostly. Her children's future, too. She said the effort to force the healthcare bill on the people "had awakened a sleeping giant." She could have ended her sentence with the words Admiral Isoraku Yamamoto spoke after the Japanese attacked on Pearl Harbor: "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
We are watching each other stand up in town hall meetings and face their representatives. Those politicians with the courage to attend anyway. We watch live, and we watch on that most sensational and powerful new medium of the web: U-Tube. The peoples' articulate and courageous statements procreate exponentially, multiplying like amoebas on steroids, as we feed on the resolve of others. A resolve only terrible to those who would silence dissent. Wonderful to the rest of us.
So the Genie is out of the bottle. And it'll be a good while before he thinks it safe to crawl back in.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_peoples_genie_is_out_of_th.html at August 14, 2009 - 01:56:59 AM EDT
American Thinker
Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders uncorked the bottle and the peoples' Genie is out.
He's not happy, this Genie. In normal times, he sits there quietly inside the bottle. Sometimes watching. Mostly not. He finds politics boring, if not disgusting.
He sat and watched in silence as the TARP bill passed. Told the sky was falling, he looked up and saw it wasn't. But he shrugged, trusting the bipartisan nature of the effort. Then, as TARP rolled out, he stood up. The bailouts plowed a furrow across his forehead; his eyebrows lowered; his gaze intensified. But he stayed inside the bottle. Along came the Stimulus Bill. Or, in the language of the big spenders, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Genie smelled the bacon through the glass bottle. He heard the squeals coming next from the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Another stampede of pigs.
Inside the bottle, the Genie's leaned forward, pressing his hands and nose flat against the glass. As he watched banks and car companies yield to government control, his jaw slid up. His lips pressed tight. His breathing shortened. But he stayed inside the bottle.
In his peripheral vision he saw a dancing troupe dressed like Cossacks enter the side door of the White House and disappear within. The Czars had come. The Genie watched, and wondered.
Events outside the bottle picked up speed. More crisis talk was in the air. He checked the sky again. Still no signs of a falling.
Then, ever heavier and more complicated legislative tomes rolled out of Congress in carriages drawn by hubris and arrogance. Cap & Trade and Healthcare Reform. Their long official titles no longer impressed the Genie. But their huge price tags did. As did the mounting federal budget deficit for 2009. Now at $1.84 trillion, with more to come.
By this time, the Genie was rocking his bottle back-and-forth. He tried and failed to get the big spenders' attention. His mouth moved, but no sound escaped his bottle, at least in the ears of the big spenders and the old news media, becoming ever more irrelevant with each news cycle as they peddle into obscurity.
The people felt powerless because they were. They had no voice that carried. The big spenders pretended to listen, but then condescendingly told the people that everything happening was for their own good. It was meant to be, they said. Doing nothing, they said, is worse.
When the people protested, they were called rightwing extremists, disruptive malcontents, organized mobs, Nazis brown shirts, and other names which they are not. In fact, they're average American citizens in a nation where nothing is average about them. On the planet, they are the most extraordinary of citizens.
Calling the people names was the last straw. The Genie tipped the bottle over, put his feet against the cork, and kick his way out. Beware of an uncorked Genie.
As this happened, the people started coming to town hall meetings, meant mostly to convince them to go-along to get-along. They held the heavy healthcare bill in their hands. Dog-eared from having been read.
The big spenders were shocked to learn that the people had taken time to do what they, the professional legislators, had not done - they'd read the bill! The people came armed with enlightened questions, reasoned arguments, and impassioned opinions. All things the big spenders lacked. In some cases, numbers were handed out at the entry door to qualify and order those who could speak. Then, one after the other, questioners asked clear, targeted questions. Sharpshooters picked at random. Remarkable.
The people stood, a furrow plowed across their foreheads. Their eyebrows lowered. Their chins up, lips pressed tight, gaze intensified. The Genie was out. When the big spenders told them that their reading of the bill was incorrect, the people found their voice. And, though some quivered with nervousness, they pushed against the glass. This time their voice was most definitely heard.
Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership let the Genie out of the bottle. It was an unintended consequence of their crass and heavy-handed methods of leadership. They forgot, if they ever knew, that Americans can be led, but they cannot be herded.
Obama and Friends though it possible to ride roughshod over the Genie's people. They remembered the swooning crowds seduced by the oratorical skills of their leader. They assumed his charisma would carry the day, again. The people would fold and comply, even if they might not commit. And, for those who would not fold easily, there was always the muscle mustered from Obama's acolytes and allies. There was always the hype served up on demand by the old media. There was always the cumulative ridicule and name-calling spit from the lips of their Party leaders. These things would deflect the people's skepticism and temper their anger. So they thought.
They were wrong. All these things did was make the people angrier and harden their determination to be heard, and more - to be heeded.
One young woman at a town hall meeting said that, for the first time in her life, she was taking politics seriously because so much is at stake. Her freedoms mostly. Her children's future, too. She said the effort to force the healthcare bill on the people "had awakened a sleeping giant." She could have ended her sentence with the words Admiral Isoraku Yamamoto spoke after the Japanese attacked on Pearl Harbor: "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
We are watching each other stand up in town hall meetings and face their representatives. Those politicians with the courage to attend anyway. We watch live, and we watch on that most sensational and powerful new medium of the web: U-Tube. The peoples' articulate and courageous statements procreate exponentially, multiplying like amoebas on steroids, as we feed on the resolve of others. A resolve only terrible to those who would silence dissent. Wonderful to the rest of us.
So the Genie is out of the bottle. And it'll be a good while before he thinks it safe to crawl back in.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_peoples_genie_is_out_of_th.html at August 14, 2009 - 01:56:59 AM EDT
Yemen's last Jews set to flee country
Haviv Rettig Gur , THE JERUSALEM POST
Israeli sources confirmed on Thursday Yemeni media reports that the overwhelming majority of the final remnant of Yemen's ancient Jewish community, numbering some 250 people, are looking to leave the country due to persecution and violence. "About 120 of the Yemeni Jews want to move to Israel, 100 want to move to the US" - where there is a small Yemenite Jewish community - "and between 20 and 30 want to stay," the source said, citing information obtained from the community.
Some of the Jews wishing to leave are unable to do so because they are having trouble selling their property, the source said.
Saba, Yemen's official state news agency, reported Wednesday on a "mini-exodus" of Jews from the country "triggered by alleged harassment" and "fear of persecution."
The article quoted Rabbi Yahya Yaish, chief rabbi of the Ridah and Amran districts, who said that "all Jews in the area are preparing to leave for Israel within the next [few] days."
Yaish is the brother of Moshe Yaish al-Nahari, a community leader who was murdered in December by a local man who demanded that he convert to Islam. Nahari's three daughters moved to Israel shortly after his murder, while his three sons made aliya in recent days with the help of the Jewish Agency, according to reports in the Yemeni media. His killer was sentenced to death in June.
According to Saba, Yaish warned that "harassment has been stepped up against Jews in the districts of Amran and Kharef, with some of the Jews killed and others kidnapped."
Violent attacks and persecution have been a regular experience of Yemen's tiny Jewish community in recent years, against the backdrop of tensions and an anti-government insurrection in the northwestern part of the country, in the province of Saada, where a Muslim religious minority affiliated with Shi'ite Islam has been clashing with government forces since 2004.
Most Yemeni Jews lived in nearby Amran province before fleeing either to protected compounds in the capital city of Sana'a or to Israel or the US. Those who remain offer easy targets for zealots.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604352&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Israeli sources confirmed on Thursday Yemeni media reports that the overwhelming majority of the final remnant of Yemen's ancient Jewish community, numbering some 250 people, are looking to leave the country due to persecution and violence. "About 120 of the Yemeni Jews want to move to Israel, 100 want to move to the US" - where there is a small Yemenite Jewish community - "and between 20 and 30 want to stay," the source said, citing information obtained from the community.
Some of the Jews wishing to leave are unable to do so because they are having trouble selling their property, the source said.
Saba, Yemen's official state news agency, reported Wednesday on a "mini-exodus" of Jews from the country "triggered by alleged harassment" and "fear of persecution."
The article quoted Rabbi Yahya Yaish, chief rabbi of the Ridah and Amran districts, who said that "all Jews in the area are preparing to leave for Israel within the next [few] days."
Yaish is the brother of Moshe Yaish al-Nahari, a community leader who was murdered in December by a local man who demanded that he convert to Islam. Nahari's three daughters moved to Israel shortly after his murder, while his three sons made aliya in recent days with the help of the Jewish Agency, according to reports in the Yemeni media. His killer was sentenced to death in June.
According to Saba, Yaish warned that "harassment has been stepped up against Jews in the districts of Amran and Kharef, with some of the Jews killed and others kidnapped."
Violent attacks and persecution have been a regular experience of Yemen's tiny Jewish community in recent years, against the backdrop of tensions and an anti-government insurrection in the northwestern part of the country, in the province of Saada, where a Muslim religious minority affiliated with Shi'ite Islam has been clashing with government forces since 2004.
Most Yemeni Jews lived in nearby Amran province before fleeing either to protected compounds in the capital city of Sana'a or to Israel or the US. Those who remain offer easy targets for zealots.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604352&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The 14 Lies Blocking Peace in the Middle East
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35869
By: Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com
Friday, August 14, 2009
If a Martian were suddenly to land on earth and started listening to and reading the mainstream media, he would form the impression that the entire Middle East conflict were due to Israel building some settlements in land that much of the world thinks should become a Palestinian state.A near-consensus exists among the governments of the world and among media writers that peace has yet to break out in the Middle East because of three principle reasons. The first is that the Jews and the Arabs have been unable to agree about whether there should be a Palestinian state. The second is because Israel has obstinately refused to withdraw its troops from (so-called) “occupied Arab” lands. The third is because Israel behaves cruelly towards the Palestinians.
The Martian could easily carry these beliefs back to its home planet, as long as it did not bother to learn the background and the history of the Middle East conflict. Those three reasons cannot survive an antibiotic of familiarity with Middle East history.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to think the idea of Palestinian statehood is the most wonderful idea to come along since the Thirteenth Amendment. And almost all world politicians, along with the Israeli Left, insist that all Israeli settlements must be removed from the West Bank because they serve as the main obstacle to peace. The reality is that the Middle East conflict has very little to do with debate over Palestinian statehood and even less to do with Israeli “settlements.” In fact Israel has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state, at least subject to some security conditions and other concessions from the Palestinians -- like recognizing Israel’s right to exist. As it turns out, even so-called “moderate” Palestinians reject any such idea.
Meanwhile debate about the Middle East conflict is based on an incredible absence of historic information and on a series of stylish misconceptions about Middle East history. The anti-Israel Lobby, which grows by the day in its maliciousness and anti-Semitism, counts on the ignorance of much of the public concerning how the Middle East got to where it is.
Here are just a handful of popular misconceptions and their antidotes:
1. Falsehood: Israel was erected on land that belonged to Palestinian Arabs.
Truth: Before Israel was created its territory never belonged to Palestinian Arabs and had not been ruled by any Arabs at all since the Middle Ages. It had been a Turkish province for centuries until it was captured by Britain during World War I. The League of Nations awarded governance of “Palestine” to Britain at the end of the war in exchange for its commitment to turn the area into a Jewish homeland. The lands on which Jewish immigrants settled before Israel was created were purchased by Jews at above-market prices and in most cases had no Arabs living on them. Virtually no Arabs were evicted.
2. Falsehood: The Jews came to Palestine as foreigners and aliens whereas the Palestinians were the indigenous people of the territory.
Truth: Jews lived in “Palestine,” which is the Land of Israel or "Eretz Yisroel," continuously from the time of the Bible. Most families of “Palestinians” migrated into “Palestine,” during the same period as the Zionist waves of immigration, starting in the second half of the 19th century. The largest ethnic group in the country at the time was the Turks. The “Palestinian Arabs” in 1948 were primarily families of migrants from Lebanon and Syria. Ironically, they were motivated to become “Palestinians” in the first place thanks to the Zionist movement, which brought capital and labor into “Palestine” and improved living conditions there. Huge numbers of the names of “Palestinian” Arab villages and towns are slightly-modified Hebrew names. It is difficult to dig in the ground of “Palestine” without uncovering Jewish artifacts, some thousands of years old. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine’s territory had been sliced off in the 1920s and used to set up Jordan, an Arab Palestinian state much larger than Israel. The remaining territory, Western Palestine, was to become the Jewish homeland. That was the original “two-state solution,” the same "innovation" now being promoted for the Western third of the remaining part of Palestine.
3. Falsehood: There is no Palestinian state today because of Israeli aggression and obstinacy.
Truth: There is no Palestinian state today because of Arab aggression and obstinacy. In late 1947, the United Nations approved by a two thirds majority a proposal to create in to create in Western "Palestine" two states to replace the British Mandatory regime there. One would be Jewish and the other a Palestinian Arab state. The Jews agreed. The Arabs rejected the idea. The Arab states launched an attack of genocidal aggression against the Jews, invaded “Palestine” and gobbled up the lands earmarked for the Arab Palestinian state. Most of those lands were then held illegally by Jordan and semi-legally by Egypt until 1967 when they were liberated by Israel in the Six Day War. The Arab world has maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948, refusing to recognize its legitimacy, and attacking Israel over and over in a series of wars and terrorism campaigns. The Arab states attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, and sponsored terrorist atrocities against Jews in Israel since it was created. The reason for the attack which produced the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 is exactly the same thing that stands in the way of any real peace settlement today.
4. Falsehood: Israel conducted “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948-49.
Truth: The Arab states conducted ethnic cleansing of Jews after 1948. About a million Jews were expelled by Arab states, their property stolen, and most then became citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs became refugees in 1948-49 as a direct result of the Arab war of aggression against Israel, in which the Palestinians participated. The estimated number of such Arab refugees varies between 400,000 and 750,000, with the former the more likely correct estimate. Afterwards, many were quietly allowed to return to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs from other Arab countries then declared themselves “Palestinian refugees” in order to get handouts from the UN and other international relief organizations. The actual Palestinian Arabs became refugees for the same reason that ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe became refugees after World War II: because they were on the losing side of the war of aggression launched by their own political leaders.
5. Falsehood: Israel is an apartheid regime and mistreats Arabs.
Truth: Israel is the only Middle East country that is NOT an apartheid regime. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who enjoy freedom of speech and of the press, free access to courts operating with due process, legal protection for property rights and the right to vote. Israeli Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any other group of Arabs in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs are quite simply the best-treated political minority in the Middle East and are in some ways better treated than are minority groups in many European countries. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate
6. Falsehood: Arabs engage in aggression and terrorism because Israel occupies territories.
Truth: Israel occupies territories (that had been controlled by Jordan and Egypt before 1967) because of Arab aggression and terrorism. Had the Arabs made peace with Israel after 1949, the West Bank and Gaza would have remained under the hegemony of Arabs and they could easily have erected a Palestinian Arab state there any time they wished. Instead, they attacked Israel in an attempt at genocidal extermination in 1967 and they lost.
7. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Israeli opposition to Palestinian self-determination.
Truth: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Arab opposition to Israeli-Jewish self-determination. There is one and only one cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if that single cause is buried beneath an avalanche of media mud designed to obfuscate and confuse. That single cause is the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel’s existence within any set of borders whatsoever. The cause of the war is Arab refusal to come to terms with Jewish self-determination in any form whatsoever. The Middle East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of “Palestinian Arabs,” but rather it is about the Arab rejection of self-determination for Israeli Jews. For a century, the Arabs have attempted to block Jewish self-determination, using violence.
No Palestinians before 1967 demanded any “homeland,” although they did demand that the Jews be stripped of theirs. That is because Palestinians are not a “people” at all and do not consider themselves such, any more than do the Arabs of Paris or of Detroit. Palestinians never had any real interest in their own state, and in fact rioted violently in 1920 when “Palestine” was detached from Syria by the European powers. Indeed the original term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic and in leftist NewSpeak) was coined to refer to the outrage of Palestinians separated from their Syrian homeland. Immediately after the Six Day War a sudden need for a Palestinian state was fabricated by the Arab world, as a gimmick to force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Israel would then again be ten-miles wide at its narrowest, and so prepped for the new Arab assault of annihilation and genocide.
The Arab world invented the “Palestinian people” so that it would serve the same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power. The term “self-determination” has been repeated as a rhetorical “inalienable right” for so long that few people recall that pursuing “self-determination” can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, merely “helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain self-determination.” He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option of “self-determination” within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states, and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside Germany. Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany’s neighbors. Hitler insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the “misery of mistreated ethnic Germans,” supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia. “Self-determination” was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and other countries.
The Arab world decided that the “Palestinians” must play the role of Sudetens, serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of Arabs in need of “self-determination.”
8. Falsehood: Palestinian terrorism has been a response to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and as a response to Israeli settlements there.
Truth: Palestinian terrorism against Jews began in the 1920s, escalated in the 1930s, continued non-stop in the 1940s even in the midst of World War II, and reached heights of barbarism in the 1950s. All this was long before Israel “occupied” anything. The PLO was set up long before the Six Day War, meaning before Israel “occupied” the West Bank and Gaza, and before those areas held a single Israeli settlement.
9. Falsehood: Israel has no right to build settlements in the West Bank.
Truth: Israel has as much right to build settlements in the West Bank as France has to build towns in Alsace and Lorraine, or as Poland has to build in areas that once held ethnic Germans. The Arabs launched a series of wars of aggression against Israel and lost. Aggressors who lose a war also lose territory. The bulk of Jewish “settlers” are actually Israelis living in the suburbs of Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967. A handful of small rural “settlements” have been constructed in empty West Bank lands from which no Arab civilians were evicted. In any real peace settlement, Jews would have as much right to live in the West Bank as Arabs have to live inside Israel. A peace accord that rules out such an arrangement would be no peace accord at all.
10. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict continues because Israel refuses to share its land and resources with Palestinians.
Truth: The Middle East conflict continues because the Arab world refuses to share its land and resources with Jews. It is about the absolute refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political entity within any set of borders in the Middle East. The Arabs today control 22 countries and territory nearly twice the size of the United States (including Alaska), whereas Israel cannot be seen on most globes or maps. Arabs as an ethnic group control more territory than any other ethnic group on earth. They refuse to share even a fraction of one percent of the Middle East with the Jews, even in a territory smaller than New Jersey. Without the West Bank, Israel at its narrowest point is less than 10 miles wide, about the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The main reason the Arab world demands that Israel relinquish the West Bank to Palestinian terrorism is so that it can be used to attack Israel again and so that Israel can at last be militarily annihilated. The Arab world controls such vast amounts of territory and such vast amounts of wealth (thanks to petroleum) that it could have created a “homeland” for Palestinian Arabs anywhere within its territories at any time.
11. Falsehood: Israel deals with Palestinian violence and terrorism using excessive disproportionate force.
Truth: The number of innocent Palestinian civilians intentionally killed by Israel is exactly zero. The number of civilians injured in Israeli anti-terror operations is tiny when compared with NATO and Allied military operations in Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Given the near universal support among Palestinians for terrorist atrocities against Jews, the self-restraint and moderation used by Israel in dealing with the threat has no precedent in the world. Israel’s own Arabs make little attempt to hide their open identification with the genocidal enemies of their own country and they by and large support the annihilation of the state in which they hold citizenship. No other democratic country facing such open sedition and identification with the enemy in time of war ever responded with anywhere near the same restraint as shown by Israel. In World War II, when faced with a far less-dangerous problem, the United States locked up its ethnic-Japanese domestic population in internment camps. Democratic Spain set up teams of death squads to deal with its separatist terrorists. Democracies in war have junked habeas corpus and treated their internal Fifth Columns as the enemy, with no hesitation or squeamishness.
Democratic Czechoslovakia and India (as well as non-democratic countries throughout Eastern Europe) undertook wholesale expulsions of millions of members of their internal ethnic minorities who had sided with the enemy. Greece and Turkey and the two sections of Cyprus simply expelled altogether their minority populations. Israel, in contrast, operates affirmative action programs that benefit Arabs, finances Arabic-language schools in which Israeli Arabs preserve and develop their culture, overfunds Arab municipalities, and turns a blind eye to massive Arab sedition and lawbreaking, including with regard to illegal mass squatting on publicly-owned lands. Israel is a Western democracy with a Scandinavian style social welfare system, the only democracy in the Middle East. It is hard to come up with words to mock satisfactorily the ludicrous nature of the complaints about Israeli “mistreatment” of Arabs. These complaints come from the very same people who are apologists for genocidal Islamofascist terrorist movements and for the Arab fascist states, regimes that are among the most barbarous and openly war-seeking on earth. The endless complaints about “human rights violations” of the “Palestinians” by Israel are a rhetorical part of the broader campaign of aggression against Israeli survival. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the world’s foremost illustration of “Moynihan’s Law,” which holds: “The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.”
12. Falsehood: Israel can achieve peace by trading “Land for Peace” and by relinquishing territories that it “occupies.”
Truth: Every time Israel relinquishes territory it “occupies” it triggers an escalation of terror and violence by Arabs against Jews. The main cause of anti-Israel terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Arabs. This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain why so few people understand it. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety in 2004 and evicted all Jews who had been living there. The complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip produced a barrage of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians inside Israel (NOT in the “occupied territories”), a barrage that eventually forced Israel’s reluctant leaders to carry out the “Cast Lead” operation against Gaza terrorism. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in the year 2000 by then-Israeli socialist Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that fiasco was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against northern Israel in the summer of 2006, and several times that number now poised to strike Israel. The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly triggered by the early Oslo withdrawals — before which there had been no suicide bombings. There can be no doubt that a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a return to pre-1967 borders would trigger a massive rocket and terror assault against the remaining areas of Israel, launched from the "liberated" lands in the West Bank. The same thing would result from Israel relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria.
13. Falsehood: The Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Israel from just criticism.
Falsehood: The anti-Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Palestinians, Arab fascist regimes, and Islamofascism from just criticism. While the media overflow with nonsensical talk about a “Zionist/Israel Lobby,” it would only be a small exaggeration to claim that there is no such thing at all. The anti-Zionist lobby binds together anti-Semites and fanatics, ranging from Islamists, to the radical Left to the Neo-Nazi Right. There is little today that separates anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism and I have never met an anti-Zionist who was not also an anti-Semite. (Jewish leftist anti-Zionists are the self-hating moral equivalents of Taliban John and Tokyo Rose).
14. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict can be resolved through “Two States for Two Peoples.”
Truth: The “Two States for Two Peoples” idea is not a solution at all but simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible borders. Right after “Two States for Two Peoples” would be implemented, the new “Palestinian state” would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what remains of Israel. Even the “moderates” within the PLO insist that any “Israel” left standing within “Two States for Two Peoples” must be flooded by Arab migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any “two-state solution” on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24th Arab state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and mortar fire from “Palestine” and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.
That such a “two-state solution” will not end the conflict, but only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a “plan of stages,” after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The “two-state solution” is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East today as the so-called “one-state solution,” favored by the anti-Semitic Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a Rwanda-style manner.
Creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would be a major step in the escalation of the Arab war against Israel's existence, even if that war is delayed for a brief time while the world celebrates the outbreak of a Potemkin “peace” in the Middle East produced by the end of Israeli "occupation" of “Palestinians.”
Since the Oslo “peace process” began in the early 1990s, the working hypothesis endorsed by nearly everyone on the planet (including large numbers of IQ-challenged Israeli politicians) has been that the most urgent task at hand is to end the Israeli "occupation" of Palestinian Arabs. The problem is that ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce nothing but escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, certainly not stability or peaceful relations. It will seek war with the rump Israel, and will seek to draw the entire Moslem world into that war. It will be indifferent to the economic and social problems of its own citizens.
Humans seem to have a basic impatience with hearing the truth repeated over long periods of time. In an era in which technology, politics, and science change so rapidly, many consider it to be implausible that a statement that had been true 60 years ago could still be true today. Surely, they insist, explanations from the past, such as those of the Middle East conflict, must be obsolete by now, replaced with new updated “theories” and more-modern perceptions of reality.
The result of all this is pseudo-history, where people invent new “theories” about some of the most widely-accepted truths of history. No subject has been subject to quite so much pseudo-historic revisionism and denial of “out-of date” truths as the Middle East. George Orwell once said that the first duty of intelligent men is to restate the obvious. Obvious truths need to be restated because they are under assault by so many dishonest men.
The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a right to set up their own state, and creation of such a state would result in escalated warfare and bloodshed, not peace. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state. Even if such a right ever existed, the Palestinians – like the Sudeten Germans - would have forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism. Their pacification today requires reimposing of martial rule by Israel and a thorough program of De-nazification.
The promotion of a “Two States for Two Peoples” solution has radicalized and Nazified most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties and politicians openly calling for violence against Jews and for the destruction of Israel. The “solution” is a recipe for more bloodshed and strife.
Steven Plaut is a professor at the Graduate School of the Business Administration at the University of Haifa and is a columnist for the Jewish Press. A collection of his commentaries on the current events in Israel can be found on his "blog" at www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.
By: Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com
Friday, August 14, 2009
If a Martian were suddenly to land on earth and started listening to and reading the mainstream media, he would form the impression that the entire Middle East conflict were due to Israel building some settlements in land that much of the world thinks should become a Palestinian state.A near-consensus exists among the governments of the world and among media writers that peace has yet to break out in the Middle East because of three principle reasons. The first is that the Jews and the Arabs have been unable to agree about whether there should be a Palestinian state. The second is because Israel has obstinately refused to withdraw its troops from (so-called) “occupied Arab” lands. The third is because Israel behaves cruelly towards the Palestinians.
The Martian could easily carry these beliefs back to its home planet, as long as it did not bother to learn the background and the history of the Middle East conflict. Those three reasons cannot survive an antibiotic of familiarity with Middle East history.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to think the idea of Palestinian statehood is the most wonderful idea to come along since the Thirteenth Amendment. And almost all world politicians, along with the Israeli Left, insist that all Israeli settlements must be removed from the West Bank because they serve as the main obstacle to peace. The reality is that the Middle East conflict has very little to do with debate over Palestinian statehood and even less to do with Israeli “settlements.” In fact Israel has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state, at least subject to some security conditions and other concessions from the Palestinians -- like recognizing Israel’s right to exist. As it turns out, even so-called “moderate” Palestinians reject any such idea.
Meanwhile debate about the Middle East conflict is based on an incredible absence of historic information and on a series of stylish misconceptions about Middle East history. The anti-Israel Lobby, which grows by the day in its maliciousness and anti-Semitism, counts on the ignorance of much of the public concerning how the Middle East got to where it is.
Here are just a handful of popular misconceptions and their antidotes:
1. Falsehood: Israel was erected on land that belonged to Palestinian Arabs.
Truth: Before Israel was created its territory never belonged to Palestinian Arabs and had not been ruled by any Arabs at all since the Middle Ages. It had been a Turkish province for centuries until it was captured by Britain during World War I. The League of Nations awarded governance of “Palestine” to Britain at the end of the war in exchange for its commitment to turn the area into a Jewish homeland. The lands on which Jewish immigrants settled before Israel was created were purchased by Jews at above-market prices and in most cases had no Arabs living on them. Virtually no Arabs were evicted.
2. Falsehood: The Jews came to Palestine as foreigners and aliens whereas the Palestinians were the indigenous people of the territory.
Truth: Jews lived in “Palestine,” which is the Land of Israel or "Eretz Yisroel," continuously from the time of the Bible. Most families of “Palestinians” migrated into “Palestine,” during the same period as the Zionist waves of immigration, starting in the second half of the 19th century. The largest ethnic group in the country at the time was the Turks. The “Palestinian Arabs” in 1948 were primarily families of migrants from Lebanon and Syria. Ironically, they were motivated to become “Palestinians” in the first place thanks to the Zionist movement, which brought capital and labor into “Palestine” and improved living conditions there. Huge numbers of the names of “Palestinian” Arab villages and towns are slightly-modified Hebrew names. It is difficult to dig in the ground of “Palestine” without uncovering Jewish artifacts, some thousands of years old. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine’s territory had been sliced off in the 1920s and used to set up Jordan, an Arab Palestinian state much larger than Israel. The remaining territory, Western Palestine, was to become the Jewish homeland. That was the original “two-state solution,” the same "innovation" now being promoted for the Western third of the remaining part of Palestine.
3. Falsehood: There is no Palestinian state today because of Israeli aggression and obstinacy.
Truth: There is no Palestinian state today because of Arab aggression and obstinacy. In late 1947, the United Nations approved by a two thirds majority a proposal to create in to create in Western "Palestine" two states to replace the British Mandatory regime there. One would be Jewish and the other a Palestinian Arab state. The Jews agreed. The Arabs rejected the idea. The Arab states launched an attack of genocidal aggression against the Jews, invaded “Palestine” and gobbled up the lands earmarked for the Arab Palestinian state. Most of those lands were then held illegally by Jordan and semi-legally by Egypt until 1967 when they were liberated by Israel in the Six Day War. The Arab world has maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948, refusing to recognize its legitimacy, and attacking Israel over and over in a series of wars and terrorism campaigns. The Arab states attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, and sponsored terrorist atrocities against Jews in Israel since it was created. The reason for the attack which produced the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 is exactly the same thing that stands in the way of any real peace settlement today.
4. Falsehood: Israel conducted “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948-49.
Truth: The Arab states conducted ethnic cleansing of Jews after 1948. About a million Jews were expelled by Arab states, their property stolen, and most then became citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs became refugees in 1948-49 as a direct result of the Arab war of aggression against Israel, in which the Palestinians participated. The estimated number of such Arab refugees varies between 400,000 and 750,000, with the former the more likely correct estimate. Afterwards, many were quietly allowed to return to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs from other Arab countries then declared themselves “Palestinian refugees” in order to get handouts from the UN and other international relief organizations. The actual Palestinian Arabs became refugees for the same reason that ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe became refugees after World War II: because they were on the losing side of the war of aggression launched by their own political leaders.
5. Falsehood: Israel is an apartheid regime and mistreats Arabs.
Truth: Israel is the only Middle East country that is NOT an apartheid regime. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who enjoy freedom of speech and of the press, free access to courts operating with due process, legal protection for property rights and the right to vote. Israeli Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any other group of Arabs in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs are quite simply the best-treated political minority in the Middle East and are in some ways better treated than are minority groups in many European countries. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate
6. Falsehood: Arabs engage in aggression and terrorism because Israel occupies territories.
Truth: Israel occupies territories (that had been controlled by Jordan and Egypt before 1967) because of Arab aggression and terrorism. Had the Arabs made peace with Israel after 1949, the West Bank and Gaza would have remained under the hegemony of Arabs and they could easily have erected a Palestinian Arab state there any time they wished. Instead, they attacked Israel in an attempt at genocidal extermination in 1967 and they lost.
7. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Israeli opposition to Palestinian self-determination.
Truth: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Arab opposition to Israeli-Jewish self-determination. There is one and only one cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if that single cause is buried beneath an avalanche of media mud designed to obfuscate and confuse. That single cause is the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel’s existence within any set of borders whatsoever. The cause of the war is Arab refusal to come to terms with Jewish self-determination in any form whatsoever. The Middle East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of “Palestinian Arabs,” but rather it is about the Arab rejection of self-determination for Israeli Jews. For a century, the Arabs have attempted to block Jewish self-determination, using violence.
No Palestinians before 1967 demanded any “homeland,” although they did demand that the Jews be stripped of theirs. That is because Palestinians are not a “people” at all and do not consider themselves such, any more than do the Arabs of Paris or of Detroit. Palestinians never had any real interest in their own state, and in fact rioted violently in 1920 when “Palestine” was detached from Syria by the European powers. Indeed the original term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic and in leftist NewSpeak) was coined to refer to the outrage of Palestinians separated from their Syrian homeland. Immediately after the Six Day War a sudden need for a Palestinian state was fabricated by the Arab world, as a gimmick to force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Israel would then again be ten-miles wide at its narrowest, and so prepped for the new Arab assault of annihilation and genocide.
The Arab world invented the “Palestinian people” so that it would serve the same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power. The term “self-determination” has been repeated as a rhetorical “inalienable right” for so long that few people recall that pursuing “self-determination” can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, merely “helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain self-determination.” He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option of “self-determination” within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states, and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside Germany. Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany’s neighbors. Hitler insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the “misery of mistreated ethnic Germans,” supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia. “Self-determination” was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and other countries.
The Arab world decided that the “Palestinians” must play the role of Sudetens, serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of Arabs in need of “self-determination.”
8. Falsehood: Palestinian terrorism has been a response to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and as a response to Israeli settlements there.
Truth: Palestinian terrorism against Jews began in the 1920s, escalated in the 1930s, continued non-stop in the 1940s even in the midst of World War II, and reached heights of barbarism in the 1950s. All this was long before Israel “occupied” anything. The PLO was set up long before the Six Day War, meaning before Israel “occupied” the West Bank and Gaza, and before those areas held a single Israeli settlement.
9. Falsehood: Israel has no right to build settlements in the West Bank.
Truth: Israel has as much right to build settlements in the West Bank as France has to build towns in Alsace and Lorraine, or as Poland has to build in areas that once held ethnic Germans. The Arabs launched a series of wars of aggression against Israel and lost. Aggressors who lose a war also lose territory. The bulk of Jewish “settlers” are actually Israelis living in the suburbs of Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967. A handful of small rural “settlements” have been constructed in empty West Bank lands from which no Arab civilians were evicted. In any real peace settlement, Jews would have as much right to live in the West Bank as Arabs have to live inside Israel. A peace accord that rules out such an arrangement would be no peace accord at all.
10. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict continues because Israel refuses to share its land and resources with Palestinians.
Truth: The Middle East conflict continues because the Arab world refuses to share its land and resources with Jews. It is about the absolute refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political entity within any set of borders in the Middle East. The Arabs today control 22 countries and territory nearly twice the size of the United States (including Alaska), whereas Israel cannot be seen on most globes or maps. Arabs as an ethnic group control more territory than any other ethnic group on earth. They refuse to share even a fraction of one percent of the Middle East with the Jews, even in a territory smaller than New Jersey. Without the West Bank, Israel at its narrowest point is less than 10 miles wide, about the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The main reason the Arab world demands that Israel relinquish the West Bank to Palestinian terrorism is so that it can be used to attack Israel again and so that Israel can at last be militarily annihilated. The Arab world controls such vast amounts of territory and such vast amounts of wealth (thanks to petroleum) that it could have created a “homeland” for Palestinian Arabs anywhere within its territories at any time.
11. Falsehood: Israel deals with Palestinian violence and terrorism using excessive disproportionate force.
Truth: The number of innocent Palestinian civilians intentionally killed by Israel is exactly zero. The number of civilians injured in Israeli anti-terror operations is tiny when compared with NATO and Allied military operations in Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Given the near universal support among Palestinians for terrorist atrocities against Jews, the self-restraint and moderation used by Israel in dealing with the threat has no precedent in the world. Israel’s own Arabs make little attempt to hide their open identification with the genocidal enemies of their own country and they by and large support the annihilation of the state in which they hold citizenship. No other democratic country facing such open sedition and identification with the enemy in time of war ever responded with anywhere near the same restraint as shown by Israel. In World War II, when faced with a far less-dangerous problem, the United States locked up its ethnic-Japanese domestic population in internment camps. Democratic Spain set up teams of death squads to deal with its separatist terrorists. Democracies in war have junked habeas corpus and treated their internal Fifth Columns as the enemy, with no hesitation or squeamishness.
Democratic Czechoslovakia and India (as well as non-democratic countries throughout Eastern Europe) undertook wholesale expulsions of millions of members of their internal ethnic minorities who had sided with the enemy. Greece and Turkey and the two sections of Cyprus simply expelled altogether their minority populations. Israel, in contrast, operates affirmative action programs that benefit Arabs, finances Arabic-language schools in which Israeli Arabs preserve and develop their culture, overfunds Arab municipalities, and turns a blind eye to massive Arab sedition and lawbreaking, including with regard to illegal mass squatting on publicly-owned lands. Israel is a Western democracy with a Scandinavian style social welfare system, the only democracy in the Middle East. It is hard to come up with words to mock satisfactorily the ludicrous nature of the complaints about Israeli “mistreatment” of Arabs. These complaints come from the very same people who are apologists for genocidal Islamofascist terrorist movements and for the Arab fascist states, regimes that are among the most barbarous and openly war-seeking on earth. The endless complaints about “human rights violations” of the “Palestinians” by Israel are a rhetorical part of the broader campaign of aggression against Israeli survival. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the world’s foremost illustration of “Moynihan’s Law,” which holds: “The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country.”
12. Falsehood: Israel can achieve peace by trading “Land for Peace” and by relinquishing territories that it “occupies.”
Truth: Every time Israel relinquishes territory it “occupies” it triggers an escalation of terror and violence by Arabs against Jews. The main cause of anti-Israel terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Arabs. This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain why so few people understand it. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety in 2004 and evicted all Jews who had been living there. The complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip produced a barrage of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians inside Israel (NOT in the “occupied territories”), a barrage that eventually forced Israel’s reluctant leaders to carry out the “Cast Lead” operation against Gaza terrorism. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in the year 2000 by then-Israeli socialist Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that fiasco was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against northern Israel in the summer of 2006, and several times that number now poised to strike Israel. The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly triggered by the early Oslo withdrawals — before which there had been no suicide bombings. There can be no doubt that a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a return to pre-1967 borders would trigger a massive rocket and terror assault against the remaining areas of Israel, launched from the "liberated" lands in the West Bank. The same thing would result from Israel relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria.
13. Falsehood: The Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Israel from just criticism.
Falsehood: The anti-Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Palestinians, Arab fascist regimes, and Islamofascism from just criticism. While the media overflow with nonsensical talk about a “Zionist/Israel Lobby,” it would only be a small exaggeration to claim that there is no such thing at all. The anti-Zionist lobby binds together anti-Semites and fanatics, ranging from Islamists, to the radical Left to the Neo-Nazi Right. There is little today that separates anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism and I have never met an anti-Zionist who was not also an anti-Semite. (Jewish leftist anti-Zionists are the self-hating moral equivalents of Taliban John and Tokyo Rose).
14. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict can be resolved through “Two States for Two Peoples.”
Truth: The “Two States for Two Peoples” idea is not a solution at all but simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible borders. Right after “Two States for Two Peoples” would be implemented, the new “Palestinian state” would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what remains of Israel. Even the “moderates” within the PLO insist that any “Israel” left standing within “Two States for Two Peoples” must be flooded by Arab migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any “two-state solution” on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24th Arab state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and mortar fire from “Palestine” and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.
That such a “two-state solution” will not end the conflict, but only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a “plan of stages,” after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The “two-state solution” is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East today as the so-called “one-state solution,” favored by the anti-Semitic Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a Rwanda-style manner.
Creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would be a major step in the escalation of the Arab war against Israel's existence, even if that war is delayed for a brief time while the world celebrates the outbreak of a Potemkin “peace” in the Middle East produced by the end of Israeli "occupation" of “Palestinians.”
Since the Oslo “peace process” began in the early 1990s, the working hypothesis endorsed by nearly everyone on the planet (including large numbers of IQ-challenged Israeli politicians) has been that the most urgent task at hand is to end the Israeli "occupation" of Palestinian Arabs. The problem is that ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce nothing but escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, certainly not stability or peaceful relations. It will seek war with the rump Israel, and will seek to draw the entire Moslem world into that war. It will be indifferent to the economic and social problems of its own citizens.
Humans seem to have a basic impatience with hearing the truth repeated over long periods of time. In an era in which technology, politics, and science change so rapidly, many consider it to be implausible that a statement that had been true 60 years ago could still be true today. Surely, they insist, explanations from the past, such as those of the Middle East conflict, must be obsolete by now, replaced with new updated “theories” and more-modern perceptions of reality.
The result of all this is pseudo-history, where people invent new “theories” about some of the most widely-accepted truths of history. No subject has been subject to quite so much pseudo-historic revisionism and denial of “out-of date” truths as the Middle East. George Orwell once said that the first duty of intelligent men is to restate the obvious. Obvious truths need to be restated because they are under assault by so many dishonest men.
The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a right to set up their own state, and creation of such a state would result in escalated warfare and bloodshed, not peace. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state. Even if such a right ever existed, the Palestinians – like the Sudeten Germans - would have forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism. Their pacification today requires reimposing of martial rule by Israel and a thorough program of De-nazification.
The promotion of a “Two States for Two Peoples” solution has radicalized and Nazified most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties and politicians openly calling for violence against Jews and for the destruction of Israel. The “solution” is a recipe for more bloodshed and strife.
Steven Plaut is a professor at the Graduate School of the Business Administration at the University of Haifa and is a columnist for the Jewish Press. A collection of his commentaries on the current events in Israel can be found on his "blog" at www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)