http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112588.html
By Raphael Israeli
One of the axioms of the "peace process" is that the settlements are "an obstacle to peace," as if removing them would instantly bring peace on earth. It's well known, however, that before 1967 there were no settlements, and no peace - unless, of course, you consider the communities within Israel "settlements," since the Arabs considered them occupied territory. The greatest contribution of the settlements, then, is that they took the place of Israeli towns as occupied territory, except perhaps for Hamas and considerable parts of the Arab world. Therefore, the formula that removing settlements equals peace is laughable and baseless. The Arabs' total-denial approach to Israel never depended on settlement on a particular parcel of land. They are bothered by Jewish settlement in Israel in general. It's enough to browse through the books of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority to see that Haifa, Jaffa and even Tel Aviv are considered Palestinian cities, while Hamas believes the Wakf land of all Palestine should be expropriated from the Jewish state, which doesn't have the right to land on either side of the Green Line.
In 2000, Yasser Arafat was offered an Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the territories in exchange for agreeing to end the conflict. He refused, because he didn't consider this a full withdrawal from Palestinian land. Although Israel made yet another step in leaving the Gaza Strip, not only freezing construction there but evicting the settlers, all it got in return was more war and destruction, a far cry from the peace that removing this "obstacle" was supposed to create. In other words, not only did the Arabs not consider Israel's older settlements different from the new ones that "endanger peace," but the eviction of the latter drove them to begin attacking the former.
We know now that one thing that motivated Anwar Sadat to come to Jerusalem was his fear that unless settlements in the Rafah area and Sinai were uprooted, they would grow into large cities that no peace agreement could remove.
The Syrians and Palestinians, on the other hand, believed they had nothing to lose if they maintained their refusal to negotiate, since their land would wait for them, frozen in time, until they could graciously take it back from Israel and then attack again from these positions. They can't comprehend that they have lost their lands because of their aggression, and that it is immoral to return to an aggressor the positions from which he might renew his aggression, since letting him escape without harm only encourages him to attack again. There can be deterrence only once the aggressor has paid a price that dissuades him from attacking at whim. This is what happened to Germany.
So until there is a permanent status agreement, only Jewish settlement activity can be enough of an incentive to make the Arabs, like Sadat, hurry up and seek peace, because their losses will multiply the longer they wait. We know from the Gaza example that the Arabs' goal was not to remove Israel from precious land, but to uproot Jews and fight them from the land they left. It is better, then, to keep with the peace-building construction in communities beyond our borders, and only when we see genuine signs of a culture of peace and good neighborliness next door to talk about evacuation - with due consideration to the new reality on the ground, which will change all the more if the Arabs don't rush toward an agreement.
The author is a professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
A strategic threat
US Jews slowly losing interest in Israel because of religious discrimination
Yizhar Hess
YNET News
Minister Yakov Margi (Shas) recently made the following declaration: “If the Reform and Conservative Jews in Israel want synagogues or mikvehs, they should build them with their own money. They won’t get a penny from the State.” Let’s not get into ideology and talk numbers instead. Most Jews in the world are Reform and Conservative. The Orthodox are a minority, even in Israel (Only 20% of the Israeli public defines itself as Orthodox.) North American Jewry, whose relationship with us is a strategic asset, comprises these denominations almost entirely.
At this time already, among other reasons because of this systematic discrimination, American Jews are slowly losing interest in the State of Israel. Because if Israel rejects their Jewishness, why should they feel any sympathy for or attachment to it?
In this respect, Shas’ Minister of religious affairs is a strategic threat to the State of Israel; no less.
In democratic terms, Margi’s chutzpah is simply outrageous. The Religious Affairs Ministry is being managed like the last remnant of the 1950s, with the minister enjoying budgetary freedom that no other minister enjoys. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to blame Shas for doing almost anything to secure this perk-rich ministry.
In 2008, during the previous government’s term in office, when Shas’ Yitzhak Cohen headed the ministry, its budget rose to NIS 430 million. Cohen covered the debts of religious councils, renovated 300 mikvehs, and built 37 new ones as well as 79 new synagogues. Overall, he established or renovated nearly 500 religious sites. Not even one of them was Reform or Conservative.
No freedom of worship
However, this does not sum up the wealth of the Orthodoxy in Israel. The Religious Affairs Ministry’s budget
is not its only source of funding. Almost every government ministry – the Education Ministry, Housing and Construction Ministry, National Infrastructure Ministry, Defense Ministry etc. – disguises some kind of a hypocritical clause, which ensures that the money ends up in the religious community, funding thousands of jobs. An estimated 3,000 rabbis are employed by the State in various rabbinical posts. All of them are Orthodox. Is it any surprise?
Margi outdid himself by referring to Mikvehs of all things. We, members of the Conservative Movement, have no need for our own Mikvehs. We’ll be happy to use the public ones – some of them truly luxurious – built and renovated by the State. However, Jews who are not Orthodox are banned from entering them. Yes, it’s as terrible as it sounds.
When a bride is interested in going to the mikveh ahead of her wedding, and it turns out that the rabbi at the ceremony is Conservative, she is thrown out in a humiliating fashion. And you don’t want to hear how many times Conservative converts were humiliated to the point of tears or blows.
Israel is the only democracy in the Western world that doesn’t offer freedom of worship to Jews. This absurd must be brought to an end.
Attorney Yizhar Hess is the director of the Conservative Movement in Israel. This op-ed does not necessarily reflect the Movement’s views.
Yizhar Hess
YNET News
Minister Yakov Margi (Shas) recently made the following declaration: “If the Reform and Conservative Jews in Israel want synagogues or mikvehs, they should build them with their own money. They won’t get a penny from the State.” Let’s not get into ideology and talk numbers instead. Most Jews in the world are Reform and Conservative. The Orthodox are a minority, even in Israel (Only 20% of the Israeli public defines itself as Orthodox.) North American Jewry, whose relationship with us is a strategic asset, comprises these denominations almost entirely.
At this time already, among other reasons because of this systematic discrimination, American Jews are slowly losing interest in the State of Israel. Because if Israel rejects their Jewishness, why should they feel any sympathy for or attachment to it?
In this respect, Shas’ Minister of religious affairs is a strategic threat to the State of Israel; no less.
In democratic terms, Margi’s chutzpah is simply outrageous. The Religious Affairs Ministry is being managed like the last remnant of the 1950s, with the minister enjoying budgetary freedom that no other minister enjoys. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to blame Shas for doing almost anything to secure this perk-rich ministry.
In 2008, during the previous government’s term in office, when Shas’ Yitzhak Cohen headed the ministry, its budget rose to NIS 430 million. Cohen covered the debts of religious councils, renovated 300 mikvehs, and built 37 new ones as well as 79 new synagogues. Overall, he established or renovated nearly 500 religious sites. Not even one of them was Reform or Conservative.
No freedom of worship
However, this does not sum up the wealth of the Orthodoxy in Israel. The Religious Affairs Ministry’s budget
is not its only source of funding. Almost every government ministry – the Education Ministry, Housing and Construction Ministry, National Infrastructure Ministry, Defense Ministry etc. – disguises some kind of a hypocritical clause, which ensures that the money ends up in the religious community, funding thousands of jobs. An estimated 3,000 rabbis are employed by the State in various rabbinical posts. All of them are Orthodox. Is it any surprise?
Margi outdid himself by referring to Mikvehs of all things. We, members of the Conservative Movement, have no need for our own Mikvehs. We’ll be happy to use the public ones – some of them truly luxurious – built and renovated by the State. However, Jews who are not Orthodox are banned from entering them. Yes, it’s as terrible as it sounds.
When a bride is interested in going to the mikveh ahead of her wedding, and it turns out that the rabbi at the ceremony is Conservative, she is thrown out in a humiliating fashion. And you don’t want to hear how many times Conservative converts were humiliated to the point of tears or blows.
Israel is the only democracy in the Western world that doesn’t offer freedom of worship to Jews. This absurd must be brought to an end.
Attorney Yizhar Hess is the director of the Conservative Movement in Israel. This op-ed does not necessarily reflect the Movement’s views.
The bogeyman in the hills of Judea and Samaria
Ariel Harkham , THE JERUSALEM POST
Earlier this month, Ori Nir, a spokesman for Americans for Peace Now and former Haaretz reporter, revealed an alarming, even terrifying, bit of news in an opinion piece for the Washington Jewish Week: There are bogeymen in the hills of Israel. Citing only an incident in 1988, and one in 2000, Nir argued that the "brutality" of soldiers and settlers in the West Bank has spread across the Green Line, causing the wave of violent crime the country seems to be experiencing lately. Never mind, for the moment, that Israel has one of the lowest murder rates in the world - a statistic that even the most basic level of research would have confirmed for Nir. But the fact that the Peace Now spokesman so vigorously set out to identify the settler movement as the cause of a pseudo-effect goes to show just how much this cause is an apparition conjured by fear mongering, a moral bogeyman in the hills of Judea and Samaria.
NIR'S OPINION piece, like the logic of the entire anti-settler machine, reminds me of the story of the man who walked into a bar, only to be physically assaulted by another customer. Rising to defend himself, the man inadvertently broke a few bottles and glasses. After tensions had cooled, the bartender took the man aside and berated him, but left the instigator alone with his drink. The man, indignant at being unfairly targeted, retorted, "Why aren't you saying this to the other guy? I mean, he's responsible." The bartender stared at him incredulously, and said, "It wouldn't make any difference. That guy is deaf."
It's this logic that's on display in Nir's piece. Israel is the man walking into a bar only to be subjected to violence, and when all is said and done, is the only actor held responsible. As a result, it alone is subject to censure. As with the man in the bar, this is due not to any actual guilt on its part, but is simply on account of the fact that it is the only one able to listen.
This bears little on the arguments of people like Nir in the anti-settlement camp. While 'anti-settlers' in and outside the country say that both sides need to distribute land and share the burden of peace, they refuse to distribute blame or share the burden of culpability. But it takes a callous intellect to blinker out Israel's multiple offers of Palestinian autonomy and statehood, and the subsequent replies in the form of terror and rockets. Rather, Nir and the like trumpet the notion that when the effect is violence, the cause is Israel. And when the identity of that cause is investigated, the settlers - far removed from the power centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, few in number, lacking cash and unrepresented by the major political parties - are the easy target.
Reading the news, one would be utterly convinced that the settler community is at best a nuisance. According to this school of thought, the IDF's defense of this so-called nuisance is spreading a toxic pathogen inside Israel.
Yet the reality is far different. The West Bank settler population is the fastest-growing Israeli demographic, serves disproportionately in the IDF officer corps and suffered disproportionate casualties in the 2006 Lebanon war. Not to mention that its presence protects vital water resources and strategic high ground that would pose major national security liabilities if in the hands of hostile Palestinians.
FAR FROM Nir's assertion that "the occupation burdens Israel politically, economically and militarily," the settler community is the real "salt of the earth," standing on the frontlines of a 100-year war as a buffer for cities like Haifa, Beersheba and Tel Aviv.
Peace Now would have us believe that Jews living in their ancestral lands is in itself immoral, either by waging an occupation and/or by dotting the land with Jewish settlements. Both these arguments accuse Israel of destroying any prospect of peace. Each argument feeds and reinforces the other, and each serves as justification for proscriptions that inevitably flow from Peace Now's warped paradigm.
According to history, Israel never conquered Judea and Samaria from any Palestinian sovereign entity, but from the kingdom of Jordan, which had initiated the hostilities. Thus, according to the Geneva conventions and UN Resolution 242, the territory is not "occupied" but "disputed" territory subject to border definition and alterations in a final-status agreement. Jewish housing construction is only permitted on public land, and only after an exhaustive investigation has confirmed that no private rights exist regarding the land in question.
It needs repeating that the Jews who today live in Judea and Samaria live there by choice, and this begs a question that is effectively ignored by the media - why should a Jew not be allowed to live in his ancestral home, independent of who may be governing? Permitting Jews to inhabit only certain sectors and zones seems like an initiative that would be popular in medieval Europe. So although the Jewish state has 1.4 million Arab citizens, a future Palestinian state should be judenrein?
One other sentiment popular in settler demonization circles allows us to deconstruct the anti-settler movement and understand why it is hell bent on bashing a small community of civilians living as an ethnic and religious minority among a hostile population. The argument is that settlements create facts on the ground which prevent peace. Therefore, to sell the public a program of mass expulsion of Israel's most patriotic citizens from their homes, one requires a straw man, a bogeyman: The settlers are bad, cancerous, even infectious, therefore we must remove them. And here, we return to Ori Nir's claim that the pattern of civil violence which might or might not be taking hold in Israel is caused by the settlers.
The mechanism of that cause is not explained, but nor does it need to be. The audience is captive and utterly willing. It wants to hear this, it wants this to be true, because then the quick-fix of the Middle East can finally be realized.
This patronage of an oversimplified view propped up by the deluded belief that the Palestinians will lay down their arms when they get what they say they want must be soundly rejected. It is a cruel and cold logic that would have a person cut off a leg to appease a would-be murderer.
There will be peace when the Palestinians truly desire it, and even then they must take into account a sizable Jewish presence in the disputed territory. Until that day, Israel must remain firm and reject false. Israel is under siege, and the settlers are faithfully standing guard upon its walls.
The writer is the co-founder of JNI (Jewish National Initiative).
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804512769&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Earlier this month, Ori Nir, a spokesman for Americans for Peace Now and former Haaretz reporter, revealed an alarming, even terrifying, bit of news in an opinion piece for the Washington Jewish Week: There are bogeymen in the hills of Israel. Citing only an incident in 1988, and one in 2000, Nir argued that the "brutality" of soldiers and settlers in the West Bank has spread across the Green Line, causing the wave of violent crime the country seems to be experiencing lately. Never mind, for the moment, that Israel has one of the lowest murder rates in the world - a statistic that even the most basic level of research would have confirmed for Nir. But the fact that the Peace Now spokesman so vigorously set out to identify the settler movement as the cause of a pseudo-effect goes to show just how much this cause is an apparition conjured by fear mongering, a moral bogeyman in the hills of Judea and Samaria.
NIR'S OPINION piece, like the logic of the entire anti-settler machine, reminds me of the story of the man who walked into a bar, only to be physically assaulted by another customer. Rising to defend himself, the man inadvertently broke a few bottles and glasses. After tensions had cooled, the bartender took the man aside and berated him, but left the instigator alone with his drink. The man, indignant at being unfairly targeted, retorted, "Why aren't you saying this to the other guy? I mean, he's responsible." The bartender stared at him incredulously, and said, "It wouldn't make any difference. That guy is deaf."
It's this logic that's on display in Nir's piece. Israel is the man walking into a bar only to be subjected to violence, and when all is said and done, is the only actor held responsible. As a result, it alone is subject to censure. As with the man in the bar, this is due not to any actual guilt on its part, but is simply on account of the fact that it is the only one able to listen.
This bears little on the arguments of people like Nir in the anti-settlement camp. While 'anti-settlers' in and outside the country say that both sides need to distribute land and share the burden of peace, they refuse to distribute blame or share the burden of culpability. But it takes a callous intellect to blinker out Israel's multiple offers of Palestinian autonomy and statehood, and the subsequent replies in the form of terror and rockets. Rather, Nir and the like trumpet the notion that when the effect is violence, the cause is Israel. And when the identity of that cause is investigated, the settlers - far removed from the power centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, few in number, lacking cash and unrepresented by the major political parties - are the easy target.
Reading the news, one would be utterly convinced that the settler community is at best a nuisance. According to this school of thought, the IDF's defense of this so-called nuisance is spreading a toxic pathogen inside Israel.
Yet the reality is far different. The West Bank settler population is the fastest-growing Israeli demographic, serves disproportionately in the IDF officer corps and suffered disproportionate casualties in the 2006 Lebanon war. Not to mention that its presence protects vital water resources and strategic high ground that would pose major national security liabilities if in the hands of hostile Palestinians.
FAR FROM Nir's assertion that "the occupation burdens Israel politically, economically and militarily," the settler community is the real "salt of the earth," standing on the frontlines of a 100-year war as a buffer for cities like Haifa, Beersheba and Tel Aviv.
Peace Now would have us believe that Jews living in their ancestral lands is in itself immoral, either by waging an occupation and/or by dotting the land with Jewish settlements. Both these arguments accuse Israel of destroying any prospect of peace. Each argument feeds and reinforces the other, and each serves as justification for proscriptions that inevitably flow from Peace Now's warped paradigm.
According to history, Israel never conquered Judea and Samaria from any Palestinian sovereign entity, but from the kingdom of Jordan, which had initiated the hostilities. Thus, according to the Geneva conventions and UN Resolution 242, the territory is not "occupied" but "disputed" territory subject to border definition and alterations in a final-status agreement. Jewish housing construction is only permitted on public land, and only after an exhaustive investigation has confirmed that no private rights exist regarding the land in question.
It needs repeating that the Jews who today live in Judea and Samaria live there by choice, and this begs a question that is effectively ignored by the media - why should a Jew not be allowed to live in his ancestral home, independent of who may be governing? Permitting Jews to inhabit only certain sectors and zones seems like an initiative that would be popular in medieval Europe. So although the Jewish state has 1.4 million Arab citizens, a future Palestinian state should be judenrein?
One other sentiment popular in settler demonization circles allows us to deconstruct the anti-settler movement and understand why it is hell bent on bashing a small community of civilians living as an ethnic and religious minority among a hostile population. The argument is that settlements create facts on the ground which prevent peace. Therefore, to sell the public a program of mass expulsion of Israel's most patriotic citizens from their homes, one requires a straw man, a bogeyman: The settlers are bad, cancerous, even infectious, therefore we must remove them. And here, we return to Ori Nir's claim that the pattern of civil violence which might or might not be taking hold in Israel is caused by the settlers.
The mechanism of that cause is not explained, but nor does it need to be. The audience is captive and utterly willing. It wants to hear this, it wants this to be true, because then the quick-fix of the Middle East can finally be realized.
This patronage of an oversimplified view propped up by the deluded belief that the Palestinians will lay down their arms when they get what they say they want must be soundly rejected. It is a cruel and cold logic that would have a person cut off a leg to appease a would-be murderer.
There will be peace when the Palestinians truly desire it, and even then they must take into account a sizable Jewish presence in the disputed territory. Until that day, Israel must remain firm and reject false. Israel is under siege, and the settlers are faithfully standing guard upon its walls.
The writer is the co-founder of JNI (Jewish National Initiative).
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804512769&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Monday, September 07, 2009
ISRAEL-MAGHREB RELATIONS: REALITIES AND POSSIBILITIES
Bruce Maddy-Weitzman *
This article is based on a paper presented at the June 8-9, 2009 conference entitled "Israel and the Arab States: Parallel Interests, Relations, and Strategies," jointly held in Jerusalem by the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. The article presents an overview of Israeli-Maghrebi relations since Israel's establishment. It also discusses cooperation with Israel in various spheres and ideas on how to further promote this. Israel’s relations with the three core Maghreb states--Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia--have been shaped by a combination of factors: the region’s French colonial legacy and distance from the historical cross-currents of Arab nationalism and from the Arab-Israeli conflict, geopolitical exigencies, the state-building enterprises within the three Maghreb entities and the competition between them, and the particular status of their respective Jewish communities. The Madrid-Oslo years were marked by major breakthroughs at the formal, aboveboard level of relations with Morocco and Tunisia, and even witnessed positive developments in the Algerian realm. With the second intifada, these achievements were rolled back. However, the existence of continued parallel interests, and the emergence of new ones in recent years--the common need to combat radical Islamist movements and the expansion of Iranian influence, and to maintain and further develop close economic and political ties with the West--has ensured that Maghreb doors have not been entirely shut to Israel, and created possibilities for expanded links. The degree to which these will come to fruition in the coming months and years depends on a host of factors, not the least of which is progress in the Israeli-Palestinian sphere.
Of course, the nature of each Maghreb state’s relations with Israel, or lack thereof, is unique, regarding both historical background and contemporary possibilities. Still, a closer look at the three countries also reveals some common themes.
FROM INDEPENDENCE TO OSLO
Both Morocco and Tunisia were firmly ensconced in the Western camp during the Cold War. In regional terms, this meant that during the 1960s, they were in the conservative Arab camp and generally on the defensive against the radical pan-Arabist current embodied in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and the pan-Arab Ba'th Party. Within the Maghreb, this placed them opposite of revolutionary socialist Algeria. Hence, both Rabat and Tunis had numerous parallel interests with Israel and pursued varying degrees of quiet cooperation.
Morocco, in particular, had overlapping interests with Israel. From Jerusalem’s perspective, its links with Rabat constituted an extension of its “periphery” policy, the cultivation of non-Arab actors on the Middle East periphery to counterbalance the pressure of radical, hostile Arab states. For Morocco, ensuring its positive image in the West necessitated cooperation with Israel in the early 1960s to allow for the orderly flow of Moroccan Jews out of the country and to Israel; on the level of internal and regional security, Israel played an important supportive role for the regime of King Hassan. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Morocco played a facilitating role in the Arab-Israeli peace process, with leading members of the Moroccan Jewish community both in-country and in the Israeli and French Moroccan Jewish Diaspora. Notable in this regard were the hosting of the secret Dayan-Tuhami meeting, which paved the way for Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, the shepherding of the 1982 Fez Arab Summit resolutions, and King Hassan’s hosting of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1986. In 1993, Hassan would also receive Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his entourage on their way back from the signing of the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn.
Tunisia under President Habib Bourguiba was openly combative toward Nasser during the 1960s. Its Jewish community was able to leave the country more easily than Morocco’s, and Bourguiba even had the audacity in 1965 to suggest that the Arab world accept the UN’s 1947 partition of Palestine plan. By the 1980s, however, with Bourguiba’s fading and ultimate removal from power (1987), Tunisia had tacked more strongly toward involvement in Arab affairs (e.g., hosting the PLO and Arab League headquarters), thus bringing its position on Israel more into line with the Arab consensus. In addition, nothing much would be left of the Jewish community after 1967, and unlike Morocco, the Tunisian authorities would not nurture a favorable image/myth of Jewish-Arab comity in the past.
Algeria, on the other hand, wholeheartedly embraced the “Palestine Revolution” after 1967, viewing the Fatah-led PLO as being kindred spirits to their own “war of liberation” against French colonialism. Algerian Jews, on the other hand, were viewed as having been inalterably on the side of the French during the war for independence, a fact “confirmed” by their mass departure in 1961-1962 along with the bulk of the European settler community. Algiers in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a preferred destination for hijackers of Western and Israeli airlines and supporter of Palestinian guerrilla organizations. The regime’s legitimating formula and its bitter struggle with Morocco over the Western Sahara ensured that Algeria would be firmly located in the radical Arab camp, and in opposition to the Sadat initiative.
MADRID AND OSLO
The collapse of the Eastern Bloc (home of Algeria’s traditional patrons), the earthquake of the 1991 Gulf War and--most importantly--Algeria’s democratic explosion (1989-1991) followed by the bitter and bloody battle between the military and a violent Islamist insurgency, beginning in 1992, altered the regime’s calculations. Its overall world view and particular understanding of its interests were now brought more into line with Algeria’s Maghreb neighbors, including issues regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. All three states were symbolically represented at the Madrid Arab-Israeli peace conference in October 1991 by the secretary-general of the Arab Maghreb Union, to which they belonged. The Algerian regime would take some tentative steps to open up a dialogue with Israel, particularly at the end of the 1990s, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak publicly shook hands with Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika (at the funeral of Morocco’s King Hassan). An officially sanctioned delegation of Algerian journalists even visited Israel, causing considerable controversy at home. The Algerian position on the Arab-Israeli conflict was now essentially in line with the Arab consensus favoring a diplomatic solution. Still, a broad portion of both the Algerian elite and Algeria’s Islamist current remained strongly identified with the Palestinian cause and hostile to Israel.
Morocco and Tunisia, for their part, established formal low-level diplomatic ties with Israel in 1994-1995, following the mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO. The enthusiasm in Israel and hope for expanded links with North African states was palpable. This came to be expressed in October 1994, when Morocco hosted the first MENA economic summit in Casablanca. However, the high-profile gathering is best remembered for Israel demonstrating excessive eagerness to promote economic normalization and thus leaving the impression that it somehow was seeking to dominate the region economically. Unlike the Moroccans, the Tunisians were quite reluctant to establish formal diplomatic links and did so only at the prodding of the Americans. Tunisia refused to host the 5th MENA economic summit in 1999, further indicating its desire to downplay formal links with Israel.
THE SECOND INTIFADA AND THE AFTERMATH
Following the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000, Morocco and Tunisia closed their diplomatic offices in Tel Aviv and...
read more:http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2009/09/maddy-weitzman.html
*Dr. Bruce Maddy-Weitzman is the Marcia Israel Senior Fellow in Maghreb Studies, The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University.
MERIA Journal Staff
Publisher and Editor: Prof. Barry Rubin
Assistant Editors: Yeru Aharoni, Anna Melman.
MERIA is a project of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary University.
Site: http://www.gloria-center.org/ - Email: info@gloria-center.org
This article is based on a paper presented at the June 8-9, 2009 conference entitled "Israel and the Arab States: Parallel Interests, Relations, and Strategies," jointly held in Jerusalem by the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. The article presents an overview of Israeli-Maghrebi relations since Israel's establishment. It also discusses cooperation with Israel in various spheres and ideas on how to further promote this. Israel’s relations with the three core Maghreb states--Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia--have been shaped by a combination of factors: the region’s French colonial legacy and distance from the historical cross-currents of Arab nationalism and from the Arab-Israeli conflict, geopolitical exigencies, the state-building enterprises within the three Maghreb entities and the competition between them, and the particular status of their respective Jewish communities. The Madrid-Oslo years were marked by major breakthroughs at the formal, aboveboard level of relations with Morocco and Tunisia, and even witnessed positive developments in the Algerian realm. With the second intifada, these achievements were rolled back. However, the existence of continued parallel interests, and the emergence of new ones in recent years--the common need to combat radical Islamist movements and the expansion of Iranian influence, and to maintain and further develop close economic and political ties with the West--has ensured that Maghreb doors have not been entirely shut to Israel, and created possibilities for expanded links. The degree to which these will come to fruition in the coming months and years depends on a host of factors, not the least of which is progress in the Israeli-Palestinian sphere.
Of course, the nature of each Maghreb state’s relations with Israel, or lack thereof, is unique, regarding both historical background and contemporary possibilities. Still, a closer look at the three countries also reveals some common themes.
FROM INDEPENDENCE TO OSLO
Both Morocco and Tunisia were firmly ensconced in the Western camp during the Cold War. In regional terms, this meant that during the 1960s, they were in the conservative Arab camp and generally on the defensive against the radical pan-Arabist current embodied in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and the pan-Arab Ba'th Party. Within the Maghreb, this placed them opposite of revolutionary socialist Algeria. Hence, both Rabat and Tunis had numerous parallel interests with Israel and pursued varying degrees of quiet cooperation.
Morocco, in particular, had overlapping interests with Israel. From Jerusalem’s perspective, its links with Rabat constituted an extension of its “periphery” policy, the cultivation of non-Arab actors on the Middle East periphery to counterbalance the pressure of radical, hostile Arab states. For Morocco, ensuring its positive image in the West necessitated cooperation with Israel in the early 1960s to allow for the orderly flow of Moroccan Jews out of the country and to Israel; on the level of internal and regional security, Israel played an important supportive role for the regime of King Hassan. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Morocco played a facilitating role in the Arab-Israeli peace process, with leading members of the Moroccan Jewish community both in-country and in the Israeli and French Moroccan Jewish Diaspora. Notable in this regard were the hosting of the secret Dayan-Tuhami meeting, which paved the way for Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, the shepherding of the 1982 Fez Arab Summit resolutions, and King Hassan’s hosting of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1986. In 1993, Hassan would also receive Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his entourage on their way back from the signing of the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn.
Tunisia under President Habib Bourguiba was openly combative toward Nasser during the 1960s. Its Jewish community was able to leave the country more easily than Morocco’s, and Bourguiba even had the audacity in 1965 to suggest that the Arab world accept the UN’s 1947 partition of Palestine plan. By the 1980s, however, with Bourguiba’s fading and ultimate removal from power (1987), Tunisia had tacked more strongly toward involvement in Arab affairs (e.g., hosting the PLO and Arab League headquarters), thus bringing its position on Israel more into line with the Arab consensus. In addition, nothing much would be left of the Jewish community after 1967, and unlike Morocco, the Tunisian authorities would not nurture a favorable image/myth of Jewish-Arab comity in the past.
Algeria, on the other hand, wholeheartedly embraced the “Palestine Revolution” after 1967, viewing the Fatah-led PLO as being kindred spirits to their own “war of liberation” against French colonialism. Algerian Jews, on the other hand, were viewed as having been inalterably on the side of the French during the war for independence, a fact “confirmed” by their mass departure in 1961-1962 along with the bulk of the European settler community. Algiers in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a preferred destination for hijackers of Western and Israeli airlines and supporter of Palestinian guerrilla organizations. The regime’s legitimating formula and its bitter struggle with Morocco over the Western Sahara ensured that Algeria would be firmly located in the radical Arab camp, and in opposition to the Sadat initiative.
MADRID AND OSLO
The collapse of the Eastern Bloc (home of Algeria’s traditional patrons), the earthquake of the 1991 Gulf War and--most importantly--Algeria’s democratic explosion (1989-1991) followed by the bitter and bloody battle between the military and a violent Islamist insurgency, beginning in 1992, altered the regime’s calculations. Its overall world view and particular understanding of its interests were now brought more into line with Algeria’s Maghreb neighbors, including issues regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. All three states were symbolically represented at the Madrid Arab-Israeli peace conference in October 1991 by the secretary-general of the Arab Maghreb Union, to which they belonged. The Algerian regime would take some tentative steps to open up a dialogue with Israel, particularly at the end of the 1990s, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak publicly shook hands with Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika (at the funeral of Morocco’s King Hassan). An officially sanctioned delegation of Algerian journalists even visited Israel, causing considerable controversy at home. The Algerian position on the Arab-Israeli conflict was now essentially in line with the Arab consensus favoring a diplomatic solution. Still, a broad portion of both the Algerian elite and Algeria’s Islamist current remained strongly identified with the Palestinian cause and hostile to Israel.
Morocco and Tunisia, for their part, established formal low-level diplomatic ties with Israel in 1994-1995, following the mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO. The enthusiasm in Israel and hope for expanded links with North African states was palpable. This came to be expressed in October 1994, when Morocco hosted the first MENA economic summit in Casablanca. However, the high-profile gathering is best remembered for Israel demonstrating excessive eagerness to promote economic normalization and thus leaving the impression that it somehow was seeking to dominate the region economically. Unlike the Moroccans, the Tunisians were quite reluctant to establish formal diplomatic links and did so only at the prodding of the Americans. Tunisia refused to host the 5th MENA economic summit in 1999, further indicating its desire to downplay formal links with Israel.
THE SECOND INTIFADA AND THE AFTERMATH
Following the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000, Morocco and Tunisia closed their diplomatic offices in Tel Aviv and...
read more:http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2009/09/maddy-weitzman.html
*Dr. Bruce Maddy-Weitzman is the Marcia Israel Senior Fellow in Maghreb Studies, The Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University.
MERIA Journal Staff
Publisher and Editor: Prof. Barry Rubin
Assistant Editors: Yeru Aharoni, Anna Melman.
MERIA is a project of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary University.
Site: http://www.gloria-center.org/ - Email: info@gloria-center.org
Wadi Ara: Jews, Arabs oppose establishment of haredi city
Planning and Building Council set to approve expansion of Harish so it will house 150,000 people. 'Plan's implementation may lead to another intifada,' former local council head says
Sharon Roffe-Ofir
YNET News
On Tuesday the National Council for Planning and Building is expected to approve the expansion of the haredi community of Harish to make into a city.
According to the plan, the new city will be home to 150,000 people, but heads of Jewish and Arab councils in the area have already launched a campaign in an effort to thwart the plan.
"The establishment of a haredi city of such proportions would ignite not only the Wadi Ara area, but the entire country," Menashe Regional Council head Ilan Sadeh said.
"To establish this city both Jewish and Arab lands will have to be expropriated," he said. "It cannot be that nearby Barta'a's request
Advertisement
to expand was denied on grounds that the lands near the council should remain green, and now the establishment of a Jewish city on those same lands is being approved."
'I hope someone wakes up'
The original plan called for the new city to house 30,000 people, but construction was stopped due to the second intifada, which erupted in 2000, and a wave of terror attacks. Today about 1,000 people reside there.
Three years ago the housing minister at the time proposed setting up an ultra-Orthodox city at the site. The plan was backed by Interior Minister Eli Yishai and current Housing Minister Ariel Atias, both members of the Shas party.
Riad Kabha, former head of the Barta'a Local Council said, "We are not opposed to Jews living in the wadi, we have good neighborly relations with them; but setting up a haredi city whose residents are unfamiliar with our mentality could lead to another intifada."
On Tuesday the area's residents are scheduled to hold a demonstration in Jerusalem during the hearing at the National Council for Planning and Building.
"It is our obligation to preserve our quality of life and that of the future generations," said Arik Hatzor, who is leading the campaign.
The city plan stretches from Route 65 in the north all the way to Kibbutz Metser's reservoir in the south, and from the West Bank barrier in the east to Route 6 in the west.
"There is the Negev and Galilee, so why build here?" Sadeh said. "There are no Tombs of the Righteous here, or anything other religious element that warrants the establishment of an ultra-Orthodox city. I hope someone wakes up by Tuesday before it'll be too late."
Police forces are expected to hold an exercise in the south on Monday, during which they will train to deal with riots that may erupt should plans to establish the haredi city be implemented.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
A Shanda!
Norma Zager
Childhood memories of my grandfather remain bright. So often he’d watch the handful of television programs offered. Ed Sullivan and Milton Berle were among his favorites.
From time to time he’d turn to my grandmother, point to a singer or comedian performing on the ancient black and white screen and announce proudly, “Yidden.” Norma Zager
Childhood memories of my grandfather remain bright. So often he’d watch the handful of television programs offered. Ed Sullivan and Milton Berle were among his favorites.
From time to time he’d turn to my grandmother, point to a singer or comedian performing on the ancient black and white screen and announce proudly, “Yidden.”
Childhood memories of my grandfather remain bright. So often he’d watch the handful of television programs offered. Ed Sullivan and Milton Berle were among his favorites.
From time to time he’d turn to my grandmother, point to a singer or comedian performing on the ancient black and white screen and announce proudly, “Yidden.” Norma Zager
Childhood memories of my grandfather remain bright. So often he’d watch the handful of television programs offered. Ed Sullivan and Milton Berle were among his favorites.
From time to time he’d turn to my grandmother, point to a singer or comedian performing on the ancient black and white screen and announce proudly, “Yidden.”
A Zionist Dream
Elyakim Haetzni
Yedioth Aharonot
I had a dream where after a long absence I returned home, and a hostile neighbor made my life a misery: he threatened and cursed me and broke windows. The other neighbors claimed that I was to blame for the lack of peace in the neighborhood, and sent a delegation to reason with me. The point, they explained, was that the neighbor in question wanted my wife, and for the sake of peaceful co-existence, they suggested we come to some kind of territorial and operational compromise. In the meantime, while deliberations on the topic were taking place, there should be a freeze on my relationship with my wife. “Have you gone insane?” I burst out, and proceeded to throw them out of my home. Journalists waiting outside for a “breakthrough” were told that I “hated peace.” I was thunderstruck. A peace hater? For loving my wife? When Netanyahu met with Obama, he flatly turned down demands to hand over the Jewish homeland to our neighbor, even in theory. He also rejected the proposal of a temporary freeze on construction, akin to a temporary separation while divorce papers are being drawn up. However, since then, Netanyahu has started a precipitous descent down a slippery slope with the speed of a roller coaster: he has proclaimed his support for the two-state solution and has frozen Jewish construction, including in Jerusalem . Moreover, Netanyahu is demolishing Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria through his minister of defense, and State Attorneys who consistently endorse Peace Now petitions to destroy Jewish communities, submitted to the Supreme Court. In addition, Netanyahu has retreated from the formula which called for “natural growth” in Judea and Samaria settlements in favor of an humanitarian formula which calls for a preservation of the “quality of life” there. Finally, he already gave his consent in principle to a so-called temporary freeze, comparable to cutting off blood and oxygen to a limb slated for amputation.
A massive majority of the people is opposed to Netanyahu’s chosen path and identify with that of his second-in-command, Ya’alon. From a survey of “Ma’agar Mohot” (ordered by IMRA- Independent media and analysis) it emerged that:
a. 52% opposed a freeze on construction in exchange for Arab gestures of goodwill. 33% were in favor. (In Netanyahu’s party 70% were against a construction freeze).
b. 51% supported Minister Ya’alon’s call to legalize the outposts in Judea and Samaria . Opposed: 24%. (In the Likud: 73% in favor of legalization).
c. 41% agreed with the sentence that Peace Now “has caused great harm to the State of Israel”. Only 19% disagreed.
d. To the question, “regarding Minister Ya’alon’s warning against ‘sliding down the slippery slope’ of those who give in to pressure, do you believe that Netanyahu is or is not on a slippery slope vis-à-vis President Obama?” 55% said yes, and only 26% said no. (47% responded that a “temporary” freeze on construction would become permanent, and only 15% disagreed).
Netanyahu is addicted to surveys, and it may be assumed that he is aware of public opinion regarding his concessions. The American slippery slope already cost him the government once before, when he gave in to American pressure to surrender more territory to the Palestinians and was toppled by the Israeli right. What, then, causes him to stumble again? The Americans, who are experts in preparing psychological profiles for foreign leaders, discovered the man’s weakness which neutralizes all his good qualities. Netanyahu cannot stand up to pressure, and the Americans keep it up with a brutal and humiliating bulldozer. On the other hand, Netanyahu does not fear pressure from within, because he knows that the political right will not again topple a right-wing government in favor of an appeasement party like “Kadima”.
Netanyahu is wrong. First of all, there is a limit to the abuse his voters and party are willing to take. In the past they voted for Sharon as the leader of the political right and received a left-winger, and now this is happening again. Secondly, there is no need to replace the ruling party: when the British were sick and tired of Chamberlain, they did not elect a Labor government; they replaced him with another leader from the same party, Churchill.
However, the main point is that some issues are not governed by cold calculation, for example, values which some may consider outdated such as patrimony and homeland. To these a party and a nation respond emotionally, from the heart or from the guts, even when this goes against logic and considerations of profit.
Therefore, the outburst, “Have you gone insane? Haters of peace we are certainly not; we simply love our homeland!” may yet be heard.
And then the American rod will break and Netanyahu may well pay with his job.
Elyakim Haetzni
Yedioth Aharonot
I had a dream where after a long absence I returned home, and a hostile neighbor made my life a misery: he threatened and cursed me and broke windows. The other neighbors claimed that I was to blame for the lack of peace in the neighborhood, and sent a delegation to reason with me. The point, they explained, was that the neighbor in question wanted my wife, and for the sake of peaceful co-existence, they suggested we come to some kind of territorial and operational compromise. In the meantime, while deliberations on the topic were taking place, there should be a freeze on my relationship with my wife. “Have you gone insane?” I burst out, and proceeded to throw them out of my home. Journalists waiting outside for a “breakthrough” were told that I “hated peace.” I was thunderstruck. A peace hater? For loving my wife? When Netanyahu met with Obama, he flatly turned down demands to hand over the Jewish homeland to our neighbor, even in theory. He also rejected the proposal of a temporary freeze on construction, akin to a temporary separation while divorce papers are being drawn up. However, since then, Netanyahu has started a precipitous descent down a slippery slope with the speed of a roller coaster: he has proclaimed his support for the two-state solution and has frozen Jewish construction, including in Jerusalem . Moreover, Netanyahu is demolishing Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria through his minister of defense, and State Attorneys who consistently endorse Peace Now petitions to destroy Jewish communities, submitted to the Supreme Court. In addition, Netanyahu has retreated from the formula which called for “natural growth” in Judea and Samaria settlements in favor of an humanitarian formula which calls for a preservation of the “quality of life” there. Finally, he already gave his consent in principle to a so-called temporary freeze, comparable to cutting off blood and oxygen to a limb slated for amputation.
A massive majority of the people is opposed to Netanyahu’s chosen path and identify with that of his second-in-command, Ya’alon. From a survey of “Ma’agar Mohot” (ordered by IMRA- Independent media and analysis) it emerged that:
a. 52% opposed a freeze on construction in exchange for Arab gestures of goodwill. 33% were in favor. (In Netanyahu’s party 70% were against a construction freeze).
b. 51% supported Minister Ya’alon’s call to legalize the outposts in Judea and Samaria . Opposed: 24%. (In the Likud: 73% in favor of legalization).
c. 41% agreed with the sentence that Peace Now “has caused great harm to the State of Israel”. Only 19% disagreed.
d. To the question, “regarding Minister Ya’alon’s warning against ‘sliding down the slippery slope’ of those who give in to pressure, do you believe that Netanyahu is or is not on a slippery slope vis-à-vis President Obama?” 55% said yes, and only 26% said no. (47% responded that a “temporary” freeze on construction would become permanent, and only 15% disagreed).
Netanyahu is addicted to surveys, and it may be assumed that he is aware of public opinion regarding his concessions. The American slippery slope already cost him the government once before, when he gave in to American pressure to surrender more territory to the Palestinians and was toppled by the Israeli right. What, then, causes him to stumble again? The Americans, who are experts in preparing psychological profiles for foreign leaders, discovered the man’s weakness which neutralizes all his good qualities. Netanyahu cannot stand up to pressure, and the Americans keep it up with a brutal and humiliating bulldozer. On the other hand, Netanyahu does not fear pressure from within, because he knows that the political right will not again topple a right-wing government in favor of an appeasement party like “Kadima”.
Netanyahu is wrong. First of all, there is a limit to the abuse his voters and party are willing to take. In the past they voted for Sharon as the leader of the political right and received a left-winger, and now this is happening again. Secondly, there is no need to replace the ruling party: when the British were sick and tired of Chamberlain, they did not elect a Labor government; they replaced him with another leader from the same party, Churchill.
However, the main point is that some issues are not governed by cold calculation, for example, values which some may consider outdated such as patrimony and homeland. To these a party and a nation respond emotionally, from the heart or from the guts, even when this goes against logic and considerations of profit.
Therefore, the outburst, “Have you gone insane? Haters of peace we are certainly not; we simply love our homeland!” may yet be heard.
And then the American rod will break and Netanyahu may well pay with his job.
Elyakim Haetzni
Israel`s Fifth Column
P. David Hornik - Sep 03, 2009 (first post)
FrontPageMagazine.com
[For new readers, Israel`s Fifth Column refers to threats to the State of Israel from within Israel`s borders]
Israelis found out this week that on August 10 an Israeli Arab, Rawi Sultani, was arrested on charges of helping Hezbollah try to kill Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.The 23-year-old Sultani was well placed to spy on Ashkenazi: He worked out in the same gym with him in the Tel Aviv-area town of Kfar Saba. That detail is ironic in light of the worldwide campaign by anti-Israeli activists to label Israel an “apartheid state”; the lax security for the chief of staff is only underlined by the fact that Sultani was a member of Balad, a radical Arab-nationalist political party.
Balad calls for Israel’s demise as a Jewish state, favors the “return” of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Its former chairman Azmi Bishara fled Israel after being charged with abetting Hezbollah’s military efforts during the 2006 war in Lebanon. Balad, nonetheless, has three representatives in the current Knesset and is a recipient of state funding; if this is apartheid, it’s a strange way to go about it.
It was under Balad auspices that Sultani made contact with Hezbollah—in Morocco, while participating in one of Balad’s summer camps that aim at strengthening Israeli Arabs’ Palestinian identity and teaching them to relate to Israel’s creation as a catastrophe. It was there that Sultani was recruited by Hezbollah operative Salman Harab and was able to give him quite detailed information about Ashkenazi.
After returning to Israel, the charge sheet says, Sultani kept in touch with Harab through phone, email, and Facebook, and later flew to Poland where he met another Hezbollah operative known as “Sami” and offered him his insights on Ashkenazi as well as ideas on how to assassinate him. It was by tracking Sultani’s email and Facebook correspondence with the Shiite terror organization that the Israeli security services foiled the plot.
The case has geopolitical implications; since the February 2008 assassination of international-terror kingpin and Hezbollah operations chief Imad Mughniyeh, which Hezbollah blames on Israel, the organization has been trying to mount a revenge attack on the Jewish state, and it views Ashkenazi as Mughniyeh’s equivalent. Jerusalem Post military correspondent Yaacov Katz notes that “the ramifications…of an IDF chief of staff’s assassination are almost unimaginable” and would almost certainly have left Israel with no choice but to launch another war against Hezbollah.
As for the Israeli Arab angle, it would be less significant if Rawi Sultani were an isolated phenomenon, but unfortunately he is not. Just last February an Israeli Arab from Galilee was arrested for meeting with a Hezbollah recruiter while on a Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, and in January an Israeli Arab from the town of Qalansuwa was sentenced to four years in prison for contacts with a Hezbollah agent. Other Israeli Arabs have been caught spying for Al Qaeda or have themselves abetted or perpetrated terror attacks.
As for the more general ambience, during the Gaza war last December and January, for instance, Israeli Arabs held a large pro-Hamas demonstration where they called for the top Israeli leaders to be tried as war criminals. Recent polls have found a third of Israeli Arab high school and college graduates denying the Holocaust, and 64% of Israeli Arabs rejecting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with 20% rejecting its right to exist at all.
The revelations about Rawi Sultani, then, give a glimpse both into the extremism of Israeli Arabs and into Israel’s dogged adherence to democratic norms of personal and political freedom even in the face of danger. It is a precarious balance for which Israel, instead of getting much credit, is more often dragged through the mud of “apartheid” slanders. To a considerable extent it is left to Israel’s security services to preserve the balance—as in this case, where they managed both to protect the chief of staff and prevent a wider conflagration.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
FrontPageMagazine.com
[For new readers, Israel`s Fifth Column refers to threats to the State of Israel from within Israel`s borders]
Israelis found out this week that on August 10 an Israeli Arab, Rawi Sultani, was arrested on charges of helping Hezbollah try to kill Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.The 23-year-old Sultani was well placed to spy on Ashkenazi: He worked out in the same gym with him in the Tel Aviv-area town of Kfar Saba. That detail is ironic in light of the worldwide campaign by anti-Israeli activists to label Israel an “apartheid state”; the lax security for the chief of staff is only underlined by the fact that Sultani was a member of Balad, a radical Arab-nationalist political party.
Balad calls for Israel’s demise as a Jewish state, favors the “return” of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants. Its former chairman Azmi Bishara fled Israel after being charged with abetting Hezbollah’s military efforts during the 2006 war in Lebanon. Balad, nonetheless, has three representatives in the current Knesset and is a recipient of state funding; if this is apartheid, it’s a strange way to go about it.
It was under Balad auspices that Sultani made contact with Hezbollah—in Morocco, while participating in one of Balad’s summer camps that aim at strengthening Israeli Arabs’ Palestinian identity and teaching them to relate to Israel’s creation as a catastrophe. It was there that Sultani was recruited by Hezbollah operative Salman Harab and was able to give him quite detailed information about Ashkenazi.
After returning to Israel, the charge sheet says, Sultani kept in touch with Harab through phone, email, and Facebook, and later flew to Poland where he met another Hezbollah operative known as “Sami” and offered him his insights on Ashkenazi as well as ideas on how to assassinate him. It was by tracking Sultani’s email and Facebook correspondence with the Shiite terror organization that the Israeli security services foiled the plot.
The case has geopolitical implications; since the February 2008 assassination of international-terror kingpin and Hezbollah operations chief Imad Mughniyeh, which Hezbollah blames on Israel, the organization has been trying to mount a revenge attack on the Jewish state, and it views Ashkenazi as Mughniyeh’s equivalent. Jerusalem Post military correspondent Yaacov Katz notes that “the ramifications…of an IDF chief of staff’s assassination are almost unimaginable” and would almost certainly have left Israel with no choice but to launch another war against Hezbollah.
As for the Israeli Arab angle, it would be less significant if Rawi Sultani were an isolated phenomenon, but unfortunately he is not. Just last February an Israeli Arab from Galilee was arrested for meeting with a Hezbollah recruiter while on a Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, and in January an Israeli Arab from the town of Qalansuwa was sentenced to four years in prison for contacts with a Hezbollah agent. Other Israeli Arabs have been caught spying for Al Qaeda or have themselves abetted or perpetrated terror attacks.
As for the more general ambience, during the Gaza war last December and January, for instance, Israeli Arabs held a large pro-Hamas demonstration where they called for the top Israeli leaders to be tried as war criminals. Recent polls have found a third of Israeli Arab high school and college graduates denying the Holocaust, and 64% of Israeli Arabs rejecting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with 20% rejecting its right to exist at all.
The revelations about Rawi Sultani, then, give a glimpse both into the extremism of Israeli Arabs and into Israel’s dogged adherence to democratic norms of personal and political freedom even in the face of danger. It is a precarious balance for which Israel, instead of getting much credit, is more often dragged through the mud of “apartheid” slanders. To a considerable extent it is left to Israel’s security services to preserve the balance—as in this case, where they managed both to protect the chief of staff and prevent a wider conflagration.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
US not surprised by West Bank construction approval
Sources in Washington say last Wednesday Netanyahu's envoys informed Mitchell of decision to okay construction in West Bank as part of effort to soften rightist camp in Israel ahead of expected settlement freeze; agreement possible as early as Thursday
Yitzhak Benhorin
YNET News
WASHINGTON - Sources in Washington told Ynet on Friday that the US was not surprised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to authorize construction plans in the West Bank, just ahead of a planned signing of a deal with the US that would freeze settlement activity.. According to the sources, during a meeting in New York last Wednesday Netanyahu's envoys Yitzhak Molcho and Mike Herzog informed special Mideast envoy George Mitchell of the PM's decision. They apparently told Mitchell that the approval of the construction of hundreds of housing units in the West Bank was necessary in order to soften Israel's rightist camp ahead of the expected settlement freeze.
Sources in Washington said Netanyahu's announcement would not impede the talks on a settlement freeze, adding that an agreement on the matter is expected to be reached during Netanyahu's meeting with Mitchell in Jerusalem, scheduled for next week.
It was further reported Friday that ahead of his visit to Israel Mitchell will meet with officials from the Arab states of the Persian Gulf to promote the normalization of ties with Jerusalem, which is considered one of the conditions for Israel's expected settlement freeze.
Also on Friday, The White House on Friday expressed "regret" regarding Netanyahu's decision to approve construction plans in the West Bank.
EU foreign ministers joined the US in expressing this sentiment, with Britain, Italy, and France all stating they believed the construction would impede peace talks.
"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop," said a statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
"We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate," he stated. "We do appreciate Israel's stated intent to place limits on settlement activity and will continue to discuss this with the Israelis as these limitations are defined."
AP and Roni Sofer contributed to this report
Comment: Perspective: it is the Obama group who made the "settlement issue" what it is today-no one else-but Obama. He did so to curry favor with the world of Islam not because he thought it was best for the "peace process". His advisors provided incorrect information to Obama and he choose to accept it. He did not consult with Israel nor did he think bout the unintended consequences. So, he is stuck with his "decision" and it is now become a power game-let us see who wins. If one is paying attention you know now who Obama really is, how unprepared he is to be a world leader and where his support really lies.
Yitzhak Benhorin
YNET News
WASHINGTON - Sources in Washington told Ynet on Friday that the US was not surprised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to authorize construction plans in the West Bank, just ahead of a planned signing of a deal with the US that would freeze settlement activity.. According to the sources, during a meeting in New York last Wednesday Netanyahu's envoys Yitzhak Molcho and Mike Herzog informed special Mideast envoy George Mitchell of the PM's decision. They apparently told Mitchell that the approval of the construction of hundreds of housing units in the West Bank was necessary in order to soften Israel's rightist camp ahead of the expected settlement freeze.
Sources in Washington said Netanyahu's announcement would not impede the talks on a settlement freeze, adding that an agreement on the matter is expected to be reached during Netanyahu's meeting with Mitchell in Jerusalem, scheduled for next week.
It was further reported Friday that ahead of his visit to Israel Mitchell will meet with officials from the Arab states of the Persian Gulf to promote the normalization of ties with Jerusalem, which is considered one of the conditions for Israel's expected settlement freeze.
Also on Friday, The White House on Friday expressed "regret" regarding Netanyahu's decision to approve construction plans in the West Bank.
EU foreign ministers joined the US in expressing this sentiment, with Britain, Italy, and France all stating they believed the construction would impede peace talks.
"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop," said a statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
"We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate," he stated. "We do appreciate Israel's stated intent to place limits on settlement activity and will continue to discuss this with the Israelis as these limitations are defined."
AP and Roni Sofer contributed to this report
Comment: Perspective: it is the Obama group who made the "settlement issue" what it is today-no one else-but Obama. He did so to curry favor with the world of Islam not because he thought it was best for the "peace process". His advisors provided incorrect information to Obama and he choose to accept it. He did not consult with Israel nor did he think bout the unintended consequences. So, he is stuck with his "decision" and it is now become a power game-let us see who wins. If one is paying attention you know now who Obama really is, how unprepared he is to be a world leader and where his support really lies.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Pollard's Attorney: Govt. is Hiding Dark Secrets
Maayana Miskin
A7 News
Jonathan Pollard's attorney, Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, has slammed Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss's report on Pollard. In a report released Thursday, Lindenstrauss said the United States may not have given Pollard a fair trial, and accused Israeli officials of poor coordination. The report was “another cover-up of successive Israeli governments' failures regarding Pollard,” said Darshan-Leitner. Pollard has exhausted his legal options in the U.S. and is relying on Israel for help, she said.
Israel's government remains indifferent to his plight, she accused. “No government, at any time, has made any effort to free Pollard during his entire 24-year term in prison,” she said. “The government of Israel is still pretending that Pollard's activities took place in an irregular operation run by Rafi Eitan, and were not coordinated by the highest state officials.”
“There are still dark secrets in the Pollard affair that the government does not want the people to know,” Darshan-Leitner continued. As proof, she pointed to the fact that much of Lindenstrauss's report remains classified. “The Israeli public must demand that the entire report be published,” she declared.
Once the entire report is released, “The public can decide if Israel's governments have attempted to free Pollard, or if every single government has abandoned Pollard to his misery,” she concluded.
Lindenstrauss's report was a response to a 2007 request from the State Control Committee. The committee asked the state comptroller to submit a professional opinion on the government's attempts to free Pollard.
Pollard has served 24 years of a life sentence in prison for passing classified information to Israel. His punishment is uniquely harsh for the crime of passing classified information to an ally. Israel only acknowledged Pollard as an agent working on Israel's behalf in 1998, 13 years after he was jailed.
Lindenstrauss reported that Israeli governments have made efforts to free Pollard. However, he urged the government to do a better job coordinating its efforts, saying Israel “owes Pollard the mitzvah of releasing captives, and it's better late than never.”
Beware Palestinian plot
Fatah uses negotiations as means for establishing bi-national state
Gadi Taub
YNET News
The “two-state vision” is no longer only endorsed by the Left or Center, but rather, it is backed by the Zionist consensus – ranging from Meretz to Likud. Yet nonetheless, we will not be able to get there as long as on both sides of the consensus people endorse negotiations with the Palestinians as an exclusive path. Israel needs policy aimed at partition even without Palestinian agreement. We used to have a party like that for a while – Kadima – but it is doubtful whether we still have it, because Kadima too has been maligned by the negotiations syndrome.
It turns out that we need a reminder that negotiations drag us towards a bi-national state, step by step. It’s a good thing that the recent Fatah congress provided us with such reminder.
The leftist establishment reflexively announced that “we have a partner” in the wake of the convention. Yet there is no connection between this declaration and the text of the decisions taken in the congress. The talk about the armed struggle, Arafat’s poisoning, and all the other arrogant statements is one thing. Yet the most important thing is that the political plan approved by the convention blocks any possibility of a deal, even if Yossi Beilin becomes our prime minister.
The decisions reject the very existence of the Jewish State and resolutely insist on the right of return. For the sake of those unable to connect the two issues, the congress made it clear: We must see complete resistance, that cannot be renounced, to the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish State,” in order to safeguard the rights of the refugees and of our people on the other side of the Green Line (that is, the Arabs living in Israel.)
For the benefit of anyone who tried to convince us that UN Resolution 194 can be interpreted as a solution to the refugee problem without resettling them in Israel, the Fatah congress made clear: Refugee camps must not be dismantled under any circumstances, until the refugees return to their homes and towns, that is, in Israel.
Cat is out of bag
The Fatah apparently also doesn’t think there is a partner: They know Israel will not agree to accept such suicidal plan. Hence, the congress made clear to movement activists that in the absence of an agreement they will “make do” with something else: Aspiring for one democratic state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, with an Arab majority.
So now the cat is out of the bag in respect to the perpetual negotiations. Empty talks are not a means for partitioning the land, but rather, a means for preventing it. The Israeli Center woke up as result of this insight in 2003 and elected Kadima in 2006. Should Kadima dismiss this insight, it will disappear as quickly as it appeared.
What is the alternative to negotiations that a party committed to partitioning the land needs to offer? Not an end to the talks. A serious partition party needs to announce that it will accept the Obama plan, but demand that should the Palestinians thwart the agreement, international guarantees will be given for a unilateral withdrawal.
A serious partition party will decisively and resolutely speak out against the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria, which advances the Fatah’s plan for a united Palestine. Such party will promote a compensation-evacuation law now, not later. Such party will present a plan for shifting all infrastructures in Judea and Samaria from civilian hands and private companies to the IDF and Defense Ministry.
Finally, such party would aspire for unilateral partition even if the international community does not assume responsibility for security. The IDF can stay in the area even in the wake of the West Bank’s evacuation, until Fatah “moderates” decide they are interested in genuine peace. Even after the IDF pulls out we’ll be able to defend ourselves against missiles, if necessary – Operation Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War proved that an aggressive response puts an end to the rockets.
Should our elected officials and senior Kadima members read Fatah’s decisions, rather than what Israeli newspapers say, perhaps they’ll finally get it too.
Gadi Taub
YNET News
The “two-state vision” is no longer only endorsed by the Left or Center, but rather, it is backed by the Zionist consensus – ranging from Meretz to Likud. Yet nonetheless, we will not be able to get there as long as on both sides of the consensus people endorse negotiations with the Palestinians as an exclusive path. Israel needs policy aimed at partition even without Palestinian agreement. We used to have a party like that for a while – Kadima – but it is doubtful whether we still have it, because Kadima too has been maligned by the negotiations syndrome.
It turns out that we need a reminder that negotiations drag us towards a bi-national state, step by step. It’s a good thing that the recent Fatah congress provided us with such reminder.
The leftist establishment reflexively announced that “we have a partner” in the wake of the convention. Yet there is no connection between this declaration and the text of the decisions taken in the congress. The talk about the armed struggle, Arafat’s poisoning, and all the other arrogant statements is one thing. Yet the most important thing is that the political plan approved by the convention blocks any possibility of a deal, even if Yossi Beilin becomes our prime minister.
The decisions reject the very existence of the Jewish State and resolutely insist on the right of return. For the sake of those unable to connect the two issues, the congress made it clear: We must see complete resistance, that cannot be renounced, to the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish State,” in order to safeguard the rights of the refugees and of our people on the other side of the Green Line (that is, the Arabs living in Israel.)
For the benefit of anyone who tried to convince us that UN Resolution 194 can be interpreted as a solution to the refugee problem without resettling them in Israel, the Fatah congress made clear: Refugee camps must not be dismantled under any circumstances, until the refugees return to their homes and towns, that is, in Israel.
Cat is out of bag
The Fatah apparently also doesn’t think there is a partner: They know Israel will not agree to accept such suicidal plan. Hence, the congress made clear to movement activists that in the absence of an agreement they will “make do” with something else: Aspiring for one democratic state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, with an Arab majority.
So now the cat is out of the bag in respect to the perpetual negotiations. Empty talks are not a means for partitioning the land, but rather, a means for preventing it. The Israeli Center woke up as result of this insight in 2003 and elected Kadima in 2006. Should Kadima dismiss this insight, it will disappear as quickly as it appeared.
What is the alternative to negotiations that a party committed to partitioning the land needs to offer? Not an end to the talks. A serious partition party needs to announce that it will accept the Obama plan, but demand that should the Palestinians thwart the agreement, international guarantees will be given for a unilateral withdrawal.
A serious partition party will decisively and resolutely speak out against the settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria, which advances the Fatah’s plan for a united Palestine. Such party will promote a compensation-evacuation law now, not later. Such party will present a plan for shifting all infrastructures in Judea and Samaria from civilian hands and private companies to the IDF and Defense Ministry.
Finally, such party would aspire for unilateral partition even if the international community does not assume responsibility for security. The IDF can stay in the area even in the wake of the West Bank’s evacuation, until Fatah “moderates” decide they are interested in genuine peace. Even after the IDF pulls out we’ll be able to defend ourselves against missiles, if necessary – Operation Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War proved that an aggressive response puts an end to the rockets.
Should our elected officials and senior Kadima members read Fatah’s decisions, rather than what Israeli newspapers say, perhaps they’ll finally get it too.
Appeasing Syria
The Obama approach to the Arab world and to dictatorships is failing.
by Elliott Abrams
The Weekly Standard
The Obama administration has been trying out a new policy toward Syria since the day it came to office. The Bush cold shoulder was viewed as a primitive reaction, now to be replaced by sophisticated diplomacy. Outreach would substitute for isolation.Thus there have been six visits to Damascus by high-level administration officials, including two by George Mitchell. Moreover, the administration has signaled that its handling of export license applications for Syria will be more "flexible" than that of the Bush administration, which tried to deny every shipment it could.
Well, the returns are in. Within the past week, Iraq has withdrawn its ambassador from Damascus and accused Syria of involvement in terrorist incidents in Baghdad. Iraqi TV has also aired a confession by an accused al Qaeda terrorist, a Saudi who claimed he had been trained in Syria--by the Asad regime's intelligence services. Nor is this all. Syria continues to support Hezbollah's blocking of the formation of a government in Lebanon, backing Hezbollah in its demand for a "blocking third" that would prevent any decisions Hezbollah opposes in any new Cabinet. The Palestinian terrorist groups remain headquartered in Damascus, and under no visible restraints. And on August 19, President Bashar Asad paid a visit to President Ahmadinejad in Tehran, to showcase his support of the latter during the current Iranian political crisis.
None of this is new. Throughout the Iraq war, jihadis who wanted to go to Iraq to kill Americans
and Iraqis would not cross the Saudi/Iraqi, Jordanian/Iraqi, or Kuwaiti/Iraqi borders--all of which were carefully patrolled. No, they would fly to Damascus International Airport, where young Arab men with no papers, no destination, and no visible means of support were welcomed and guided onward to the Iraqi border. It is obvious that in a police state like Syria it would have been simple to police the airport; even the mere requirement that young men have valid visas would have slowed or stopped the flow of jihadis through Syria. But that, of course, was not what the regime had in mind, and as the Iraqi government has now publicly stated, Syria remains a haven for jihadis and terrorist organizations killing people in Iraq.
Watching the smiling Mitchell shaking hands with Asad, Syrians knew that any hope of American pressure for human rights progress was in vain as well. Neither Mitchell nor Obama has ever mentioned the subject publicly, and if Mitchell has asked Asad to release any particular political prisoners that fact has been kept secret. In fact the president of the Syrian Human Rights Organization, Muhanad Al-Hasani, was imprisoned on July 28, four weeks after Mitchell's last visit.
Syria is an excellent test case of the new Obama approach to the Arab world and to dictatorships that the Bush administration tried to isolate. The new policy is failing.
The Obama staff can argue that Bush's isolation policies did not produce the desired results--they did not change Syrian policy toward Lebanon, the Palestinian terrorist groups, terrorism in Iraq, or human rights in Syria. True enough, but there are two responses. First, Bush's policy was far too soft. While the Bush administration used some trade and financial pressure against the Asad regime, it did not take the direct action against terrorists and terrorist facilities there that might have made the regime back away. Jihadis flowed into the Damascus airport, through training camps, and across the border into Iraq, to murder Coalition forces and civilians--but the United States never threatened or imposed the kind of punishment our military, across the border in Iraq in full strength, might have wielded. Second, whatever the weaknesses in Bush's policy, he knew and he stated repeatedly that the Asad regime was a vicious dictatorship that was an enemy of peace in the region. The new Obama policy has produced no change in Syrian conduct, but it has produced a change in American behavior: Now we have even lost the moral clarity with which America used to speak about the nature and actions of the Asad regime.
by Elliott Abrams
The Weekly Standard
The Obama administration has been trying out a new policy toward Syria since the day it came to office. The Bush cold shoulder was viewed as a primitive reaction, now to be replaced by sophisticated diplomacy. Outreach would substitute for isolation.Thus there have been six visits to Damascus by high-level administration officials, including two by George Mitchell. Moreover, the administration has signaled that its handling of export license applications for Syria will be more "flexible" than that of the Bush administration, which tried to deny every shipment it could.
Well, the returns are in. Within the past week, Iraq has withdrawn its ambassador from Damascus and accused Syria of involvement in terrorist incidents in Baghdad. Iraqi TV has also aired a confession by an accused al Qaeda terrorist, a Saudi who claimed he had been trained in Syria--by the Asad regime's intelligence services. Nor is this all. Syria continues to support Hezbollah's blocking of the formation of a government in Lebanon, backing Hezbollah in its demand for a "blocking third" that would prevent any decisions Hezbollah opposes in any new Cabinet. The Palestinian terrorist groups remain headquartered in Damascus, and under no visible restraints. And on August 19, President Bashar Asad paid a visit to President Ahmadinejad in Tehran, to showcase his support of the latter during the current Iranian political crisis.
None of this is new. Throughout the Iraq war, jihadis who wanted to go to Iraq to kill Americans
and Iraqis would not cross the Saudi/Iraqi, Jordanian/Iraqi, or Kuwaiti/Iraqi borders--all of which were carefully patrolled. No, they would fly to Damascus International Airport, where young Arab men with no papers, no destination, and no visible means of support were welcomed and guided onward to the Iraqi border. It is obvious that in a police state like Syria it would have been simple to police the airport; even the mere requirement that young men have valid visas would have slowed or stopped the flow of jihadis through Syria. But that, of course, was not what the regime had in mind, and as the Iraqi government has now publicly stated, Syria remains a haven for jihadis and terrorist organizations killing people in Iraq.
Watching the smiling Mitchell shaking hands with Asad, Syrians knew that any hope of American pressure for human rights progress was in vain as well. Neither Mitchell nor Obama has ever mentioned the subject publicly, and if Mitchell has asked Asad to release any particular political prisoners that fact has been kept secret. In fact the president of the Syrian Human Rights Organization, Muhanad Al-Hasani, was imprisoned on July 28, four weeks after Mitchell's last visit.
Syria is an excellent test case of the new Obama approach to the Arab world and to dictatorships that the Bush administration tried to isolate. The new policy is failing.
The Obama staff can argue that Bush's isolation policies did not produce the desired results--they did not change Syrian policy toward Lebanon, the Palestinian terrorist groups, terrorism in Iraq, or human rights in Syria. True enough, but there are two responses. First, Bush's policy was far too soft. While the Bush administration used some trade and financial pressure against the Asad regime, it did not take the direct action against terrorists and terrorist facilities there that might have made the regime back away. Jihadis flowed into the Damascus airport, through training camps, and across the border into Iraq, to murder Coalition forces and civilians--but the United States never threatened or imposed the kind of punishment our military, across the border in Iraq in full strength, might have wielded. Second, whatever the weaknesses in Bush's policy, he knew and he stated repeatedly that the Asad regime was a vicious dictatorship that was an enemy of peace in the region. The new Obama policy has produced no change in Syrian conduct, but it has produced a change in American behavior: Now we have even lost the moral clarity with which America used to speak about the nature and actions of the Asad regime.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Pressuring Netanyahu
Obama utilizing Bibi’s greatest weakness; inability to withstand pressure
Elyakim Haetzni
YNET News
I dreamt that I returned home after a long absence and a hostile neighbor started to embitter my life: He threatened, cursed, and broke windows. The neighbors said that because of me there was no peace in the neighborhood and sent a delegation to my house. The thing is, they explained, that the neighbor wants my wife, and therefore in the interest of peace they are offering territorial and functional compromises. During the time of negotiations, they also ask that I put my relationship with my wife on hold. Are you crazy? I yelled at them, and kicked them out of my home. Subsequently, they informed the journalists waiting outside for a “breakthrough” that I “hate peace.” I woke up frightened. I hate peace? After all, I merely love my wife.
In his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu still refused to hand over the Jewish homeland to the neighbor, even theoretically, and also did not agree to temporary put it on hold (“settlement freeze”) as preparation for divorce. Ever since then, Netanyahu had been rushing down the slippery slope: He declared his endorsement of the “two-state vision,” froze Jewish construction in Jerusalem as well, razed Jews home in Judea and Samaria with the help of the defense minister and State Prosecutor’s Office – which regularly endorses Peace Now positions at the High Court - stepped back from the “natural growth” formula, and already reached agreement on a “temporary” freeze – curbing the flow of blood and oxygen to the limb about to be cut off.
A majority among the people objects to Netanyahu’s way and identifies with the contradictory position of his deputy, Yaalon. A recent poll undertaken recently by Maagar Mochot (on behalf of IMRA) revealed the following:
a. 52% of respondents object to the freezing of construction in exchange for Arab gestures – 33% are in favor (within Netanyahu’s party, 70% resist.)
b. 51% endorse Minister Yaalon’s call to complete the permit process for Judea and Samaria outposts – 24% object (within Likud, 73% support this view.)
c. 41% believe that Peace Now “caused great damage to the State of Israel” – only 19% object to this statement.
d. 55% said they think Netanyahu is currently going down a slippery slope vis-à-vis President Obama – only 26% disagreed. (Meanwhile, 47% of respondents said a temporary construction “freeze” will become permanent, while only 15% disagreed.)
Netanyahu is addicted to polls and is likely aware of the public opinion objection to his concessions. What then prompts him to again go down the slippery American slope, which in the past already prompted his government’s collapse? The Americans, who are experts on preparing psychological profiles for foreign leaders, discovered the man’s weakness, which neutralizes all his good qualities – inability to withstand pressure – and they are exerting brutal and insulting pressure on him. On the other hand, Netanyahu does not fear similar domestic pressure, knowing that the “National Camp” will refrain from again toppling a “rightist” government in favor of a party such as Kadima.
However, Netanyahu is wrong here. First, because there is a limit to how much one can abuse the will of the people and the will of one’s own party. On one occasion they elected Sharon as leader of the Right and discovered him on the Left, and now it’s happening to them again. Secondly, there is no need to hand over power. When the Brits became fed up with Chamberlain they did not elect Labor. Rather, they replaced him with another leader from the same party: Churchill.
And most importantly: Some issues cannot be controlled by cold calculations, including a nation and party whose reaction comes from the heart or “gut,” even in contradiction to logic and a cost-benefit analysis. For example, values considered to be outdated, such as the notion of the land of our forefathers and our attachment to our homeland.
For this reason, we may yet hear the battle cry: “Are you crazy? We do not hate peace; we merely love our land.” And then, the American stick may break, and Netanyahu may pay the price by losing his job.
Elyakim Haetzni
YNET News
I dreamt that I returned home after a long absence and a hostile neighbor started to embitter my life: He threatened, cursed, and broke windows. The neighbors said that because of me there was no peace in the neighborhood and sent a delegation to my house. The thing is, they explained, that the neighbor wants my wife, and therefore in the interest of peace they are offering territorial and functional compromises. During the time of negotiations, they also ask that I put my relationship with my wife on hold. Are you crazy? I yelled at them, and kicked them out of my home. Subsequently, they informed the journalists waiting outside for a “breakthrough” that I “hate peace.” I woke up frightened. I hate peace? After all, I merely love my wife.
In his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu still refused to hand over the Jewish homeland to the neighbor, even theoretically, and also did not agree to temporary put it on hold (“settlement freeze”) as preparation for divorce. Ever since then, Netanyahu had been rushing down the slippery slope: He declared his endorsement of the “two-state vision,” froze Jewish construction in Jerusalem as well, razed Jews home in Judea and Samaria with the help of the defense minister and State Prosecutor’s Office – which regularly endorses Peace Now positions at the High Court - stepped back from the “natural growth” formula, and already reached agreement on a “temporary” freeze – curbing the flow of blood and oxygen to the limb about to be cut off.
A majority among the people objects to Netanyahu’s way and identifies with the contradictory position of his deputy, Yaalon. A recent poll undertaken recently by Maagar Mochot (on behalf of IMRA) revealed the following:
a. 52% of respondents object to the freezing of construction in exchange for Arab gestures – 33% are in favor (within Netanyahu’s party, 70% resist.)
b. 51% endorse Minister Yaalon’s call to complete the permit process for Judea and Samaria outposts – 24% object (within Likud, 73% support this view.)
c. 41% believe that Peace Now “caused great damage to the State of Israel” – only 19% object to this statement.
d. 55% said they think Netanyahu is currently going down a slippery slope vis-à-vis President Obama – only 26% disagreed. (Meanwhile, 47% of respondents said a temporary construction “freeze” will become permanent, while only 15% disagreed.)
Netanyahu is addicted to polls and is likely aware of the public opinion objection to his concessions. What then prompts him to again go down the slippery American slope, which in the past already prompted his government’s collapse? The Americans, who are experts on preparing psychological profiles for foreign leaders, discovered the man’s weakness, which neutralizes all his good qualities – inability to withstand pressure – and they are exerting brutal and insulting pressure on him. On the other hand, Netanyahu does not fear similar domestic pressure, knowing that the “National Camp” will refrain from again toppling a “rightist” government in favor of a party such as Kadima.
However, Netanyahu is wrong here. First, because there is a limit to how much one can abuse the will of the people and the will of one’s own party. On one occasion they elected Sharon as leader of the Right and discovered him on the Left, and now it’s happening to them again. Secondly, there is no need to hand over power. When the Brits became fed up with Chamberlain they did not elect Labor. Rather, they replaced him with another leader from the same party: Churchill.
And most importantly: Some issues cannot be controlled by cold calculations, including a nation and party whose reaction comes from the heart or “gut,” even in contradiction to logic and a cost-benefit analysis. For example, values considered to be outdated, such as the notion of the land of our forefathers and our attachment to our homeland.
For this reason, we may yet hear the battle cry: “Are you crazy? We do not hate peace; we merely love our land.” And then, the American stick may break, and Netanyahu may pay the price by losing his job.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Obama's "Certain Defeat"? The No-Violence Administration Fights the Afghan War
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
If Iraq became Bush’s war, the Obama Administration is making Afghanistan its war. Except for the size and visibility of the conflict—which are huge factors—Bush got the better of the deal. Iraq has been easier than Afghanistan two very significant ways: it is more strategically important and it has been conceivably winnable. The mission in Iraq was to buy enough time so that a viable government could come to power, stabilize the situation at least to a minimum, and then defend itself. The U.S. presence could be reduced.
In contrast, Afghanistan is unwinnable. There will never be a viable government that can exist without major foreign military presence (or, at least, it wouldn’t be a government governing anything), and the strategic value of the real estate is pretty low. On the military level, the terrain is extremely difficult and, if anything, the local population is less supportive of a U.S. presence.
Now the administration and the military are discussing whether to send more troops to roll back the Taliban’s recent advances, which belied the generals’ optimism earlier this year. The.number of U.S. soldiers is set to rise from 63,000 to 68,000 by the end of the year, when there will be a total of 110,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. As units withdraw from Iraq, some may be sent to Afghanistan.
Public support for the mission is falling and members of Congress from the president’s Democratic party are pushing for a timetable to pull out.
Tony Cordesman of Georgetown CSIS, who is about the most serious military analyst you’re ever going to meet and is usually a pretty cautious guy, wrote in the Washington Post that if Obama doesn’t send more troops he “will be as much a failed wartime president as George W. Bush," condemning the United States to "certain defeat."
Those are pretty tough words. How can the Obama administration, which seems so pacifistically inclined, gird its loins for a war that may be objectively tougher than Iraq or Vietnam? And what will happen if it doesn’t?
Perhaps the defeat can be kept relatively invisible. The Taliban and warlords might control the countryside and regional towns but in Kabul the central government would still function. With a supportive media and an extremely remote country possibly everything could be made to seem ok. Casualties would continue to be low compared to Iraq.
Meanwhile, though, the Obama Administration faces all the classic traps which entangled predecessors. There was apparently significant fraud in the recent elections so the United States is supporting a regime which has dictatorial aspects. Civilians are regularly killed unintentionally in military operations so U.S. forces can be accused of brutality and war crimes, even if this is done unfairly and for propagandistic purposes.
The president has a clear political-strategic plan for dealing with the war but like most of his other foreign policy plans it makes no sense in terms of the actual issue, as soothing as it might sound to American listeners.
His plan is:
--Pour money into Afghanistan to make the government effective and provide good services to Afghans. Ha, on that one.
--To pour money into Afghanistan to produce a strong reliable Afghan army. Ha, again.
--And to pour money into Pakistan to secure that country’s help in controlling the border area. They’ll take the money and not help much. The only thing the Pakistan military and intelligence units seem capable of doing well nowadays is to organize terrorist attacks against India.
So here it is once again: An endless commitment to battle an unsolvable problem in the Middle East (Arab-Israeli, Israeli-Palestinian). The United States must spend large amounts of money and lives to help those unwilling or unable to pull their own weight and who certainly have no intention of showing gratitude in real terms (Palestinians, Gulf Arabs). The policy will be used to stir up anti-Americanism amongst Muslims (all of the above); in its performance the United States will have to help shore up an unpopular regime (Pakistan, etc.).
What? You can’t solve the problem by making a speech to show people you want to be their friends, win a total military victory, bring democracy and higher living standards to make everyone content, engage the radicals into moderation, or find the perfect compromise?
No. And remember, Afghanistan has all the negative aspects of the Middle East and then some. Watch the Afghanistan issue. The only reason it won’t become a very important problem for the Obama Administration is that not enough others are watching it.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)
Barry Rubin
If Iraq became Bush’s war, the Obama Administration is making Afghanistan its war. Except for the size and visibility of the conflict—which are huge factors—Bush got the better of the deal. Iraq has been easier than Afghanistan two very significant ways: it is more strategically important and it has been conceivably winnable. The mission in Iraq was to buy enough time so that a viable government could come to power, stabilize the situation at least to a minimum, and then defend itself. The U.S. presence could be reduced.
In contrast, Afghanistan is unwinnable. There will never be a viable government that can exist without major foreign military presence (or, at least, it wouldn’t be a government governing anything), and the strategic value of the real estate is pretty low. On the military level, the terrain is extremely difficult and, if anything, the local population is less supportive of a U.S. presence.
Now the administration and the military are discussing whether to send more troops to roll back the Taliban’s recent advances, which belied the generals’ optimism earlier this year. The.number of U.S. soldiers is set to rise from 63,000 to 68,000 by the end of the year, when there will be a total of 110,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan. As units withdraw from Iraq, some may be sent to Afghanistan.
Public support for the mission is falling and members of Congress from the president’s Democratic party are pushing for a timetable to pull out.
Tony Cordesman of Georgetown CSIS, who is about the most serious military analyst you’re ever going to meet and is usually a pretty cautious guy, wrote in the Washington Post that if Obama doesn’t send more troops he “will be as much a failed wartime president as George W. Bush," condemning the United States to "certain defeat."
Those are pretty tough words. How can the Obama administration, which seems so pacifistically inclined, gird its loins for a war that may be objectively tougher than Iraq or Vietnam? And what will happen if it doesn’t?
Perhaps the defeat can be kept relatively invisible. The Taliban and warlords might control the countryside and regional towns but in Kabul the central government would still function. With a supportive media and an extremely remote country possibly everything could be made to seem ok. Casualties would continue to be low compared to Iraq.
Meanwhile, though, the Obama Administration faces all the classic traps which entangled predecessors. There was apparently significant fraud in the recent elections so the United States is supporting a regime which has dictatorial aspects. Civilians are regularly killed unintentionally in military operations so U.S. forces can be accused of brutality and war crimes, even if this is done unfairly and for propagandistic purposes.
The president has a clear political-strategic plan for dealing with the war but like most of his other foreign policy plans it makes no sense in terms of the actual issue, as soothing as it might sound to American listeners.
His plan is:
--Pour money into Afghanistan to make the government effective and provide good services to Afghans. Ha, on that one.
--To pour money into Afghanistan to produce a strong reliable Afghan army. Ha, again.
--And to pour money into Pakistan to secure that country’s help in controlling the border area. They’ll take the money and not help much. The only thing the Pakistan military and intelligence units seem capable of doing well nowadays is to organize terrorist attacks against India.
So here it is once again: An endless commitment to battle an unsolvable problem in the Middle East (Arab-Israeli, Israeli-Palestinian). The United States must spend large amounts of money and lives to help those unwilling or unable to pull their own weight and who certainly have no intention of showing gratitude in real terms (Palestinians, Gulf Arabs). The policy will be used to stir up anti-Americanism amongst Muslims (all of the above); in its performance the United States will have to help shore up an unpopular regime (Pakistan, etc.).
What? You can’t solve the problem by making a speech to show people you want to be their friends, win a total military victory, bring democracy and higher living standards to make everyone content, engage the radicals into moderation, or find the perfect compromise?
No. And remember, Afghanistan has all the negative aspects of the Middle East and then some. Watch the Afghanistan issue. The only reason it won’t become a very important problem for the Obama Administration is that not enough others are watching it.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)
Netanyahu urges pupils to embrace Zionism
ABE SELIG
J Post
As children across the country shuffled back into classrooms on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was busy touring a number of schools, beginning in Modi'in and ending in the north of the country, where he welcomed pupils back after the summer break and encouraged them to strengthen their connection to the Land of Israel. "During my visit to Berlin last week, I witnessed first hand the price we paid for being helpless," the prime minister said at Kibbutz Sde Eliahu, referring to the architectural plans for the Auschwitz death camp, including detailed blueprints for the camp's barracks, delousing facilities and gas chambers, which he obtained during his trip.
"But we returned to our homeland," Netanyahu continued. "And we are obligated to strengthen our hold on the land and preserve our independence."
The prime minister told the pupils that one way to do this was through education.
"We advocate education that stresses values, Zionism and a love of the land, and that is what you are learning here," he said.
Speaking to pupils earlier in the day in Modi'in, Netanyahu was asked by one of the children if he had been excited about being elected prime minister. "Yes, but not as much as the last time," Netanyahu said, smiling, "because [this time] I knew what was waiting for me."
Later in the day, the prime minister arrived in the northern Arab town of Shfaram, where he spoke to students at a high school, saying he would work to clamp down on violence during the new school year.
"We all want peace, mostly within our own our own communities," Netanyahu said. "Therefore, we must put a stop to violence."
Netanyahu, who was visibly sweating from the heat, told pupils: "You should study in comfortable conditions," adding, "and there should be air conditioning here, for God's sake!"
"One of the things that will happen following my visit here is that an air conditioner will be installed," he pledged.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, however, Netanyahu's policies were the subject of criticism, as Samarian Regional Council Chairman Gershon Mesika toured a national-religious elementary school in Yakir, near Karnei Shomron, with National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau (Israel Beiteinu).
Explaining to Landau that the school system in Samaria had grown by six percent in the last year - five times more than the national average - Mesika complained that the "freezing policies" of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had not changed under Netanyahu's administration, and that students were running out of classroom space.
"It seems that there are efforts to make life difficult in the Samaria," Landau replied. "And a civilized and cultured country, which is concerned about human rights, cannot accept these kinds of [construction] freezes."
J Post
As children across the country shuffled back into classrooms on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was busy touring a number of schools, beginning in Modi'in and ending in the north of the country, where he welcomed pupils back after the summer break and encouraged them to strengthen their connection to the Land of Israel. "During my visit to Berlin last week, I witnessed first hand the price we paid for being helpless," the prime minister said at Kibbutz Sde Eliahu, referring to the architectural plans for the Auschwitz death camp, including detailed blueprints for the camp's barracks, delousing facilities and gas chambers, which he obtained during his trip.
"But we returned to our homeland," Netanyahu continued. "And we are obligated to strengthen our hold on the land and preserve our independence."
The prime minister told the pupils that one way to do this was through education.
"We advocate education that stresses values, Zionism and a love of the land, and that is what you are learning here," he said.
Speaking to pupils earlier in the day in Modi'in, Netanyahu was asked by one of the children if he had been excited about being elected prime minister. "Yes, but not as much as the last time," Netanyahu said, smiling, "because [this time] I knew what was waiting for me."
Later in the day, the prime minister arrived in the northern Arab town of Shfaram, where he spoke to students at a high school, saying he would work to clamp down on violence during the new school year.
"We all want peace, mostly within our own our own communities," Netanyahu said. "Therefore, we must put a stop to violence."
Netanyahu, who was visibly sweating from the heat, told pupils: "You should study in comfortable conditions," adding, "and there should be air conditioning here, for God's sake!"
"One of the things that will happen following my visit here is that an air conditioner will be installed," he pledged.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, however, Netanyahu's policies were the subject of criticism, as Samarian Regional Council Chairman Gershon Mesika toured a national-religious elementary school in Yakir, near Karnei Shomron, with National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau (Israel Beiteinu).
Explaining to Landau that the school system in Samaria had grown by six percent in the last year - five times more than the national average - Mesika complained that the "freezing policies" of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had not changed under Netanyahu's administration, and that students were running out of classroom space.
"It seems that there are efforts to make life difficult in the Samaria," Landau replied. "And a civilized and cultured country, which is concerned about human rights, cannot accept these kinds of [construction] freezes."
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
My Friends Used to be Jewish
Norma Zager
(Israelnationalnews.com)
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history...." -- George Bernard Shaw
Anti-Semitism is as old as the world; hatred as old as man. When the anti-Semitism is by Jews toward Jews, it exceeds egregious. Recently, I heard one of the saddest comments my poor ears have ever endured while dining with friends. The name of a woman in the community was mentioned, unfamiliar to most. Further probing initiated the following comment from one of the diners: "You know the type. She's one of those far-right pro-Israel people."
When dining with ultra liberals, I have learned to keep my opinions to myself. Showing any mercy for those who do not share their leftist views would be unthinkable. They truly believe anyone who does not agree with their politics should just shut up and cease to exist. I have actually heard these insane words from them.
Had I been sitting at a meeting of the Aryan Nation, I would not have blinked an eye. The fact I was in Beverly Hills, at a table filled with wealthy, influential Jewish women, caused not only a blink, but a major spasm. I looked around, waiting for someone other than myself to call her on the remark. Silence. The sadness of this unfortunate statement was compounded by the indifference of my fellow diners.
I long ago learned to keep silent when faced with such unreasonable opinions. I have been called too many names and learned the hard way how inflexible arrogance can be. I let her words pass, yet it disturbs me on so many levels.
Were this an isolated incident, it would not be so tragic. Unfortunately, it is all too common now. These Israel-bashers behave like vicious, bitter parents who have turned their back on a child who refuses to comply with the rules.
I can certainly understand there are Jewish people who disagree over political philosophy, and it is the right of every American, whatever religion, to do so. But to berate another Jew for being pro-Israel is so far beyond my comprehension that words fail me.
Well, not entirely.
Sometimes, I am tempted to give young people a pass concerning Israel because we are too many generations passed the Holocaust for institutional memory. When the anti-Semitic Jew is someone who doesn't fall into that category, I am thrown off balance.
My grandmother was a poor widow in Europe living in a small town that is now part of Germany. My father and his sister lived in a house with dirt floors and ate when there was food. Very rarely was there enough to go around. My grandmother went without so her children could eat. Seeing pictures of her frail frame, I am never left with the impression vanity was the cause of her slimness. I knew it was because she sacrificed and struggled to keep her family alive and fed, as every mother would.
She was a kind soul, without a mean bone in her body, and she scraped together enough money to send her son to America just before World War II. She dreamed she and my innocent aunt would join him when there was enough money. My father worked to send money home for his mother and sister, and relatives already in New York contributed. Soon, unfortunately, Hitler rendered the expenditure unnecessary.
My aunt and grandmother died in the camps. I never met them, but their spirits call to me from the grave to protect future generations and ensure that "never again" means "never again."
I understand Israel is not perfect. No country is, but governments are people, and, well, I think we all know the perfection level of the human species falls short.
Sometimes, I am tempted to believe Jews bemoan their fate too much. Perhaps it is enough already with the Nazis and Hitler and constant concentration camp reminders. People do remember and you need not remind them, at least not Jews. Then, I hear a comment like the one I heard recently from a Jewish person, and I realize it is not the Gentiles who need reminding.
Christians embrace the belief that blessing Israel will bring blessings, and freely do so with their hearts and their money. The destruction of the Jewish people will not come from without, but from within, by those who believe it is sophisticated or a sign of intelligence to berate Israel and its defenders.
These elitist intellectuals behave as the Jews in Germany in the 1930s. Even as they boarded the trucks and trains for the camps, they believed they were above peril in German hands.
For those who doubt the threat, may I remind the Jewish population that things were once good for our people in pre-war Germany, pre-Khomeini Iran, modern day Venezuela, France and Sweden?
I pray the day never comes when anyone else like my sweet, beloved grandmother or aunt will be viciously slaughtered for reasons beyond human understanding. Yet, when I see with my own eyes how many of my friends used to be Jewish, I am filled with sorrow and fear.
Castigating a fellow Jew for pro-Israel views is an insult to the memory of every mother who had her child ripped from her arms and thrown into an oven; or the 22 schoolchildren who died in 1974 in the Ma'alot massacre at the hands of Arab terrorists. Such remarks reverberate throughout the graves of the dead, and the memories of those still alive and suffering simply because they are Jews.
Even sadder are Jewish people who behave like the haters that condemned them to death throughout the centuries. Jews outcast fellow Jews, and it is not happening in Nazi Germany or Iran. Those "pro-Israel people" have been forced underground and are afraid to speak for fear of repercussion. How can this be happening in the richest Jewish communities in America?
It is obvious more reminders are necessary and there is a greater risk than once perceived.
There is a wonderful story about a Jewish man on his knees praying and thanking God in a concentration camp. His friend asked what he could possibly be thanking God for and he answered, "I am thanking God I am not like them."
May God protect Israel and its people and most importantly, may he protect them from the kind of Jewish mentality I witnessed not long ago.
(Israelnationalnews.com)
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history...." -- George Bernard Shaw
Anti-Semitism is as old as the world; hatred as old as man. When the anti-Semitism is by Jews toward Jews, it exceeds egregious. Recently, I heard one of the saddest comments my poor ears have ever endured while dining with friends. The name of a woman in the community was mentioned, unfamiliar to most. Further probing initiated the following comment from one of the diners: "You know the type. She's one of those far-right pro-Israel people."
When dining with ultra liberals, I have learned to keep my opinions to myself. Showing any mercy for those who do not share their leftist views would be unthinkable. They truly believe anyone who does not agree with their politics should just shut up and cease to exist. I have actually heard these insane words from them.
Had I been sitting at a meeting of the Aryan Nation, I would not have blinked an eye. The fact I was in Beverly Hills, at a table filled with wealthy, influential Jewish women, caused not only a blink, but a major spasm. I looked around, waiting for someone other than myself to call her on the remark. Silence. The sadness of this unfortunate statement was compounded by the indifference of my fellow diners.
I long ago learned to keep silent when faced with such unreasonable opinions. I have been called too many names and learned the hard way how inflexible arrogance can be. I let her words pass, yet it disturbs me on so many levels.
Were this an isolated incident, it would not be so tragic. Unfortunately, it is all too common now. These Israel-bashers behave like vicious, bitter parents who have turned their back on a child who refuses to comply with the rules.
I can certainly understand there are Jewish people who disagree over political philosophy, and it is the right of every American, whatever religion, to do so. But to berate another Jew for being pro-Israel is so far beyond my comprehension that words fail me.
Well, not entirely.
Sometimes, I am tempted to give young people a pass concerning Israel because we are too many generations passed the Holocaust for institutional memory. When the anti-Semitic Jew is someone who doesn't fall into that category, I am thrown off balance.
My grandmother was a poor widow in Europe living in a small town that is now part of Germany. My father and his sister lived in a house with dirt floors and ate when there was food. Very rarely was there enough to go around. My grandmother went without so her children could eat. Seeing pictures of her frail frame, I am never left with the impression vanity was the cause of her slimness. I knew it was because she sacrificed and struggled to keep her family alive and fed, as every mother would.
She was a kind soul, without a mean bone in her body, and she scraped together enough money to send her son to America just before World War II. She dreamed she and my innocent aunt would join him when there was enough money. My father worked to send money home for his mother and sister, and relatives already in New York contributed. Soon, unfortunately, Hitler rendered the expenditure unnecessary.
My aunt and grandmother died in the camps. I never met them, but their spirits call to me from the grave to protect future generations and ensure that "never again" means "never again."
I understand Israel is not perfect. No country is, but governments are people, and, well, I think we all know the perfection level of the human species falls short.
Sometimes, I am tempted to believe Jews bemoan their fate too much. Perhaps it is enough already with the Nazis and Hitler and constant concentration camp reminders. People do remember and you need not remind them, at least not Jews. Then, I hear a comment like the one I heard recently from a Jewish person, and I realize it is not the Gentiles who need reminding.
Christians embrace the belief that blessing Israel will bring blessings, and freely do so with their hearts and their money. The destruction of the Jewish people will not come from without, but from within, by those who believe it is sophisticated or a sign of intelligence to berate Israel and its defenders.
These elitist intellectuals behave as the Jews in Germany in the 1930s. Even as they boarded the trucks and trains for the camps, they believed they were above peril in German hands.
For those who doubt the threat, may I remind the Jewish population that things were once good for our people in pre-war Germany, pre-Khomeini Iran, modern day Venezuela, France and Sweden?
I pray the day never comes when anyone else like my sweet, beloved grandmother or aunt will be viciously slaughtered for reasons beyond human understanding. Yet, when I see with my own eyes how many of my friends used to be Jewish, I am filled with sorrow and fear.
Castigating a fellow Jew for pro-Israel views is an insult to the memory of every mother who had her child ripped from her arms and thrown into an oven; or the 22 schoolchildren who died in 1974 in the Ma'alot massacre at the hands of Arab terrorists. Such remarks reverberate throughout the graves of the dead, and the memories of those still alive and suffering simply because they are Jews.
Even sadder are Jewish people who behave like the haters that condemned them to death throughout the centuries. Jews outcast fellow Jews, and it is not happening in Nazi Germany or Iran. Those "pro-Israel people" have been forced underground and are afraid to speak for fear of repercussion. How can this be happening in the richest Jewish communities in America?
It is obvious more reminders are necessary and there is a greater risk than once perceived.
There is a wonderful story about a Jewish man on his knees praying and thanking God in a concentration camp. His friend asked what he could possibly be thanking God for and he answered, "I am thanking God I am not like them."
May God protect Israel and its people and most importantly, may he protect them from the kind of Jewish mentality I witnessed not long ago.
Barak hopes for deal with settlers
yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST
Defense Minister Ehud Barak hopes to reach an agreement with settler leaders that will enable the evacuation of 23 unauthorized outposts in the West Bank without the need for military or police intervention, officials said Monday. They spoke with The Jerusalem Post following a 90-minute face-to-face meeting Barak held at his Tel Aviv office with leading members of the Council of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.
It was the first time in several months that Barak sat down with settler leaders to discuss the ongoing standoff over the government's declared intention to evacuate 23 unauthorized outposts constructed after March 2001. Israel has promised the United States that it would remove these outposts.
During the meeting, Barak stressed that the outposts would be evacuated in line with decisions made by previous Israeli governments led by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
"This is a law-abiding government and people cannot just do what they want," he told the settler leaders.
Officials said that the meeting was part of the ongoing negotiations with the settlers toward an outpost deal.
But settler leaders who met with Barak for the second time since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took office in March stressed that the meeting was not part of any negotiations toward a deal to voluntarily evacuate the outposts.
Dani Dayan, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said there could be no such deal until the government lifted its de facto freeze on new construction permits.
The lack of new construction has been like an absence of air for the residents of Judea and Samaria, said Dayan. Just as underwater swimmers do, they needed to rise to the surface to breath, Dayan said.
He attended the meeting along with the council's director-general Pinchas Wallerstein, Binyamin Regional Council head Avi Ro'eh, Karnei Shomron Council head Herzl Ben-Arie, Amana head Ze'ev Hever and Ma'aleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel.
Samaria Regional Council head Gershon Mesika boycotted the meeting.
"This is a political farce - the cards have been stacked ahead of this game. This is not about legality of the outposts. Barak's right hand has been evading proper procedure and for years has refused to sign legal building permits because of his political views, and now his left hand wishes to destroy those same communities that he calls illegal because he himself did not approve them."
Mesika said, "Netanyahu is hiding behind Barak as he kneels to American pressure, and Ehud Barak is hiding behind weak excuses of upholding law and order."
But Ben-Arie said he believed it was important to present Barak with the correct information regarding the legal status of the outposts and the harm caused by the lack of new construction projects.
In his settlement of Karnei Shomron, said Ben-Arie, there were more than 100 newly married couples who could not find housing.
"I hope he wants to open a dialogue with us to solve the problems," said Ben-Arie.
Barak told them that no decision to freeze settlement activity had been taken, but that the US and Israel were engaged in talks about it.
He said that such a freeze was a diplomatic issue between Israel and the United States and was not connected to the illegal outposts.
But Dayan and other settler leaders said they explained to Barak that many of the outposts were fledgling communities that had begun with all the proper authorizations, but that final approvals were never signed because the government's policy had changed.
"Any attempt to make one-sided, unilateral, forceful evacuations will have catastrophic consequences," warned Dayan.
At the end of the meeting, the sides agreed to maintain an open line of communication and to meet again.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145167288&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: These are Israeli citizens choosing to live in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak hopes to reach an agreement with settler leaders that will enable the evacuation of 23 unauthorized outposts in the West Bank without the need for military or police intervention, officials said Monday. They spoke with The Jerusalem Post following a 90-minute face-to-face meeting Barak held at his Tel Aviv office with leading members of the Council of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.
It was the first time in several months that Barak sat down with settler leaders to discuss the ongoing standoff over the government's declared intention to evacuate 23 unauthorized outposts constructed after March 2001. Israel has promised the United States that it would remove these outposts.
During the meeting, Barak stressed that the outposts would be evacuated in line with decisions made by previous Israeli governments led by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
"This is a law-abiding government and people cannot just do what they want," he told the settler leaders.
Officials said that the meeting was part of the ongoing negotiations with the settlers toward an outpost deal.
But settler leaders who met with Barak for the second time since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took office in March stressed that the meeting was not part of any negotiations toward a deal to voluntarily evacuate the outposts.
Dani Dayan, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said there could be no such deal until the government lifted its de facto freeze on new construction permits.
The lack of new construction has been like an absence of air for the residents of Judea and Samaria, said Dayan. Just as underwater swimmers do, they needed to rise to the surface to breath, Dayan said.
He attended the meeting along with the council's director-general Pinchas Wallerstein, Binyamin Regional Council head Avi Ro'eh, Karnei Shomron Council head Herzl Ben-Arie, Amana head Ze'ev Hever and Ma'aleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel.
Samaria Regional Council head Gershon Mesika boycotted the meeting.
"This is a political farce - the cards have been stacked ahead of this game. This is not about legality of the outposts. Barak's right hand has been evading proper procedure and for years has refused to sign legal building permits because of his political views, and now his left hand wishes to destroy those same communities that he calls illegal because he himself did not approve them."
Mesika said, "Netanyahu is hiding behind Barak as he kneels to American pressure, and Ehud Barak is hiding behind weak excuses of upholding law and order."
But Ben-Arie said he believed it was important to present Barak with the correct information regarding the legal status of the outposts and the harm caused by the lack of new construction projects.
In his settlement of Karnei Shomron, said Ben-Arie, there were more than 100 newly married couples who could not find housing.
"I hope he wants to open a dialogue with us to solve the problems," said Ben-Arie.
Barak told them that no decision to freeze settlement activity had been taken, but that the US and Israel were engaged in talks about it.
He said that such a freeze was a diplomatic issue between Israel and the United States and was not connected to the illegal outposts.
But Dayan and other settler leaders said they explained to Barak that many of the outposts were fledgling communities that had begun with all the proper authorizations, but that final approvals were never signed because the government's policy had changed.
"Any attempt to make one-sided, unilateral, forceful evacuations will have catastrophic consequences," warned Dayan.
At the end of the meeting, the sides agreed to maintain an open line of communication and to meet again.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145167288&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: These are Israeli citizens choosing to live in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Reflections on the New Anti-Semitism
David Solway On August 29, 2009
PajamasMedia
The Hebrew Scripture is replete with passages of unforgettable beauty, and many of the most beautiful are to be found in the Book of Psalms. Psalm 119, the longest in the book, is studded with such pearls, in particular verses 103-05, which read (in the King James translation):
How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
These words resonate ironically today, when the words one hears and reads everywhere around us about Jews, about Zionists, and about the state of Israel are not “sweet” but sharp and bitter. The “precepts” we receive in the various media, print and electronic, do not promote “understanding” but seem instead to justify “every false way.” The biblical “lamp” seems to have been extinguished and the “path” is shrouded in darkness The most recent case in point comes from the left-leaning Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, which reported [1] in a double-truck spread on August 18, 2009, that Israeli soldiers regularly abduct Palestinians to harvest their innards for the international organ trade. (This is the same daily that, on Easter 2003, referred [2] to “the crucifixion of Arafat.”) The source for this ludicrous fable consists of a number of Palestinians whose depositions are accepted as gospel. How Swede are their words! The story now comes full circle back to its Palestinian source to be confirmed by the Palestinian news agency Ma’an (which is, incidentally, financed by Denmark and Holland). The feature [3] cites a certain “expert” whose evidence for the claim consists of a rather peculiar factoid, namely, that Israel returns the bodies of Hezbollah fighters minus their organs! The obvious question remains unasked: why would Israel send back these scavenged bodies if it wished to avoid detection and avert a scandal? The absurdity is palpable, but logic and common sense are clearly beyond the cognitive abilities of anti-Semites. And then, as we know, there is the inconvenient medical fact [4] that the organs of people who do not expire under clinical conditions, when organs can be removed immediately, are not viable for transplant.
Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the Palestinian propaganda machine and the robust anti-Semitism of the Swedish media and officialdom (not to mention Norway, Spain, the UK, and several other European countries) might consult another verse from Psalm 119: “The wicked have laid a snare for me.” And indeed they have. The most popular Dutch newspaper [5], De Telegraaf, cleared the way for its Swedish counterpart to launch its newest calumny, publishing an article on August 8, 2009, accusing Jews of creating swine flu as part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy to profit from the sale of antidotes.
The despicable lies perpetrated by Aftonbladet and De Telegraaf are only the latest in what seems like an endless chain of defamatory utterances and slanderous fictions about the Jewish people and the Jewish state. We recall the notorious Mohammed al-Durah hoax [6], in which the Palestinian 12-year-old was ostensibly shot by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) at the Netzarim junction in Gaza on September 30, 2000, propagated by the France TV 2 network and picked up by every major news outlet on the planet. We now know that the episode was rehearsed, directed, and staged with the collusion of Palestinian stringers and cameramen. It constitutes perhaps the most conspicuous contemporary chapter in the never-ending and constantly mutating hate-campaign against the Jewish people.
Then we had the so-called Jenin massacre [7], which turned out to be anything but, except for the 22 young Israeli soldiers who died trying to avoid civilian casualties when an American-style air strike would have done the job of scrubbing out the terrorist nest. Next, the blame for the 2006 Lebanon war [8] was laid at Israel’s doorstep although the conflict was triggered by the Hezbollah incursion into Israeli territory, resulting in the kidnapping and killing of several Israeli soldiers. Britain’s Independent went so far as to accuse Israel [9] of using uranium-tipped weapons, a claim so manifestly outrageous it defies both reason and belief — and should rightly have defied publication.
An investigation [10] is now proceeding under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council into Israel’s conduct during Operation Cast Lead [11] in Gaza. There is not so much as a mention in its mandate of Hamas’ seven-year rocket barrage against civilian communities in southern Israel which provoked the long-deferred Israeli response. Note well. It is not Hamas [12] — a terrorist organization whose charter promises the annihilation of the Jewish state, which has deliberately violated international law by using its own civilians as human shields, firing missiles from its own population centers, storing ammunition in hospitals and mosques, and commandeering ambulances as troop carriers, and that continues to hold a kidnapped Israeli soldier [13] in illegal detention — which is being investigated. It is Israel that is being singled out for condemnation, the country of which British military expert Richard Kemp, in a BBC interview [14] in January 2009, said: “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”
The world is once again thirsting for Jewish blood, an ironic reversal of the old blood libel canard. We see this vampiric appetite expre ssed in a multitude of different ways: in the international media, as we have observed; in the theater (My Name Is Rachel Corrie [15], Seven Jewish Children [16]); in film (Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ [17]); in opera (the antiphrastic staging of Camille Saint-Saen’s Samson et Dalila [18] in Antwerp in May 2008, with the Philistines cast in the role of the Israelites and the Israelites as the oppressors of the Philistines); in the tarnished and largely one-sided reports of NGOs like Amnesty International [19] and Human Rights Watch [20] (the latter soliciting funds from Saudi Arabia [21]); in int ernational conferences on racism (Durban I and II [22], which turn into flagrant anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatefests); in the General Assembly of the United Nations (whose current president, Miguel d’Escoto Brockman [23], is an outspoken opponent of the Jewish state); on university campuses where Israel Apartheid Week [24] is one of the hottest shows around; in Barack Obama’s defaulting on the commitment of the previous American administration regarding the natural growth of Israeli settlements [25] and construction in East Jerusalem; and so on, ad vomitatum.
And there seems no way at present of evading the growing pandemic of anti-Jewish feeling and anti-Israeli denunciation that is infecting the contemporary world. “What is new about the new anti-Semitism,” writes Phyllis Chesler in The New Anti-Semitism [26], is “that it is worldwide. … Jews are being verbally and vis ually attacked everywhere.” The Jew is someone for whom there is no elsewhere. This is my definition, but there have, of course, been many definitions of the Jew over the millennia, most of them pejorative. I need not rehearse them once again, for the Dictionary of Received Opinion is open to all and readily available. It is, in effect, the one dictionary that need not be purchased, lodged in the inner life of the West like a demonic version of the Gideon Bible in hotel room drawers.
There is no disputing this. What the great English Renaissance author Sir Thomas Browne [27] called the Pseudodoxia Epidemica (or Dictionary of Received Opinion) is especially rich and hospitable when it comes to the vilification of the Jew. In his master work of that title, Browne set out to dispel common prejudices of every kind, a Herculean effort which, fraught with “discouragment of contradiction, unbelief, and difficulty,” he described as the “disswasion from radicated beliefs.” Concerning the Jews, he is in no doubt about the ubiquitous and diabolical error of such “radicated beliefs.” “In the conceit of the evil order of the Jews,” he writes, “Christians without a farther res earch into the verity of the thing, or enquiry into the cause, draw up a judgment upon them.” It is only the “more ocular discerners” who know otherwise.
Today, it is not only Christians (or Muslims) who “draw up a judgment upon them” but, as Chesler indicates, a vast, secular, politically correct, mainly liberal-left constituency busily adding a sheaf of extra pages to the common Pseudodoxia, comprising a thick appendix of stigmatic designations. Obviously, this has mainly to do with Israel, conceived as the new Jew on the block and the national incarnation of the “longest hatred” as it manifests among us. Anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli sentiment has become so pervasive that it reminds me of the philosopher Nicholas of Cusa [28]’s definition of God as a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. But in our demented age the definition applies not to love but to hatred, not to the worship of the Lord but to the derogation of the “satanic” Jew.
The fact must be faced. Although there are writers of integrity, talent, and impressive scholarship, truly “ocular discerners,” who have taken up the d efense of Jews and of Israel, it seems increasingly like a fruitless struggle. The words of Israel’s defenders in the infosphere are simply unable to fill the ever-expanding circle of hostility, deprecation, and vengefulness in which Jews and the Jewish state now find themselves. It is, rather, the words of their adversaries that proliferate and block out the horizon of discourse — the invidious message of those who should never be taken at their word.
Thankfully, there is a countervailing fact as well, which has to do with the long history of courage against all the odds and the unprecedented resilience of the Jewish people — and, of course, with those honorable and gracious advocates for truth and decency who come to the defense of Israel. As hapless as the battle may seem at times, there can be no reneging. “Nor have we let fall our penne,” wrote Browne, even though we “are oft-times fain to wander in the America and untravelled parts of truth.” Browne was a devout man who would have based his practice on a passage like that of verse 130 of the above-quoted psalm: “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple.” I would add only the hopeful rider: and to the sophisticates as well.
But for those of us who are not religiously observant, the imperative to speak, write, and act remains in force. In the interests of the survival of Israel and the integrity of the West, and despite all the impediments raised against the simple truth, we need to get the word out.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/reflections-on-the-new-anti-semitism/
URLs in this post:
[1] which reported: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100007097/jewish-soldiers-harvesting-palestinian-organs-reporter-has-no-clue-if-the-claims-are-true/
[2] referred: http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/sweden.htm
[3] feature: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418671248&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[4] the inconvenient medical fact: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1194419829128&pagename=JPost%2FPage%2FVideoPlayer&videoId=1251145111642
[5] Dutch newspaper: http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/wo rld/c-12250/jews-to-blame-for-swine-flu/
[6] Mohammed al-Durah hoax: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/354621/the-al-durah-blood-libel.thtml
[7] so-called Jenin massacre: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/218vnicq.asp
[8] 2006 Lebanon war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
[9] accuse Israel: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1161811220659
[10] investigation: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31768&Cr=palestin&Cr1=
[11] Operation Cast Lead: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/operation-cast-lead.htm
[12] Hamas: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6204
[13] Israeli soldier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit
[14] BBC interview: http://zionism-israel.com/issues/Israel_human_rights_kemp_gaza.htm
[15] My Name Is Rachel Corrie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Rachel_Corrie
[16] Seven Jewish Children: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/seven-jewish-children-an-anti-semitic-play-debuts-in-london/
[17] The Passion of the Christ: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/
[18] Samson et Dalila: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Samson_and_Delilah_%28opera%29
[19] Amnesty International: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6185
[20] Human Rights Watch: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258
[21] funds from Saudi Arabia: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html
[22] Durban I and II: http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/
[23] Miguel d’Escoto Brockman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_d%27Escoto_Brockmann
[24] Israel Apartheid Week: http://apartheidweek.org/
[25] Israeli settlements: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060403811.html
[26] The New Anti-Semitism: http://www.amazon.com/New-Anti-Semitism-Current-Crisis-About/dp/0787978035/
[27] Sir Thomas Browne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Browne
[28] Nicholas of Cusa: http://www.amazon.com/Vision-God-Nicholas-Cusa/dp/1602063265/
PajamasMedia
The Hebrew Scripture is replete with passages of unforgettable beauty, and many of the most beautiful are to be found in the Book of Psalms. Psalm 119, the longest in the book, is studded with such pearls, in particular verses 103-05, which read (in the King James translation):
How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
These words resonate ironically today, when the words one hears and reads everywhere around us about Jews, about Zionists, and about the state of Israel are not “sweet” but sharp and bitter. The “precepts” we receive in the various media, print and electronic, do not promote “understanding” but seem instead to justify “every false way.” The biblical “lamp” seems to have been extinguished and the “path” is shrouded in darkness The most recent case in point comes from the left-leaning Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, which reported [1] in a double-truck spread on August 18, 2009, that Israeli soldiers regularly abduct Palestinians to harvest their innards for the international organ trade. (This is the same daily that, on Easter 2003, referred [2] to “the crucifixion of Arafat.”) The source for this ludicrous fable consists of a number of Palestinians whose depositions are accepted as gospel. How Swede are their words! The story now comes full circle back to its Palestinian source to be confirmed by the Palestinian news agency Ma’an (which is, incidentally, financed by Denmark and Holland). The feature [3] cites a certain “expert” whose evidence for the claim consists of a rather peculiar factoid, namely, that Israel returns the bodies of Hezbollah fighters minus their organs! The obvious question remains unasked: why would Israel send back these scavenged bodies if it wished to avoid detection and avert a scandal? The absurdity is palpable, but logic and common sense are clearly beyond the cognitive abilities of anti-Semites. And then, as we know, there is the inconvenient medical fact [4] that the organs of people who do not expire under clinical conditions, when organs can be removed immediately, are not viable for transplant.
Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the Palestinian propaganda machine and the robust anti-Semitism of the Swedish media and officialdom (not to mention Norway, Spain, the UK, and several other European countries) might consult another verse from Psalm 119: “The wicked have laid a snare for me.” And indeed they have. The most popular Dutch newspaper [5], De Telegraaf, cleared the way for its Swedish counterpart to launch its newest calumny, publishing an article on August 8, 2009, accusing Jews of creating swine flu as part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy to profit from the sale of antidotes.
The despicable lies perpetrated by Aftonbladet and De Telegraaf are only the latest in what seems like an endless chain of defamatory utterances and slanderous fictions about the Jewish people and the Jewish state. We recall the notorious Mohammed al-Durah hoax [6], in which the Palestinian 12-year-old was ostensibly shot by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) at the Netzarim junction in Gaza on September 30, 2000, propagated by the France TV 2 network and picked up by every major news outlet on the planet. We now know that the episode was rehearsed, directed, and staged with the collusion of Palestinian stringers and cameramen. It constitutes perhaps the most conspicuous contemporary chapter in the never-ending and constantly mutating hate-campaign against the Jewish people.
Then we had the so-called Jenin massacre [7], which turned out to be anything but, except for the 22 young Israeli soldiers who died trying to avoid civilian casualties when an American-style air strike would have done the job of scrubbing out the terrorist nest. Next, the blame for the 2006 Lebanon war [8] was laid at Israel’s doorstep although the conflict was triggered by the Hezbollah incursion into Israeli territory, resulting in the kidnapping and killing of several Israeli soldiers. Britain’s Independent went so far as to accuse Israel [9] of using uranium-tipped weapons, a claim so manifestly outrageous it defies both reason and belief — and should rightly have defied publication.
An investigation [10] is now proceeding under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council into Israel’s conduct during Operation Cast Lead [11] in Gaza. There is not so much as a mention in its mandate of Hamas’ seven-year rocket barrage against civilian communities in southern Israel which provoked the long-deferred Israeli response. Note well. It is not Hamas [12] — a terrorist organization whose charter promises the annihilation of the Jewish state, which has deliberately violated international law by using its own civilians as human shields, firing missiles from its own population centers, storing ammunition in hospitals and mosques, and commandeering ambulances as troop carriers, and that continues to hold a kidnapped Israeli soldier [13] in illegal detention — which is being investigated. It is Israel that is being singled out for condemnation, the country of which British military expert Richard Kemp, in a BBC interview [14] in January 2009, said: “I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”
The world is once again thirsting for Jewish blood, an ironic reversal of the old blood libel canard. We see this vampiric appetite expre ssed in a multitude of different ways: in the international media, as we have observed; in the theater (My Name Is Rachel Corrie [15], Seven Jewish Children [16]); in film (Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ [17]); in opera (the antiphrastic staging of Camille Saint-Saen’s Samson et Dalila [18] in Antwerp in May 2008, with the Philistines cast in the role of the Israelites and the Israelites as the oppressors of the Philistines); in the tarnished and largely one-sided reports of NGOs like Amnesty International [19] and Human Rights Watch [20] (the latter soliciting funds from Saudi Arabia [21]); in int ernational conferences on racism (Durban I and II [22], which turn into flagrant anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatefests); in the General Assembly of the United Nations (whose current president, Miguel d’Escoto Brockman [23], is an outspoken opponent of the Jewish state); on university campuses where Israel Apartheid Week [24] is one of the hottest shows around; in Barack Obama’s defaulting on the commitment of the previous American administration regarding the natural growth of Israeli settlements [25] and construction in East Jerusalem; and so on, ad vomitatum.
And there seems no way at present of evading the growing pandemic of anti-Jewish feeling and anti-Israeli denunciation that is infecting the contemporary world. “What is new about the new anti-Semitism,” writes Phyllis Chesler in The New Anti-Semitism [26], is “that it is worldwide. … Jews are being verbally and vis ually attacked everywhere.” The Jew is someone for whom there is no elsewhere. This is my definition, but there have, of course, been many definitions of the Jew over the millennia, most of them pejorative. I need not rehearse them once again, for the Dictionary of Received Opinion is open to all and readily available. It is, in effect, the one dictionary that need not be purchased, lodged in the inner life of the West like a demonic version of the Gideon Bible in hotel room drawers.
There is no disputing this. What the great English Renaissance author Sir Thomas Browne [27] called the Pseudodoxia Epidemica (or Dictionary of Received Opinion) is especially rich and hospitable when it comes to the vilification of the Jew. In his master work of that title, Browne set out to dispel common prejudices of every kind, a Herculean effort which, fraught with “discouragment of contradiction, unbelief, and difficulty,” he described as the “disswasion from radicated beliefs.” Concerning the Jews, he is in no doubt about the ubiquitous and diabolical error of such “radicated beliefs.” “In the conceit of the evil order of the Jews,” he writes, “Christians without a farther res earch into the verity of the thing, or enquiry into the cause, draw up a judgment upon them.” It is only the “more ocular discerners” who know otherwise.
Today, it is not only Christians (or Muslims) who “draw up a judgment upon them” but, as Chesler indicates, a vast, secular, politically correct, mainly liberal-left constituency busily adding a sheaf of extra pages to the common Pseudodoxia, comprising a thick appendix of stigmatic designations. Obviously, this has mainly to do with Israel, conceived as the new Jew on the block and the national incarnation of the “longest hatred” as it manifests among us. Anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli sentiment has become so pervasive that it reminds me of the philosopher Nicholas of Cusa [28]’s definition of God as a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. But in our demented age the definition applies not to love but to hatred, not to the worship of the Lord but to the derogation of the “satanic” Jew.
The fact must be faced. Although there are writers of integrity, talent, and impressive scholarship, truly “ocular discerners,” who have taken up the d efense of Jews and of Israel, it seems increasingly like a fruitless struggle. The words of Israel’s defenders in the infosphere are simply unable to fill the ever-expanding circle of hostility, deprecation, and vengefulness in which Jews and the Jewish state now find themselves. It is, rather, the words of their adversaries that proliferate and block out the horizon of discourse — the invidious message of those who should never be taken at their word.
Thankfully, there is a countervailing fact as well, which has to do with the long history of courage against all the odds and the unprecedented resilience of the Jewish people — and, of course, with those honorable and gracious advocates for truth and decency who come to the defense of Israel. As hapless as the battle may seem at times, there can be no reneging. “Nor have we let fall our penne,” wrote Browne, even though we “are oft-times fain to wander in the America and untravelled parts of truth.” Browne was a devout man who would have based his practice on a passage like that of verse 130 of the above-quoted psalm: “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple.” I would add only the hopeful rider: and to the sophisticates as well.
But for those of us who are not religiously observant, the imperative to speak, write, and act remains in force. In the interests of the survival of Israel and the integrity of the West, and despite all the impediments raised against the simple truth, we need to get the word out.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/reflections-on-the-new-anti-semitism/
URLs in this post:
[1] which reported: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100007097/jewish-soldiers-harvesting-palestinian-organs-reporter-has-no-clue-if-the-claims-are-true/
[2] referred: http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/sweden.htm
[3] feature: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418671248&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[4] the inconvenient medical fact: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1194419829128&pagename=JPost%2FPage%2FVideoPlayer&videoId=1251145111642
[5] Dutch newspaper: http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/wo rld/c-12250/jews-to-blame-for-swine-flu/
[6] Mohammed al-Durah hoax: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/354621/the-al-durah-blood-libel.thtml
[7] so-called Jenin massacre: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/218vnicq.asp
[8] 2006 Lebanon war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
[9] accuse Israel: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1161811220659
[10] investigation: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=31768&Cr=palestin&Cr1=
[11] Operation Cast Lead: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/operation-cast-lead.htm
[12] Hamas: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6204
[13] Israeli soldier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit
[14] BBC interview: http://zionism-israel.com/issues/Israel_human_rights_kemp_gaza.htm
[15] My Name Is Rachel Corrie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Rachel_Corrie
[16] Seven Jewish Children: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/seven-jewish-children-an-anti-semitic-play-debuts-in-london/
[17] The Passion of the Christ: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/
[18] Samson et Dalila: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Samson_and_Delilah_%28opera%29
[19] Amnesty International: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6185
[20] Human Rights Watch: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258
[21] funds from Saudi Arabia: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528343805525561.html
[22] Durban I and II: http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/
[23] Miguel d’Escoto Brockman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_d%27Escoto_Brockmann
[24] Israel Apartheid Week: http://apartheidweek.org/
[25] Israeli settlements: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060403811.html
[26] The New Anti-Semitism: http://www.amazon.com/New-Anti-Semitism-Current-Crisis-About/dp/0787978035/
[27] Sir Thomas Browne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Browne
[28] Nicholas of Cusa: http://www.amazon.com/Vision-God-Nicholas-Cusa/dp/1602063265/
What the new era in Japan might mean for Israel
Ben-Ami Shillony
Haaretz News
The immediate consequence of the opposition's sweeping victory in Japan's elections yesterday will be psychological - it will create an atmosphere of optimism that could strengthen the economy. Such optimism will be fleeting if it is not followed by concrete results. The victorious Democratic Party, headed by Yukio Hatoyama, has never before governed in Japan. It is seeking to be perceived as a center-left party.
Hatoyama has declared that his government will raise child allowances, expand welfare services and abolish highway tolls. He plans to fund these programs by shutting down "wasteful" projects, such as unnecessary highways and bridges.
Advertisement
These "wasteful" projects were designed to stimulate the Japanese economy, and eliminating them will harm various sectors and slow the country's recovery from recession.
The Democratic Party's plan to eliminate the employment of temporary industry workers, which would benefit employees but hurt industry, is expected to cause similar problems.
The new government will attempt to forge a more independent foreign policy, involving closer ties with China and other Asian countries and more independence from the United States.
Hatoyama has said he will end Japan's participation in anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan; Japan was involved in refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean.
Ending Japanese support for Western military operations in Afghanistan could cause tension with the United States and reduce American support for Japan in its confrontation with North Korea. It could also hurt U.S.-bound exports, which are essential for the Japanese economy's recovery. Toyota recently reported a 20 percent drop in worldwide car sales, while Mitsubishi's car sales were down 45 percent.
Withdrawing from American guardianship could also change Japanese policy toward Israel. Until now, Japan limited its support for the Palestinians to aiding economic projects, in keeping with American requests. The Hatoyama government is likely to take a more pro-Arab stance, such as by recognizing Hamas and making tougher demands of Israel, such as calling for an end to construction in the settlements. Such a position would be similar to the line taken by some European governments, and will not necessarily lead to a confrontation with the United States. The Obama administration may actually be pleased.
This January, the Israeli ambassador in Tokyo, Nissim Ben-Shitrit, participated in a Democratic Party convention. At the end of the convention, he met with Hatoyama. The party's Web site stated that Hatoyama expressed his deep concern over the Palestinian victims of Israel's Cast Lead operation in the Gaza Strip, and added that he hoped Israel would change its policies toward the Arab world, like American foreign policy had changed with the election of Barack Obama.
Hatoyama called himself the Japanese Obama in his election campaign, and said he would bring hoped-for change. When it comes to Israel, Obama and Hatoyama may coordinate efforts in ways Israel hasn't expected.
Haaretz News
The immediate consequence of the opposition's sweeping victory in Japan's elections yesterday will be psychological - it will create an atmosphere of optimism that could strengthen the economy. Such optimism will be fleeting if it is not followed by concrete results. The victorious Democratic Party, headed by Yukio Hatoyama, has never before governed in Japan. It is seeking to be perceived as a center-left party.
Hatoyama has declared that his government will raise child allowances, expand welfare services and abolish highway tolls. He plans to fund these programs by shutting down "wasteful" projects, such as unnecessary highways and bridges.
Advertisement
These "wasteful" projects were designed to stimulate the Japanese economy, and eliminating them will harm various sectors and slow the country's recovery from recession.
The Democratic Party's plan to eliminate the employment of temporary industry workers, which would benefit employees but hurt industry, is expected to cause similar problems.
The new government will attempt to forge a more independent foreign policy, involving closer ties with China and other Asian countries and more independence from the United States.
Hatoyama has said he will end Japan's participation in anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan; Japan was involved in refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean.
Ending Japanese support for Western military operations in Afghanistan could cause tension with the United States and reduce American support for Japan in its confrontation with North Korea. It could also hurt U.S.-bound exports, which are essential for the Japanese economy's recovery. Toyota recently reported a 20 percent drop in worldwide car sales, while Mitsubishi's car sales were down 45 percent.
Withdrawing from American guardianship could also change Japanese policy toward Israel. Until now, Japan limited its support for the Palestinians to aiding economic projects, in keeping with American requests. The Hatoyama government is likely to take a more pro-Arab stance, such as by recognizing Hamas and making tougher demands of Israel, such as calling for an end to construction in the settlements. Such a position would be similar to the line taken by some European governments, and will not necessarily lead to a confrontation with the United States. The Obama administration may actually be pleased.
This January, the Israeli ambassador in Tokyo, Nissim Ben-Shitrit, participated in a Democratic Party convention. At the end of the convention, he met with Hatoyama. The party's Web site stated that Hatoyama expressed his deep concern over the Palestinian victims of Israel's Cast Lead operation in the Gaza Strip, and added that he hoped Israel would change its policies toward the Arab world, like American foreign policy had changed with the election of Barack Obama.
Hatoyama called himself the Japanese Obama in his election campaign, and said he would bring hoped-for change. When it comes to Israel, Obama and Hatoyama may coordinate efforts in ways Israel hasn't expected.
PM, reacting to Ya'alon, says Peace Now 'not a virus'
Aug. 31, 2009
Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Peace Now found an unlikely advocate on Sunday in its longtime nemesis: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
In a rare joint interview with Israel Radio and Army Radio, Netanyahu defended Peace Now from the attack on it by his vice premier, Moshe Ya'alon, two weeks ago. "It is important to clarify that the Left is not a virus and the settlers are not a cancer," Netanyahu told interviewers Yaron Deckel and Razi Barka'i. "There are legitimate disputes in Israeli society and we must maintain unity and show respect for political rivals by talking and acting in a restrained manner."
Netanyahu referred in his statement to Ya'alon calling Peace Now's repeated pushing for withdrawals from territory despite Palestinian rejectionism "a virus" and former Meretz MK Yossi Sarid, Hebrew University professor Ze'ev Sternhell and other leftist activists who compared the spread of settlements in the West Bank to that of cancer.
The prime minister also expressed regret for his controversial statement, whispered into the ear of the late Sephardic kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Kadourie in 1997, that "the Leftists forgot what it means to be Jewish."
"Wisdom and age have changed me," Netanyahu said. "I am the prime minister of everyone now."
Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer welcomed Netanyahu's statements but expressed regret that he did not take action to remove Ya'alon from the prestigious, six-member inner cabinet.
In the interview, Netanyahu did not reveal what understandings he had reached with the Americans regarding a possible West Bank settlement freeze, but he expressed confidence that he would not face a coalition crisis over the matter.
"Every decision made disappoints someone," Netanyahu said. "I will act in the way that I think protects Israeli security and advances peace with our neighbors. This balance in the end is respected by Israeli citizens and MKs in the Likud and the coalition. I think that when you act correctly, everyone knows it."
Likud MK Danny Danon wrote Netanyahu a letter on Sunday complaining that he was making decisions regarding a settlement freeze without consulting the Likud faction or the cabinet.
"Your advisers were not elected by the Israeli public," Danon wrote. "Making such decisions behind closed doors harms democracy."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145156725&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: Relax everyone, this is a political move-Ya'alon has not been "thrown under the bus"-keep the statement in context-the media will play it as such and a legitimate question for them is why are you choosing to frame the PM's comment in such manner?
Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Peace Now found an unlikely advocate on Sunday in its longtime nemesis: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
In a rare joint interview with Israel Radio and Army Radio, Netanyahu defended Peace Now from the attack on it by his vice premier, Moshe Ya'alon, two weeks ago. "It is important to clarify that the Left is not a virus and the settlers are not a cancer," Netanyahu told interviewers Yaron Deckel and Razi Barka'i. "There are legitimate disputes in Israeli society and we must maintain unity and show respect for political rivals by talking and acting in a restrained manner."
Netanyahu referred in his statement to Ya'alon calling Peace Now's repeated pushing for withdrawals from territory despite Palestinian rejectionism "a virus" and former Meretz MK Yossi Sarid, Hebrew University professor Ze'ev Sternhell and other leftist activists who compared the spread of settlements in the West Bank to that of cancer.
The prime minister also expressed regret for his controversial statement, whispered into the ear of the late Sephardic kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Kadourie in 1997, that "the Leftists forgot what it means to be Jewish."
"Wisdom and age have changed me," Netanyahu said. "I am the prime minister of everyone now."
Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer welcomed Netanyahu's statements but expressed regret that he did not take action to remove Ya'alon from the prestigious, six-member inner cabinet.
In the interview, Netanyahu did not reveal what understandings he had reached with the Americans regarding a possible West Bank settlement freeze, but he expressed confidence that he would not face a coalition crisis over the matter.
"Every decision made disappoints someone," Netanyahu said. "I will act in the way that I think protects Israeli security and advances peace with our neighbors. This balance in the end is respected by Israeli citizens and MKs in the Likud and the coalition. I think that when you act correctly, everyone knows it."
Likud MK Danny Danon wrote Netanyahu a letter on Sunday complaining that he was making decisions regarding a settlement freeze without consulting the Likud faction or the cabinet.
"Your advisers were not elected by the Israeli public," Danon wrote. "Making such decisions behind closed doors harms democracy."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145156725&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: Relax everyone, this is a political move-Ya'alon has not been "thrown under the bus"-keep the statement in context-the media will play it as such and a legitimate question for them is why are you choosing to frame the PM's comment in such manner?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)