IICC
The Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas8 Palestine, 1st day of Muharram, 1409 years after the hejira, August
18, 1988.9 In the name of Allah the merciful and compassionate “[Ye faithful,] you are the best of nations ever given to mankind: you command the doing of good, forbid the doing of evil and believe in Allah. It would have been better for the People of the Book10 if they had [also] believed [in Allah]. [Although] some of them are believers, most of them are sinful. They will never [be able] to do you any harm, only [become] an annoyance, even if they do try to fight you, they will [immediately] flee and then they will not be rescued.. Humiliation will follow them
wherever they go, except if they grasp the rope Allah extends to them and the rope
[Muslim] men extend to them. Allah’s wrath pours down upon them and they will be
stricken with poverty, and that because they denied the signs of Allah and unjustly
killed the prophets. It is their retribution for having disobeyed and transgressed (Surah
[3] Aal-‘Imran, Verses 110-112).11
“Israel will arise and continue to exist until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished
what went before,” (the words of)the shaheed, imam Hassan al-Bana,12 may
Allah have mercy upon him.
7 The translation is based on the version distributed in Qalqilya compared with versions appearing on
the Internet with minor change was edded by the editor.
8 In the present version, the word “Hamas” appears after the full name of the movement on the front
cover, and before its full name on the title page. The word “Hamas” means “zeal” in Arabic, an internal
urge motivating someone to do something. In addition, Hamas is an acronym for “Islamic Resistance
Movement.”
9 The version of the Hamas charter translated here was not written on the date noted, but it appears on
most versions and therefore was added here. It related to the day Hamas was officially founded.
10 I.e., the Jews and Christians.
11 In preparing this document, the following English translation of the Qur’an were used: Internet sites,
ation, by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, OUP, 2005, Oxford Classics, paperback
edition with corrections, first published 2004. The final versions of Qur’an quotations were edited by
the translators of the Hamas charter. We also made use of the MEMRI translation into English of the
Hamas charter as it appears on their Website :
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP109206
12 Hassan al-Bana founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 and was its General Guide. He
was killed in 1949, apparently by the Egyptian security forces as a result of the murder of Mahmoud
Fahmi al-Nukrashi, the Egyptian prime minister assassinated by the terrorist wing of the Muslim
Brotherhood several weeks earlier.
10
“The world of Islam is going up in flames. [Therefore,] each one of us must pour
water, if only a drop, to extinguish [them] insofar as one can, without waiting for
others.” [So said] Sheikh Amjad al-Zahawi,13 may Allah have mercy upon him.
In the name of Allah the merciful and compassionate
Introduction
Praise be to Allah from whom we are seeking aid, mercy and guidance, on whom we
rely and to whom we pray. May a prayer and peace be upon the messenger of Allah,
his family, his friends, his companions,14 those who have followed Him, those who
have spread his 15 and have kept his Sunnah,16 [may] a prayer and peace [be
upon them] always, as long as heaven and earth exist. And to the matter at hand:
Listen, oh [Muslim?] people: in the midst of calamities and sea of suffering, from
within the heartbeats of the true believers and the purification of [their] hands and
forearms before prayer, from the awareness of duty and assent and obedience to the
will of Allah, there came the call [of our movement] and a meeting was organized, an
assembly was established, education17 in the path of Allah came into being, and the
will [power and] firm determination to fulfill its function while overcoming all
obstacles and difficulties, and [with] continued preparation and the willingness to
sacrifice everything held dear for the sake of Allah.
Finally, the core [of the movement] was formed and began plowing its way through
the stormy sea of hopes and wishes, of longings and heartfelt desires, dangers and
obstacles, pains and challenges, at home [in Palestinian] and abroad.
13 Al-Zahawi (a Kurdish name) was a senior Sunni Muslim cleric in Iraq, who was active in the
Palestinian cause and to this day is an important symbol in the global jihad. He was head of the Iraqi
Association of Religious Scholars and one of the founders of the Association for the Rescue of
Jerusalem, which was established with the cooperation of the World Islamic Conference. Among
those present at the conference were Sayyid Qutb, one of the leading ideologues of Islamic
fundamentalism. During the conference funds were raised to help solve the Palestinian problem. Al-
Zahawi was also head of an Islamic group in Iraq called The Association of Islamic Brotherhood
between 1949-1953. He apparently met Hassan al-Bana. Today there is an Islamic battalion in Iraq
named after him, fighting the coalition forces. 14 The companions of the prophet, the b: the first faithful comrades of Muhammad.
15 That is those who spread the ah, the Islamic message. In other words, those who spread the
religion of Islam worldwide.
16 That is, anyone who follows the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad appearing in the oral tradition
(dh) which was later written down.
17 In the copy of the Hamas charter in our possession, the text reads “Arabness,” that is, the identity of
all Arabic speakers, instead of “education” but in other editions the word is “education,” and
“Arabness” was probably a textual error.
11
The seed ripened and sprouted, and the plant took root in the soil of existence, far
from the sensation of fleeting emotions and despised haste. The Islamic Resistance
Movement set out to perform its duty, striding along the path of its lord.18 It held
hands with every jihad warrior19 for the sake of liberating Palestine. And the souls of
its jihad warriors meet those of the jihad warriors who have sacrificed their lives for
the soil of Palestine since it was conquered by the companions of the prophet of
Allah, may Allah’s prayer and blessing of peace be upon them, and to this very day.
This is the charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). It reveals its
face, its identity, explains its position, makes its desires known, speaks of its hopes
and calls [upon those who hear] for aid, to support it and join its ranks. That is
because our battle against the Jews is great and fateful, and all honest means are
necessary for it. [The battle] is the [first] step which necessitates [taking] other steps
after it. [It is] a battalion, and [other] battalions from the great Arab and Muslim world
must support it, one after the other, to conquer the enemy and realize the victory of
Allah. This is how we will see them [i.e., the Arab/Muslim battalions] approaching
from the horizon, [as it is written in the Qur’an:] “Shortly you will certainly know
what he announces” [Surah [38] Sad, Verse 88], [and in addition:] “Allah wrote,
indeed I will prevail, I and my messengers. Allah is strong and mighty” ([Surah 58]
Al-Mujadalah, Verse 21) [and also] “Say, this is my way. I and those who follow me
call l [upon you] for Allah with certainty.Glory be to Allah. I will among those who
join other gods with Allah see correctly, and may the name of Allah be praised, and I
will not be with those who join other gods with Allah [i.e., polytheists] ([Surah 12]
Yusuf [Verse] 108).
18
Comment: Their words-need any more be said?
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Peace Process is in Jeopardy? I Wonder Why!
January 12, 2009
Whatever became of reality, at least in analyzing the Middle East? Consider the following:
"With every image of the dead in Gaza inflaming people across the Arab world, Egyptian and Jordanian officials are worried that they see a fundamental tenet of the Middle East peace process slipping away: the so-called two-state solution, an independent Palestinian state coexisting with Israel."[1]So begins an article in the New York Times that explains the peace process is failing and the two-state solution slipping away. It is one more example of an obsessive narrative whose key premise is this: the Palestinians can never be responsible for anything.
Of course, the Arab world's public reaction to the Gaza war is not pushing it in a more moderate direction. Yet on a governmental level--and compared to past such crises including the 1982 Lebanon war, 2000-2005 Palestinian intifada, and 2006 Israel-Hizballah war--most governments have come as close to being pro-Israel as you are ever going to see them. Privately, they make clear they want Hamas beaten. Publicly, they are far more reserved in their speech and passive in their reactions.[2]
That's the big story. As for the Arab street, that much-exaggerated phenomenon, since when have governments followed its dictate?
Yet there's even more to this kind of argument quoted above: the implication that only Israel is responsible for the peace process's poor prospects and a Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution, and only now is it happening.
What about these historical events:
* Camp David, 2000: Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat rejects negotiations on the basis of a two-state solution; orders violent uprising instead.
* Clinton Plan, 2000: Arafat and the PLO reject President Bill Clinton's plan which gives them more than anything offered before.
* Palestinian Intifada, 2000-2005: Massive violent uprising characterized mainly by the use of anti-civilian terrorism, an embodiment of rejection for any compromise peace.
* Failure to prepare Palestinian people for peace: During the 1993-2000 peace process and down to this day, the PLO, Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) did not speak, write, or teach their people to desire a two-state solution. Continued incitement to terror meets up with continued rejection of Israel's existence. This is true in schools, mosques, PA statements, Fatah position papers, television, newspapers, and every other aspect of life. Since Fatah and the PA never enthusiastically support a two-state solution and sold it to its own people, how is this not the destruction of any such hope?
* The Rise of Hamas: The man most responsible for Hamas's rise is Arafat himself, both because he tried to use the group for his own benefit and he did not combat it by presenting a strong alternative viewpoint, working to benefit his people, Â or countering it through effective organizational activity. Once Hamas outflanked Fatah in radicalism, the race was on to prove who was the least moderate as a way of mobilizing support.
* Hamas's seizure of the Gaza Strip: With two Palestinian governments how could Israel negotiate with the PA? And with one of those governments totally against peace, how could any negotiations succeed? Since Hamas always has opposed a two-state solution, how is its empowerment not the destruction of any such hope?
* Hamas's war on Israel: By constantly launching cross-border attacks, mortars, and rockets at Israel, Hamas ensured that the conflict would heat up and progress toward peace be impossible.
* Weak Fatah-PA leadership and pro-Hamas strategy: It is clear that Fatah and PA leaders would rather make up with Hamas than make peace with Israel. Why isn't the PA demanding that Hamas be unseated and the international community return the Gaza Strip to its rightful government (since Hamas seized power by a violent coup, not an election)? PA leader Mahmoud Abbas may be relatively moderate but he lacks the personal strength and organizational support--in other words the will and the means--to make the compromises needed to attain a two-state solution. (Even he continues to hold less moderate views such as insistence that all Palestinians whose families ever lived on what is now Israeli territory can come and live in Israel or agreement that a two-state solution would end the conflict completely.)
* Fatah's shift away from a two-state solution: There is an ample literature from Fatah and the PA, as well as material by analysts, that Fatah and the PA have been turning away from a two-state solution for several years, if not the whole at least a large and powerful portion of each group.
* Doubt whether a two-state solution was there in the first place. Looking back on the last 15 years it is hard to find any Palestinian groups and very few individuals who were clearly and irrevocably committed to a two-state solution.
Yet none of these points, in many circles, can be seen as having any effect on the peace process--which has effectively been dead since 2000--or the two-state solution. Only if Israel defends itself against the attack of a group which rejects peace and the two-state solution, divides the Palestinian leadership, etc., can many members of the Western intelligentsia, "experts," academics, and journalists declare the peace process and two-state solution to be jeopardized.
This is ludicrous and one more reason why such people cannot understand the Middle East nor predict its direction. Of course, some of this is due to bias against Israel, certain aspects of contemporary leftist ideology, and even antisemitism.
But to understand this phenomenon in terms of specific conceptions of the issue, two specific points must be made:
* The refusal to understand the nature of Palestinian radicalism (and of Islamist and some other Third World nationalisms as well). These are not pragmatic movements seeking better conditions, they are revolutionary ones seeking total victory. Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It wants an Islamist state in Israel's place. Fatah and the PA don't seek a two-state solution, or at least not one that forever forecloses their chance of achieving a Palestinian nationalist state in Israel's place.[3]
* The refusal to treat Third World people as human beings. What is the contemporary embodiment of imperialist and racist attitudes? The answer is those who insist on treating people like the Palestinians, or Muslims, or Arabs as helpless victims who are always merely reacting to what others to do them. It used to be said that the West were the "betters" of such inferior people. Now the paradigm is reversed and the West (and in this case Israel) is seen as their "worsers."
The basic idea, however, still remains: they have no will of their own, no goals of their own, no world view of their own. This is nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that.
The peace process and two-state solutions have been disappearing neither because of anything Israel has done nor to the most recent events. The Palestinians killed them and they did so several years ago.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/world/middleeast/12egypt.html?hp
[2] See on this point, Barry Rubin, "The Gaza War: A Small Part of The Nationalist Islamist Conflict".
[3] See on this point, Barry Rubin, "If You Love The Palestinians, You Should Hate Hamas".
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Whatever became of reality, at least in analyzing the Middle East? Consider the following:
"With every image of the dead in Gaza inflaming people across the Arab world, Egyptian and Jordanian officials are worried that they see a fundamental tenet of the Middle East peace process slipping away: the so-called two-state solution, an independent Palestinian state coexisting with Israel."[1]So begins an article in the New York Times that explains the peace process is failing and the two-state solution slipping away. It is one more example of an obsessive narrative whose key premise is this: the Palestinians can never be responsible for anything.
Of course, the Arab world's public reaction to the Gaza war is not pushing it in a more moderate direction. Yet on a governmental level--and compared to past such crises including the 1982 Lebanon war, 2000-2005 Palestinian intifada, and 2006 Israel-Hizballah war--most governments have come as close to being pro-Israel as you are ever going to see them. Privately, they make clear they want Hamas beaten. Publicly, they are far more reserved in their speech and passive in their reactions.[2]
That's the big story. As for the Arab street, that much-exaggerated phenomenon, since when have governments followed its dictate?
Yet there's even more to this kind of argument quoted above: the implication that only Israel is responsible for the peace process's poor prospects and a Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution, and only now is it happening.
What about these historical events:
* Camp David, 2000: Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat rejects negotiations on the basis of a two-state solution; orders violent uprising instead.
* Clinton Plan, 2000: Arafat and the PLO reject President Bill Clinton's plan which gives them more than anything offered before.
* Palestinian Intifada, 2000-2005: Massive violent uprising characterized mainly by the use of anti-civilian terrorism, an embodiment of rejection for any compromise peace.
* Failure to prepare Palestinian people for peace: During the 1993-2000 peace process and down to this day, the PLO, Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) did not speak, write, or teach their people to desire a two-state solution. Continued incitement to terror meets up with continued rejection of Israel's existence. This is true in schools, mosques, PA statements, Fatah position papers, television, newspapers, and every other aspect of life. Since Fatah and the PA never enthusiastically support a two-state solution and sold it to its own people, how is this not the destruction of any such hope?
* The Rise of Hamas: The man most responsible for Hamas's rise is Arafat himself, both because he tried to use the group for his own benefit and he did not combat it by presenting a strong alternative viewpoint, working to benefit his people, Â or countering it through effective organizational activity. Once Hamas outflanked Fatah in radicalism, the race was on to prove who was the least moderate as a way of mobilizing support.
* Hamas's seizure of the Gaza Strip: With two Palestinian governments how could Israel negotiate with the PA? And with one of those governments totally against peace, how could any negotiations succeed? Since Hamas always has opposed a two-state solution, how is its empowerment not the destruction of any such hope?
* Hamas's war on Israel: By constantly launching cross-border attacks, mortars, and rockets at Israel, Hamas ensured that the conflict would heat up and progress toward peace be impossible.
* Weak Fatah-PA leadership and pro-Hamas strategy: It is clear that Fatah and PA leaders would rather make up with Hamas than make peace with Israel. Why isn't the PA demanding that Hamas be unseated and the international community return the Gaza Strip to its rightful government (since Hamas seized power by a violent coup, not an election)? PA leader Mahmoud Abbas may be relatively moderate but he lacks the personal strength and organizational support--in other words the will and the means--to make the compromises needed to attain a two-state solution. (Even he continues to hold less moderate views such as insistence that all Palestinians whose families ever lived on what is now Israeli territory can come and live in Israel or agreement that a two-state solution would end the conflict completely.)
* Fatah's shift away from a two-state solution: There is an ample literature from Fatah and the PA, as well as material by analysts, that Fatah and the PA have been turning away from a two-state solution for several years, if not the whole at least a large and powerful portion of each group.
* Doubt whether a two-state solution was there in the first place. Looking back on the last 15 years it is hard to find any Palestinian groups and very few individuals who were clearly and irrevocably committed to a two-state solution.
Yet none of these points, in many circles, can be seen as having any effect on the peace process--which has effectively been dead since 2000--or the two-state solution. Only if Israel defends itself against the attack of a group which rejects peace and the two-state solution, divides the Palestinian leadership, etc., can many members of the Western intelligentsia, "experts," academics, and journalists declare the peace process and two-state solution to be jeopardized.
This is ludicrous and one more reason why such people cannot understand the Middle East nor predict its direction. Of course, some of this is due to bias against Israel, certain aspects of contemporary leftist ideology, and even antisemitism.
But to understand this phenomenon in terms of specific conceptions of the issue, two specific points must be made:
* The refusal to understand the nature of Palestinian radicalism (and of Islamist and some other Third World nationalisms as well). These are not pragmatic movements seeking better conditions, they are revolutionary ones seeking total victory. Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It wants an Islamist state in Israel's place. Fatah and the PA don't seek a two-state solution, or at least not one that forever forecloses their chance of achieving a Palestinian nationalist state in Israel's place.[3]
* The refusal to treat Third World people as human beings. What is the contemporary embodiment of imperialist and racist attitudes? The answer is those who insist on treating people like the Palestinians, or Muslims, or Arabs as helpless victims who are always merely reacting to what others to do them. It used to be said that the West were the "betters" of such inferior people. Now the paradigm is reversed and the West (and in this case Israel) is seen as their "worsers."
The basic idea, however, still remains: they have no will of their own, no goals of their own, no world view of their own. This is nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that.
The peace process and two-state solutions have been disappearing neither because of anything Israel has done nor to the most recent events. The Palestinians killed them and they did so several years ago.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/world/middleeast/12egypt.html?hp
[2] See on this point, Barry Rubin, "The Gaza War: A Small Part of The Nationalist Islamist Conflict".
[3] See on this point, Barry Rubin, "If You Love The Palestinians, You Should Hate Hamas".
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Israeli programmers design management system for Palestinian Hospitals
David Shamah
January 12, 2009
Israel 21C
While the news is full of stories of war, missiles, and bombings, an Israeli company is developing a new system that will enable Palestinian Authority (PA) hospitals to more easily and efficiently take care of patients. It's a twist to the story we usually hear about relations between Israel and the PA. And here's an even bigger twist: The program is being developed by a Bnei Brak company whose staff is made of ultra-Orthodox women. It sounds like a co-existence fairy tale, but that's exactly what's happening at i-Rox, an Israeli software development house that has built applications for dozens of clients in Israel and abroad. In its latest project, i-Rox is developing a medical administration program for the PA, to be installed, in its first stage, in hospitals in Ramallah and Bethlehem, and later on in other hospitals. "Hundreds of thousands of PA residents will be able to benefit from this project," Yehudit Suissa, CEO of i-Rox tells ISRAEL21c. "There's no question that this is a step forward in coexistence."
The package is fairly typical, as far as medical administration goes; the i-Rox application will feature a database that will allow hospital personnel to add information to patients' files, and the database will be accessible across the network of PA hospitals using the system.
Information will follow a patient from hospital to doctor, and will be shared by the relevant organizations that help pay for medical care - including Israel's Health Ministry, which in many cases foots the bill for medical care of PA residents. The system will also enable doctors to keep case histories, prescriptions, medical history, etc.
What's atypical, of course, is the fact that i-Rox is an Israeli company, developing this system for the PA. The PA appointed an agent to hire a company to build this system Suissa says. "We were contacted by their agent, a software developer from east Jerusalem, and after showing him what we could do, he hired us to do the job," Suissa says. The PA did not hold a tender, she says; the agent did, and he considered a number of other contenders before deciding on i-Rox.
Ready to deliver within a month
"After passing our proposal onto the PA authorities, the agent told us we were hired, and supplied us with the full specifications. We went to work, and are set to deliver the system within the next month," Suissa says.
The deal is a feather in i-Rox's cap. "If we didn't have a quality product the agent would not have presented our work to the PA. Clearly they thought we could do the job, and we intend to live up to that expectation," Suissa says.
While politics is never far behind when talk turns to Israel-PA relations, Suissa says that his staff and the Palestinians with whom they work "don't go there. We don't discuss politics, just shop." Especially during times like this. "There's no question the Gaza operation is like the giant elephant in the room that nobody wants to mention, but both of us have an interest in avoiding pitfalls. So, we leave politics out of it."
As far as the PA's canceling the contract in protest over the IDF operation, Suissa says it's unlikely. "They need this system and we can deliver it; they are just as interested in our getting the work done as we are. Besides, we have already started, and we have a contract," she says.
What makes this deal so unusual is that the people doing the work are a crew of dozens of ultra-Orthodox women.
Haredi women workers are often chief breadwinners
"The women who work here are all from the ultra-Orthodox community, nearly all from Bnei Brak," Suissa says. "All our programmers are college-educated, and some even have advanced degrees."
i-Rox is owned by a Haredi businessman who decided to take advantage of a large, little-known pool of talented tech workers. "Many of the women who work here are the chief breadwinners for their house, with their husbands in many cases learning or teaching in Yeshiva," says Suissa. "It's a perfect solution for members of the ultra-Orthodox community, who would not feel comfortable working in a secular environment."
"A few years ago, you had maybe 20 women a year who graduated from programming training course. But today, because of i-Rox and a few other companies who employ Haredi women, over 160 women will get degrees in programming this year," he adds.
All in all, Suissa says she likes the idea of breaking stereotypes - both among Israelis and the Palestinians. "I think companies like ours should be on top of the government's list of examples of coexistence. We exemplify 'kiruv levavot,' the enhancing of positive relations among people, both inside and outside Israel," Suissa says.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Israel's International Support: A Glass Eight-Tenths Full
Barry Rubin
January 11, 2009
It's easy to be misled by elements of Western media and academia that seem to prefer terrorists and radical Islamists to Israel. A diplomatic balance sheet from Israel's standpoint is quite good, pretty remarkably good, better than it has been for a very long time.. Of course, I have to add quickly that there are real problems, disagreements, and specific frictions. I'll come to that in a moment. But first the good news:
Countries with which Israel has great relations: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and also the European Union and NATO. Moreover, there are a long list of ex-Soviet bloc states which understand the difference between a democratic state defending itself and a bunch of ideologically driven, dictatorship-worshipping terrorists. They include the new EU chair, the Czech Republic, and a dozen others, of which Azerbaijan, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, can stand as examples. And last but not least most of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Countries with which Israel has good relations: China, Russia, and Turkey. See details below.
Non-Muslim, countries with which Israel has bad relations: Venezuela, North Korea, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. Perhaps you can come up with a few others. Nominations are open.
Of course, friendly countries have criticisms over settlements, for example, or defining "peace" as Israel not responding to Hamas attacks. Yet in practice, much of this talk is to show these countries have influence and "balanced" policies. Regarding what is important--things like normal relations, trade including military-related equipment, basic support, sanctions against extremist enemies--these relationships deliver.
In some cases, as in France or Italy, current good links depend on the specific leader in power there. Obviously, Israel was not an important issue in their elections but the result shows large elements of policymaking elites are friendly and public opinion isn't demanding leaders hostile to Jerusalem.
In France, Francois Sarkozy replaced the notably less friendly Jacque Chirac. While Sarkozy's soft policy toward Syria is disappointing for me, it doesn't conflict with Israeli policy. His recent foray into pushing a poorly conceived ceasefire in Gaza shows impulsive interventionism (France must act as a great power), but unquestionably his is the French government most friendly to Israel in fifty years.
With China, Israel has a good bilateral relationship despite that country's arms' sales (reportedly Chinese-made rockets sold to Iran and then given to Hamas have been shot at Israel) and reluctance to support sanctions against Iran. China is motivated by a search for money, a desperate need for oil, and fear that sanctions might be turned against itself some day.
At the same time, though, China, like other countries mentioned above, has broken with the myth that it's impossible to have good relations with both Israel and the Arab world. This was always untrue but changes in the last 20 years--the Cold War's end, the peace process--made the truth especially obvious. Israel's technological wealth, impressive military performance, influence with the United States, and other factors have made it an attractive friend to have.
In addition, growing radical Islamist forces have scared many countries. They might have been able to romanticize falsely the PLO as a progressive national liberation movement. Iran, Hamas, and Hizballah are a harder sell.
Two other important Israeli relationships are the most complex. Turkey has an Islamist-rooted government which portrays itself as a center-right party. Its instinct may be anti-Israel but its behavior isn't. There are four reasons for this: friendship with Israel is used to prove the party isn't Islamist, the party has taken in pro-Israel politicians, mutually beneficial economic links, and Turkey's military wants a strong alliance. Like other countries, Turkey also knows that cooperation with Israel is necessary for it to play an important diplomatic role in the region. Turkey's brokering of Israel-Syria negotiations proves it.
Finally, Russia benefits from a balanced policy which allows good relations with Israel, Syria, and Iran simultaneously. Of course, that is a big problem for Israel. Moscow sells weapons to Syria, paid for by Iran, which are given to Hizballah. Still, constrained by its own wish to maintain good relations with Israel, Russia limits friction by not making certain sales--nuclear and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran--and limiting contacts with Hamas and Hizballah. The key question is whether Moscow will go too far in tilting toward Tehran and Damascus or maintain the present balance.
What is the main limitation in these relationships? It isn't pressing Israel for concessions to the Palestinian Authority but rather in not sufficiently backing Israel's security regarding Hizballah and Hamas. In Lebanon, the UN-led effort broke its promises to Israel to keep Hizballah from rebuilding arsenals and returning to the south. This isn't an immediate problem since Hizballah is currently too busy taking power in Lebanon to attack Israel.
Regarding Gaza, there has been much real support, which counts, coupled with scattered verbal criticism, which doesn't matter. Israel knows these countries won't support a long war or reconquest of the Gaza Strip. But those aren't its objectives. The question is how helpful these countries will be in creating new security arrangements that actually prevent Hamas from attacking Israel even under a declared "ceasefire."
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Israel's diplomatic relationships are far better than is generally realized and the importance of this fact should never be underestimated.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
January 11, 2009
It's easy to be misled by elements of Western media and academia that seem to prefer terrorists and radical Islamists to Israel. A diplomatic balance sheet from Israel's standpoint is quite good, pretty remarkably good, better than it has been for a very long time.. Of course, I have to add quickly that there are real problems, disagreements, and specific frictions. I'll come to that in a moment. But first the good news:
Countries with which Israel has great relations: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and also the European Union and NATO. Moreover, there are a long list of ex-Soviet bloc states which understand the difference between a democratic state defending itself and a bunch of ideologically driven, dictatorship-worshipping terrorists. They include the new EU chair, the Czech Republic, and a dozen others, of which Azerbaijan, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, can stand as examples. And last but not least most of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Countries with which Israel has good relations: China, Russia, and Turkey. See details below.
Non-Muslim, countries with which Israel has bad relations: Venezuela, North Korea, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. Perhaps you can come up with a few others. Nominations are open.
Of course, friendly countries have criticisms over settlements, for example, or defining "peace" as Israel not responding to Hamas attacks. Yet in practice, much of this talk is to show these countries have influence and "balanced" policies. Regarding what is important--things like normal relations, trade including military-related equipment, basic support, sanctions against extremist enemies--these relationships deliver.
In some cases, as in France or Italy, current good links depend on the specific leader in power there. Obviously, Israel was not an important issue in their elections but the result shows large elements of policymaking elites are friendly and public opinion isn't demanding leaders hostile to Jerusalem.
In France, Francois Sarkozy replaced the notably less friendly Jacque Chirac. While Sarkozy's soft policy toward Syria is disappointing for me, it doesn't conflict with Israeli policy. His recent foray into pushing a poorly conceived ceasefire in Gaza shows impulsive interventionism (France must act as a great power), but unquestionably his is the French government most friendly to Israel in fifty years.
With China, Israel has a good bilateral relationship despite that country's arms' sales (reportedly Chinese-made rockets sold to Iran and then given to Hamas have been shot at Israel) and reluctance to support sanctions against Iran. China is motivated by a search for money, a desperate need for oil, and fear that sanctions might be turned against itself some day.
At the same time, though, China, like other countries mentioned above, has broken with the myth that it's impossible to have good relations with both Israel and the Arab world. This was always untrue but changes in the last 20 years--the Cold War's end, the peace process--made the truth especially obvious. Israel's technological wealth, impressive military performance, influence with the United States, and other factors have made it an attractive friend to have.
In addition, growing radical Islamist forces have scared many countries. They might have been able to romanticize falsely the PLO as a progressive national liberation movement. Iran, Hamas, and Hizballah are a harder sell.
Two other important Israeli relationships are the most complex. Turkey has an Islamist-rooted government which portrays itself as a center-right party. Its instinct may be anti-Israel but its behavior isn't. There are four reasons for this: friendship with Israel is used to prove the party isn't Islamist, the party has taken in pro-Israel politicians, mutually beneficial economic links, and Turkey's military wants a strong alliance. Like other countries, Turkey also knows that cooperation with Israel is necessary for it to play an important diplomatic role in the region. Turkey's brokering of Israel-Syria negotiations proves it.
Finally, Russia benefits from a balanced policy which allows good relations with Israel, Syria, and Iran simultaneously. Of course, that is a big problem for Israel. Moscow sells weapons to Syria, paid for by Iran, which are given to Hizballah. Still, constrained by its own wish to maintain good relations with Israel, Russia limits friction by not making certain sales--nuclear and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran--and limiting contacts with Hamas and Hizballah. The key question is whether Moscow will go too far in tilting toward Tehran and Damascus or maintain the present balance.
What is the main limitation in these relationships? It isn't pressing Israel for concessions to the Palestinian Authority but rather in not sufficiently backing Israel's security regarding Hizballah and Hamas. In Lebanon, the UN-led effort broke its promises to Israel to keep Hizballah from rebuilding arsenals and returning to the south. This isn't an immediate problem since Hizballah is currently too busy taking power in Lebanon to attack Israel.
Regarding Gaza, there has been much real support, which counts, coupled with scattered verbal criticism, which doesn't matter. Israel knows these countries won't support a long war or reconquest of the Gaza Strip. But those aren't its objectives. The question is how helpful these countries will be in creating new security arrangements that actually prevent Hamas from attacking Israel even under a declared "ceasefire."
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Israel's diplomatic relationships are far better than is generally realized and the importance of this fact should never be underestimated.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Bereaved Family Exhibits True Gadlus [Greatness] & Love
January 11, 2009
Their son, Sergeant Nitai Stern z"l was killed in Gaza by mistaken IDF tank fire. However, they do not exhibit anger or bitterness, but engulf the entire nation with their genuine act of greatness and love. They turned to President Shimon Peres to give a big hug to the tank corps soldiers who fired the mistaken fatal round. They told him to explain there is no anger, no bitterness.
The Sterns are well-aware of the price we must pay at times for the right and the privilege to defend Eretz Yisrael, and they appear willing to accept this painful reality, having lost their youngest child, Nitai. Reuven, Nitai's father, explains that "as soon as the ground operation began I knew he was not returning. Before Nitai was killed, my wife began making preparations for the shiva. I took NIS 3,000 out of the ATM to have cash at home during the shiva. I have a long genealogy tracing back 300 years in Yerushalayim. I do not remember anyone from our family being lost since the 1929 Chevron riots. I thought to myself perhaps we are due for such a tragedy?"
Sarah refers to Nitai as a "true hero". She goes on to explain, "There is no war without such incidents. They occur. We have a responsibility and a privilege to embrace them. We must adopt them, to look after the boys, to make sure they do not permit themselves to become depressed and live with guilt of having done something wrong. We want them to come to us and become part of our family. We lost a family and I do not wish for another mother to lose a child to sorrow or despair."
The family of Captain Yoni Netanel z"l feels the same and on Friday, erev Shabbos, the fallen soldier's father, Rav Amos, succeeded in reaching the members of the tank crew who fired the shell on the phone. He explained how they love and embrace them. The astounded soldiers expressed their thanks for the words of love and encouragement.
This however was not enough for Rav Amos, who sent a letter to the soldiers of the regiment, telling them we all know such unfortunate incidents are a part of war but we mustn't permit such events to interfere with focusing on the objective, a decisive victory against the enemy. He explained how Yoni died Al Kiddush Hashem and "it was better that your pure hands struck him and not the defiling hands of the barbaric enemy".
"We love you with all our hearts. You are members of our family…"
The letter is signed by Rav Amos, his wife Malki and Yoni's widow Tziona, adding Yoni's [3-month-old] daughter requests they come and visit after the war, to meet them, to give them a hug". (Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
Their son, Sergeant Nitai Stern z"l was killed in Gaza by mistaken IDF tank fire. However, they do not exhibit anger or bitterness, but engulf the entire nation with their genuine act of greatness and love. They turned to President Shimon Peres to give a big hug to the tank corps soldiers who fired the mistaken fatal round. They told him to explain there is no anger, no bitterness.
The Sterns are well-aware of the price we must pay at times for the right and the privilege to defend Eretz Yisrael, and they appear willing to accept this painful reality, having lost their youngest child, Nitai. Reuven, Nitai's father, explains that "as soon as the ground operation began I knew he was not returning. Before Nitai was killed, my wife began making preparations for the shiva. I took NIS 3,000 out of the ATM to have cash at home during the shiva. I have a long genealogy tracing back 300 years in Yerushalayim. I do not remember anyone from our family being lost since the 1929 Chevron riots. I thought to myself perhaps we are due for such a tragedy?"
Sarah refers to Nitai as a "true hero". She goes on to explain, "There is no war without such incidents. They occur. We have a responsibility and a privilege to embrace them. We must adopt them, to look after the boys, to make sure they do not permit themselves to become depressed and live with guilt of having done something wrong. We want them to come to us and become part of our family. We lost a family and I do not wish for another mother to lose a child to sorrow or despair."
The family of Captain Yoni Netanel z"l feels the same and on Friday, erev Shabbos, the fallen soldier's father, Rav Amos, succeeded in reaching the members of the tank crew who fired the shell on the phone. He explained how they love and embrace them. The astounded soldiers expressed their thanks for the words of love and encouragement.
This however was not enough for Rav Amos, who sent a letter to the soldiers of the regiment, telling them we all know such unfortunate incidents are a part of war but we mustn't permit such events to interfere with focusing on the objective, a decisive victory against the enemy. He explained how Yoni died Al Kiddush Hashem and "it was better that your pure hands struck him and not the defiling hands of the barbaric enemy".
"We love you with all our hearts. You are members of our family…"
The letter is signed by Rav Amos, his wife Malki and Yoni's widow Tziona, adding Yoni's [3-month-old] daughter requests they come and visit after the war, to meet them, to give them a hug". (Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
Ending The Gaza War: Choices, Not Solutions
Barry Rubin
January 11, 2009
Last December, Hamas unilaterally ended its ceasefire with Israel and escalated the kind of cross-border attacks continually attempted even during the ceasefire. With massive public support, Israel struck back against a neighboring regime which daily attacked its citizens and called for its extermination.For decades, Israel's history shows a general pattern: its neighbors attack, Israel responds, Israel wins the war, and the world rushes to ensure that its victory is limited or nullified. If, as sometimes happens, the diplomatic process really improves the situation and provides progress for peace that, of course, is beneficial.
Yet Israel's experience has shown that international promises made in return for its material concessions are often broken. Most recently, in 2006 the international community pledged to keep Hizballah out of south Lebanon and curb its arms' supply, failed totally, yet took no action in response to this defeat. Israel is understandably skeptical.
In addition, Israelis know that Hamas is totally dedicated to their personal and collective destruction. The group will not moderate, cannot be bought off, and will not respect any agreement it makes. As a result, the usual kinds of diplomatic tools--concessions, confidence-building, agreements, moderation resulting from having governmental responsibilities, will not work. Any solution short of Hamas's fall from power will bring more fighting in future.
What should happen is that the international community cooperates in the removal of the Hamas regime. It is an illegal government, brought to power by an unprovoked war against the Palestinian Authority (PA) which was the internationally recognized regime in the Gaza Strip. Hamas may have won the elections but it then seized total power, suspended representative government, and destroyed the opposition.
Moreover, Hamas is a radical terrorist group which openly uses antisemitic rhetoric and actively seeks to wipe Israel off the map. It oppresses the Palestinian population and leads them into endless war. It teaches young Palestinians that their career goal should not be as a teacher, engineer, or doctor but as a suicide bomber.
From a strategic standpoint, Hamas is a member of the Iran-Syria alliance which seeks to overthrow every Arab regime in the Middle East and replace it with an anti-Western, war-oriented, radical Islamist dictatorship. Hamas's survival is a big threat to both Western interests and to those of Arab nationalist regimes. Keeping Hamas in power is equivalent to an energetic Western diplomatic effort to have kept the Taliban regime in power in Afghanistan, despite its role in the September 11 attacks.
If, however, the world is not going to support Hamas's fall from office, Israel cannot bring about this result by itself. At the same time, the world will be making a big mistake if it pushes for a ceasefire at any price, thus encouraging future violence and terrorism, not only regarding Gaza but also in the region generally.
What then are Israel's options?
Two possible outcomes are rejected: Israel will not take control of the Gaza Strip again, and Israel will not accept a return to the previous situation in which Hamas repeatedly attacked Israel under cover of a ceasefire.
There are at least six major things Israel can obtain realistically:
* The practical weakening of Hamas. Granted it will continue to be aggressive in future, its losses will reduce Hamas's ability to hurt Israeli citizens.
* Deterrence, while retaining its longer-term goals, Hamas will be more reluctant to attack Israel lest it produce another such Israeli response.
* Border control, a change from the situation in which Hamas can import weapons fairly freely to a stricter order in which humanitarian aid but not arms can come in.
* The return of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, seized in a Hamas attack on Israeli soil and held hostage, lacking any contact with international humanitarian groups.
* A reduction of Hamas's standing among Palestinians. Despite macho and religious rhetoric about Hamas's strength, Gaza Palestinians are more eager for a return of the PA; West Bank citizens, living under more moderate PA rule, realize that extremism is disastrous.
* Regional perception of Hamas's defeat, lowering support for the Iran-Syria alliance and encouraging more moderate Arab forces to resist radical Islamism and Tehran's power.
Despite this being the best realistic program, Israel also knows significant factors that might mean it won't work entirely:
* Hamas will break any agreement and not change.
* The international community is weak and contains tendencies toward appeasing extremists to avoid trouble.
* Egypt even when well-intended is not so efficient at controlling the border.
Thus, even this best-case scenario has problems. First, Hamas will return to building up its forces for future confrontations, teaching a whole generation that it should prepare to sacrifice itself to achieve a "final solution" of the Israel problem. In short, any outcome that leaves Hamas in place is at best a lull until the next round.
Second, it is quite possible that within days or weeks of any agreement, Hamas--partly to prove to itself and others how it remains unbowed--will return to firing rockets and mortar rounds into Israel as well as trying to carry out terrorist attacks across the border. In that case, Israel will have to respond much more seriously than it has in the past to such behavior. A world which guarantees the ceasefire better be prepared to remember Israel's legitimate interests in enforcing it.
Finally, as long as Hamas survives as rulers of the Gaza Strip, it will be impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PA will be too intimidated to make compromises and cannot even deliver its own people. There can be no Palestinian state with half the territory being controlled by an organization which will never accept an agreement and will do everything possible to wreck it.
"Saving" Hamas and making the main or sole priority pushing for a ceasefire at any price is a very short-sighted policy for the international community which will be paid for in future. If the Gaza war is going to be ended, it should be in the framework of solving the problems that let Hamas create the war in the first place.
*A different version of this article was published in The Age (Melbourne, Australia)
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
January 11, 2009
Last December, Hamas unilaterally ended its ceasefire with Israel and escalated the kind of cross-border attacks continually attempted even during the ceasefire. With massive public support, Israel struck back against a neighboring regime which daily attacked its citizens and called for its extermination.For decades, Israel's history shows a general pattern: its neighbors attack, Israel responds, Israel wins the war, and the world rushes to ensure that its victory is limited or nullified. If, as sometimes happens, the diplomatic process really improves the situation and provides progress for peace that, of course, is beneficial.
Yet Israel's experience has shown that international promises made in return for its material concessions are often broken. Most recently, in 2006 the international community pledged to keep Hizballah out of south Lebanon and curb its arms' supply, failed totally, yet took no action in response to this defeat. Israel is understandably skeptical.
In addition, Israelis know that Hamas is totally dedicated to their personal and collective destruction. The group will not moderate, cannot be bought off, and will not respect any agreement it makes. As a result, the usual kinds of diplomatic tools--concessions, confidence-building, agreements, moderation resulting from having governmental responsibilities, will not work. Any solution short of Hamas's fall from power will bring more fighting in future.
What should happen is that the international community cooperates in the removal of the Hamas regime. It is an illegal government, brought to power by an unprovoked war against the Palestinian Authority (PA) which was the internationally recognized regime in the Gaza Strip. Hamas may have won the elections but it then seized total power, suspended representative government, and destroyed the opposition.
Moreover, Hamas is a radical terrorist group which openly uses antisemitic rhetoric and actively seeks to wipe Israel off the map. It oppresses the Palestinian population and leads them into endless war. It teaches young Palestinians that their career goal should not be as a teacher, engineer, or doctor but as a suicide bomber.
From a strategic standpoint, Hamas is a member of the Iran-Syria alliance which seeks to overthrow every Arab regime in the Middle East and replace it with an anti-Western, war-oriented, radical Islamist dictatorship. Hamas's survival is a big threat to both Western interests and to those of Arab nationalist regimes. Keeping Hamas in power is equivalent to an energetic Western diplomatic effort to have kept the Taliban regime in power in Afghanistan, despite its role in the September 11 attacks.
If, however, the world is not going to support Hamas's fall from office, Israel cannot bring about this result by itself. At the same time, the world will be making a big mistake if it pushes for a ceasefire at any price, thus encouraging future violence and terrorism, not only regarding Gaza but also in the region generally.
What then are Israel's options?
Two possible outcomes are rejected: Israel will not take control of the Gaza Strip again, and Israel will not accept a return to the previous situation in which Hamas repeatedly attacked Israel under cover of a ceasefire.
There are at least six major things Israel can obtain realistically:
* The practical weakening of Hamas. Granted it will continue to be aggressive in future, its losses will reduce Hamas's ability to hurt Israeli citizens.
* Deterrence, while retaining its longer-term goals, Hamas will be more reluctant to attack Israel lest it produce another such Israeli response.
* Border control, a change from the situation in which Hamas can import weapons fairly freely to a stricter order in which humanitarian aid but not arms can come in.
* The return of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, seized in a Hamas attack on Israeli soil and held hostage, lacking any contact with international humanitarian groups.
* A reduction of Hamas's standing among Palestinians. Despite macho and religious rhetoric about Hamas's strength, Gaza Palestinians are more eager for a return of the PA; West Bank citizens, living under more moderate PA rule, realize that extremism is disastrous.
* Regional perception of Hamas's defeat, lowering support for the Iran-Syria alliance and encouraging more moderate Arab forces to resist radical Islamism and Tehran's power.
Despite this being the best realistic program, Israel also knows significant factors that might mean it won't work entirely:
* Hamas will break any agreement and not change.
* The international community is weak and contains tendencies toward appeasing extremists to avoid trouble.
* Egypt even when well-intended is not so efficient at controlling the border.
Thus, even this best-case scenario has problems. First, Hamas will return to building up its forces for future confrontations, teaching a whole generation that it should prepare to sacrifice itself to achieve a "final solution" of the Israel problem. In short, any outcome that leaves Hamas in place is at best a lull until the next round.
Second, it is quite possible that within days or weeks of any agreement, Hamas--partly to prove to itself and others how it remains unbowed--will return to firing rockets and mortar rounds into Israel as well as trying to carry out terrorist attacks across the border. In that case, Israel will have to respond much more seriously than it has in the past to such behavior. A world which guarantees the ceasefire better be prepared to remember Israel's legitimate interests in enforcing it.
Finally, as long as Hamas survives as rulers of the Gaza Strip, it will be impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The PA will be too intimidated to make compromises and cannot even deliver its own people. There can be no Palestinian state with half the territory being controlled by an organization which will never accept an agreement and will do everything possible to wreck it.
"Saving" Hamas and making the main or sole priority pushing for a ceasefire at any price is a very short-sighted policy for the international community which will be paid for in future. If the Gaza war is going to be ended, it should be in the framework of solving the problems that let Hamas create the war in the first place.
*A different version of this article was published in The Age (Melbourne, Australia)
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
No Fatah Solidarity With Hamas
Hillel Fendel No Fatah Solidarity With Hamas
Reports emanating from Shechem (Nablus) and other areas in Palestinian Authority-controlled Samaria indicate that the Arabs there are not showing great solidarity with their war-torn brethren in Gaza. Some attribute it to apathy, and others to the PA government, which may be “waiting in the wings” for its return to power in Gaza. PA's Fatah Gov't on Preventative Alert
Fatah security forces belonging to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas have been deployed very intensively throughout Judea and Samaria over the past two weeks, since Israel’s war in Gaza began. Correspondent Ali Waqed of Ynet reports that the forces are stationed in all intersections, near mosques, at potential clash points along the Green Line separating the areas from pre-1967 Israel, and at every place from where a spark can ignite widespread disturbances. Youths who try to approach Jewish-populated areas have been forcibly rebuffed by PA forces, Waqed reports.
“People here are busy with making a living,” a Fatah leader in Shechem told Waqed, “and they have either forgotten – or been caused to forget – about the issues of nationalism and occupation.”
PA Kills Attempts to Display Solidarity
An unnamed city councilman from an unnamed PA-controlled city said, “The means used by the PA made it clear to the people that it would not be worth their while to enlist for a serious protest wave. They have killed every attempt to display solidarity with Gaza and to ease the pressure on our brethren there.”
"They Are Alive, We are Zeroes"
He continued: “True, in Gaza there are hundreds of dead and thousands of destroyed building – but despite that, I can tell you for sure that they are the ones who are alive, and we are the dead. All spirit of solidarity and mutual support is dead here; we are zeroes, we are wretched, we are dead. They in Gaza are the living ones, they have the honor, and we are the pitiful ones.”
Hamas, for its part, has not done very much to arouse sympathy among Fatah members. Over the past two weeks, 35 Fatah members have been summarily executed in Gaza, according to some reports; Cabinet Secretary Oved Yechezkel said on Sunday that there have been testimonies that "tens of Fatah supporters" have been killed in cold blood by Hamas. In addition, more than 70 Fatah members have been shot in the legs or had their hands broken at the hands of Hamas terrorists. “Only scattered and buried mentions of these attacks have appeared in such newspapers as the New York Times and the Washington Post,” writes Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
Fatah Claims: We Fired 4 Rockets
There are those within Fatah whose hatred for Israel overcomes all of the above, however. The Ramallah-based Al-Ayyam reported an “exclusive” of Friday, to the effect that Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades had shelled two Israeli locations. Four Fajr missiles reportedly hit Nachal Oz and another area just east of Gaza. Al-Aqsa is the fundamentalist Moslem wing of the mostly secular Fatah movement.
Dear Preachers
This tired old man has moved from Beersheba to Renaissance Hotel in Jerusalem. Tsafrir Ronen, my Zionist friend "par-excellante" died a few days ago and I had promised his widow that I would come and visit her and her daughters the next time I came to Israel. They live up north, so I needed to move north.
In addition, I need to visit an IDF unit up that way, so, there were two reasons for the move. I will say that those IDF boys down in Gaza told me they really were appreciative of my coming, and wanted me to stay, but I wanted to keep my promise to Mrs. Judy Ronen, and her three daughters.
Having left "Rocket Reality," the Western Negev _ the place where rockets and missiles are fired at Jewish citizens on almost a daily basis by _so-called_ Palestinians naming themselves Hamas _ I will have to tell myself "not to pay any attention to the sirens here in Jerusalem" as I had to do in Beersheba. The "cottonpickers" went off twice there this morning. I heard the second one, but missed the first one.
Of those attacks, prior to this "little fracas" going on down there now, 97 percent of the attacks were launched by _so-called_ Palestinian militias from the convenient cover of civilian homes, schools, hospitals, etc., all in Gazastan.
The "so-called" Palestinian weapons were smuggled directly from Iran through Syria and Egypt to Gaza, and so the Hebrew IDF Officers, at least some of them, refer to Hamas as "Teheran_s third arm," after HizbAllah in Lebanon.
When discussing this issue with folks on the airplane coming over, some liberal Jews held a position, that commonly held illusion, that, "if the Palestinians would be able to have their own independent state _ which was taken from them in the Six-day War _then, all of a sudden they would become law abiding citizens which everyone worldwide could be proud of.
I get sick and tired of talking with Hebrews who don_t have a clue say that _firing missiles at Israel is justified, because the West Bank is still occupied territory._
They look at me like a calf looking at a new gate when I tell them, "You don_t know your Bible. In Moses and Joshua_s day, this was liberated territory. IN 1967, again, the West Bank and Gaza became liberated territory. And, if your position was valid, then the _so-called_ Palestinians would have stopped shooting missiles when Israel pulled out of the Gush Katif in August 2005."
I call that position "idiocy politics," which justifies the International News Media types to continue to make _lame-duck_ excuses for the _so-called_ Palestinians.
This morning, just as I was leaving the Hotel, when checking out, a Reporter was checking out right after me. I sucker punched him. I asked, "How has it been going for you reporters?" He complained that they kept all the press in a certain area and wouldn_t let them go close to, or in to Gaza.
I said, "I know that, but let me show you something." I fished out my little video camera, turned it on, and showed "the News line-up that he was talking about" as I drove by filming it. Then, I showed him the 155's firing, and me taking the video right beside of them. He asked, "How were you able to do that?" I answered [my wife would say, _smugly and showing of_] "I_m a Christian. I know the LORD GOD OF THE HEBREWS." He wasn_t amused.
When the KGB created "the Palestinian people" they manifested the News Media to be able to use the "so-called Palestinians" against the west in the Cold War. Presently, those "so-called Palestinians" receive the largest proportionate aid of any folks in the world.
But, as Arafat taught, he, and now Abbas and company, and whomever is the strongest thug in Gaza, bleeds off most of that aid, using the money to spawn Islamofascist terrorism.
On the plane, I told those 2 "idiot Jews," "You are simply ignoring the fact that over 7,000 missiles have been fired at Israel from your de facto Palestinian state birthed in Gaza three years ago. Having a "state within a state" gives your country_s enemies an access to be able to do, what they_ve done in missile shooting, giving we "Christian Zionist" the capability of calling the Western Negev "Rocket Reality."
In the words of the press statement that Hamas issued on November 26, 2006, the day before the last cease-fire commenced (a six-month cease-fire in which more than 300 missiles were fired at Israel): "We will not stop firing on the Zionist settlement Sderot until the last citizen of Sderot leaves." Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority's "Palestine Map," which can be purchased in any PA office, replaces Sderot with pre-1948 Najd; Ashkelon is replaced by al-Maj dal and Ashdod by Isdod.
The Palestinian "right of return" refers to the return of Palestinian refugees to all of Israel. Meanwhile, the PA schools books show no rights for Jews living in theland of Israel, no mention of the history of the Jews in the land of Israel.
By what right was the State of Israel established? What were the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel? And why has the Palestinian refugee problem persisted, like no other in the world?
It is the responsibility of anyone who speaks for Israel to emphasize that during the late 1940s, more than 40 million refuges around the world were resettled, except for one people.
They remain defined as refugees, wallowing 60 years later in 59 UNRWA refugee camps, financed by $400 million contributed annually by nations of the world to nurture the promise of the "right of return" to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages from 1948 that no longer exist.
No nation would tolerate even one rocket being launched toward its territory; but that is what Israel is asked to accept as an integral part of its existence, since the supposed root of the problem is that the Palestinian Arab people do not have a state of their own.
Yet the regime in Gaza let the cease fire lapse and resumed its rocket attacks - provoking the current Israeli military operation - not to facilitate a two-state solution, but to "liberate" the rest of Palestine.
From the Jerusalem Post I read today, "Israel has yet to exhaust all of its military options in the Gaza Strip and could step up its actions against Hamas if the government decides to press forward Operation Cast Lead, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday during a tour of the South."
Now, I want to be very careful in what I_m about to write, for I know there are good many IDF officers who read what I write, but having been here during the 2006 War, and having read what was written about the Politicians keeping the IDF "under supplied _ weapons, ammunition, body armor, etc., and undertrained," it appears to me that their "Military-Demonstration-for-Hamas_-sake" is a tremendous enhanced achievement over their 2006 showing.
Olmert visited IDF Gaza Division headquarters and was accompanied by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant.
They were briefed by OC Gaza Division Brig.-Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and other senior officers on the progress of the Gaza operation.
Night before last I spoke with a Paratrooper Officer. Off the record he told me what I_m reading today in the Jerusalem Post.
"Paratroopers in northern Gaza have uncovered a map prepared by Hamas that sh ows how the terror group prepared for the IDF's incursion by deploying different types of bombs as well as snipers throughout the town of Atatra.
"The handwritten map is based on a bird's-eye view of the town, likely taken from Google Maps.
"On the map, Hamas split the town into three sectors - red, blue and green - and highlighted important sites such as mosques, a gas station and a fuel depot.
"On the map, the terrorists also marked sniper positions, as well as the location of roadside bombs, antitank bombs and land mines," Chief Intelligence Officer Brig.-Gen. Yuval Halamish said on Thursday.
"The map was discovered by soldiers from the Paratroop Brigade during operations in Atatra and was translated in the field and used to minimize casualties.
"Halamish said the map showed how Hamas does not hesitate to use civilian infrastructure for its terrorist activity. A brown dot marked next to a mosque represents a sniper position.
"This is a civilian area, and you can see on the map how Hamas booby-trapped the entrance to homes to hit the IDF," Halamish said.
"In another case, a large bomb was marked next to a gas station. Had it been detonated it would have likely destroyed the gas station, killing and wounding civilians who live in the area.
"In another case, soldiers discovered a mannequin dressed like a soldier at the entran ce to a home, Halamish said.
"Had soldiers entered the home, the mannequin would have exploded, collapsing the floor and causing the troops to fall into a tunnel, where Hamas men would have tried to abduct them."
When I was a boy growing up, with a house full of big brothers, I enjoyed "popping people in the chops." I had to stop that when I became a Christian. But, with "idiot Jews" who call ignorantly for the "State within a State," I confess, to all you Jews, I just want to smack them in the chops.
On another side of the coin, The United Nations Security Council met overnight Thursday on a resolution designed to bring a speedy halt to Israel's 13-day-old offensive against Hamas in Gaza. The vote over a resolution was apparently postponed due to Israeli pressure.
Key Arab nations and Western powers reached agreement on the main elements of a resolution, the head of the Arab League said.
The resolution was supported by the United States and Arab nations that have close ties to Hamas. But it will be up to Israel and Hamas to decide to stop their military activities.
"Peace will be made in the region, not in New York, but actions in New York can support the search for peace in the region," a senior British official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ta lks.
The UN Security Council delayed consultations until 6 p.m. EST (2300 GMT), when the text is expected to be presented to the full 15-member council.
But France, which holds the Security Council presidency this month, might want to delay a vote until Friday, diplomats said.
The reported agreement came on the 13th day of an Israeli air and ground offensive against Hamas militants who rule Gaza and the third day of a high-level emergency meeting of the Security Council called by the Arabs to try to end the conflict.
It was based on a text drafted by Britain and backed by the US and France - all veto-wielding members of the Security Council - and amendments by key Arab negotiators including the foreign ministers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Qatar.
The latest draft "stresses
The Jewish community in Caracas is "tense" and "preoccupied" in the wake of President Hugo Chavez's decision to expel the Israel ambassador, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Venezuela Pynchas Brener said on Thursday.
"This government has been very friendly with Iran," Brener said. "And many Venezuelans make no distinction between Jews and Israelis - maybe they are right."
Brener, 77, who spoke with The Jerusalem Post by telephone from New York, said that Jewish schools in Caracas close d for few days out of concern that they would attract anti-Israel demonstrations.
Chavez's decision to expel Ambassador Shlomo Cohen came in protest against what he called Israel's "barbaric" military operation in Gaza.
In 2002, Brener, a graduate of Yeshiva University who has been a rabbi in Venezuela for 41 years, supported a coup against Chavez that succeeded in deposing him for less than a week in April 2002.
Since then, Brener has been on bad terms with the government.
The rabbi said the latest incident affecting the Jewish community was the decision by the government to expropriate ownership of a large mall that was built by a Jewish businessman outside the San Bernadino district in Caracas.
In addition, twice in recent years Venezuelan military forces have raided the 1,400-pupil Jewish school in the Los Chorros neighborhood, ostensibly looking for arms.
But the most important development, which could have a major impact on the future of the country, is a referendum slated for next month.
Venezuelans will be asked to approve a measure that would allow Chavez and other politicians to be reelected indefinitely.
Chavez has been president since 1998.
"If that referendum passes I expect a lot of Jews will leave Venezuela, because it would mean Chavez is here to stay," the rabbi said.
Shmuel Ko rnblit, Bnei Akiva's Buenos Aires-based regional director for Latin America, said that in addition to the diplomatic staff, Bnei Akiva's emissary toVenezuela, Yoav Weiner, and his wife, Maya, a Jewish Agency emissary were forced to leave.
"This move does not bode well for Jewish education in Venezuela," Kornblit said by by telephone from Argentina.
"Jewish education in South America depends on outside educators. Now with the diplomatic mission forced to leave it will be very difficult to convince educators to come to Venezuela," he said.
Kornblit explained that for security reasons the Weiners could not remain in Caracas. He added that Israelis who lacked non-Israeli passports had a difficult time obtaining visas to visit Venezuela.
"There is a strong anti-Israel sentiment in Venezuela, not so much anti-Semitism more anti-Zionism. That's why Haredim have fewer problems there."
Over the past decade thousands of Jews left Venezuela for Miami, Madrid and other cities, he said.
The Jewish community, like other affluent Venezuelan communities, was deeply concerned about Chavez's Marxist economic policies, he said.
"People are afraid he is going to nationalize the economy and take possession of privately owned factories and businesses. I think that concerns them more than anti-Semitic-related violence," Kornblit said.
What this ole warrior preacher says is, "Venezuelan Jews today. Jews somewhere else tomorrow."
In Melanie Phillips_book, Londonstan, I read that: "Pro-Israel rallies will take place on Sunday in London's Trafalgar Square and in central Manchester Albert Square, after rival demonstrations sparked conflict outside the Israeli Embassy this week.
"Around 300 police were deployed at the embassy in London on Wednesday night to keep apart pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrators after the Jewish community staged a rally of support for Israel.
"Over 600 people attended the pro-Israel rally waving Israeli flags and banners calling for "peace for the people of Israel and Gaza" and an end to "Hamas terror."
"With only 30 minutes between the two demonstrations there was a heavy police presence. The two groups were separated by three police vans, barriers and a line of officers.
"However, rival protesters came face-to-face when anti-Israel protesters remained after their demonstration to await the pro-Israel one.
"The demonstrators hurled abuse at one another as police tried to keep them apart.
"Nine people were arrested, all anti-Israel protesters, for public order offences after around 30 of them, many with
keffiyehs covering their faces, refused police orders to disperse and staged a sit-down protest.
[Condi and President George W._s peaceful Islamists will be doing the same thing in America _ forcing their Islamist ideology upon us, and hurling insults at Born Again Christians.]
"They tried to force their way through to the pro-Israel rally and began throwing objects before police moved in to make the arrests.
"Moti Freelander, organizer of the pro-Israel rally, told The Jerusalem Post he arranged it after seeing the anti-Israel protests at the embassy.
"I was disappointed with the lack of support for Israel in the media and their focus on the anti-Israel protests outside the embassy. With the help of my brothers and friends we managed to get nearly 1,000 people to support Israel, and the police and CST [Community Security Trust] did a fantastic job in protecting us," he said.
"The community, together with Christian friends and friends from overseas, came together to express a positive desire for peace for the people of Palestine andIsrael. It was an inspiring display and contrasted starkly with the angry and intolerant demonstration of the Hamas supporters several yards away," said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
"Meanwhile, the Jewish community launched an SMS service on Thursday that will allow people to donate money to hospitals both in Israel and in Gaza.
"Over the coming weeks people in Britain will be able to text the word " LIFE" to 81400 to support the hospitals where victims on both sides of the current fighting are being treated. At the pro-Israel rallies on Sunday, participants will be asked to make their donation simultaneously in a mass texting.
"The cost of the text is _1.50, and the proceeds will be divided equally between organizations caring for civilian victims in Israel and in the Gaza Strip.
"Needless to say, aid organizations do essential work, and this contribution will make a real difference to the lives of those that been affected by the crisis," Benjamin said. "After the vitriol and threats against British Jews that has characterized the response to the conflict, we are pleased that this initiative will actually have a positive impact in the region."
"US Jewish were also coordinating a national solidarity day for Israel Thursday, with rallies, prayer services, vigils and other shows of support in the face of pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
"Philadelphia, Boston, New Orleans, Chicago and a host of other cities, many of them with smaller Jewish communities, planned events.
"Wednesday also saw pro-Israel displays around the US, and other activities are slated throughout the weekend, with New York City set to host a large rally across from the Israeli consulate on Sunday.
"In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, Jewish communities and pro-Israel groups are planning rallies to support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas terrorism. In Germany, demonstrations will take place on Friday and Sunday in Munich, Frankfurt, Mannheim and Berlin.
"In Mannheim, Nickolas L_bel, the head of the Young Union, part of the Christian Democratic Union, the party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, plans a rally under the slogan "Pro-Israel - Stop Hamas" on Friday.
"L_bel told the Post he initiated the rally in response to a pro-Palestinian protest in Mannheim and views the IDF's Gaza operation as a "pure self-defense measure" conducted in response to the terrorist aggression of Hamas.
"Leo Sucharewicz, the founder of the non-profit "I like Israel," is co-organizing the Munich rally. Speaking from the Bavarian city, he told the Post that supporters of Israel would show their solidarity with the IDF operation and highlight that Hamas is "nothing but a terror organization supported by Iran."
Iran's top leader has banned hard-line Iranian volunteers from leaving the country to carry out suicide bombings against Israel.
Iran's state television on Thursday quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying that Iran can't allow volunteers to cross its border and take military action againstIsrael. But he said Iran won't spare any=2 0efforts to assist Hamas in other ways.
Hard-line Iranian student groups asked the government to authorize volunteers to go carry out suicide bombings in Israel in response to the IDF assault on the Gaza Strip.
Iran is Hamas's main backer, though the country denies sending weapons to the Islamic terrorist movement.
The volunteers staged a sit-in at Teheran's international Mehrabad airport this week, demanding they be sent to Gaza, the online Rooz agency reported.
Iran's top leader has banned hard-line Iranian volunteers from leaving the country to carry out suicide bombings against Israel.
Iran's state television on Thursday quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying that Iran can't allow volunteers to cross its border and take military action againstIsrael. But he said Iran won't spare any efforts to assist Hamas in other ways.
Hard-line Iranian student groups asked the government to authorize volunteers to go carry out suicide bombings in Israel in response to the IDF assault on the Gaza Strip.
Iran is Hamas's main backer, though the country denies sending weapons to the Islamic terrorist movement.
I just wonder if the IDF did what I told a General I would do. In the West Bank, previous to now, if "Abu" or "Mohammed" perpetrated a terror attack,Israel would tear his house down.
I told a one star General, "I would get the word to Iran: Let your terrorist come here, and when they terrorize our people, one ICBM with a large explosive in the cone will hit "Abu or Mohammed_s" town immediately. Tit for Tat kept the USSR away from our throats all during the Cold War.
Another story in the Jerusalem Post about Iran:
The boys wear yarmulkes, the girls hijabs. Chaperoned by their Muslim teacher, they hold signs with the word for "peace" in Hebrew, English and Farsi.
They are Jewish schoolchildren in Teheran - at an anti-Israel demonstration.
In times like these, our thoughts go to the predicament of Iran's 25,000 Jews.
Just 52 years after Theodor Herzl published The Jewish State, transforming the Jews' age-old longing for Zion into modern political Zionism, the State of Israelwas born.
But our visionary founder got two things wrong: He assumed that with the creation of a Jewish homeland, the Diaspora would disappear, and so would the anti-Semitism endemic to it.
Surprisingly, the non-disappearance of the galut has turned out - from a Zionist perspective - to be a blessing of sorts.
Israel and the Diaspora sustain each other religiously, culturally and politically. For affiliated Jews, some level of attachme nt to Israel has become the sine qua non of an authentic Jewish life. Jewish civilization continues to thrive outside Israel, though demographic and other challenges are seldom far from the surface.
This synergy, however, is not without its downside. As the IDF fights on the Gaza battlefield and campaigners wage an uphill battle to make Israel's case in the media, we Israelis are mindful that events here are having a deleterious security impact on the Diaspora.
We worry, for instance, about the 15,000 Jews of Venezuela, being browbeaten by Hugo Chavez.
But life is uncomfortable not just for Jews in hostile countries: Jews have also been targeted in the UK, Belgium, France and Sweden. Anti-Jewish louts marched brazenly through London's Golders Green. A synagogue in Brussels was hit by fire-bombers. A Jewish girl was beaten in Paris. A Helsingborg shul was nearly set ablaze.
A VOCAL minority of Jews has joined the anti-Zionist chorus. Our tradition teaches that such defectors have been part of the scene ever since the Israelites came out of Egypt.
For some, tragically, this is their only Jewish connection. To paraphrase the late US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart in a famous 1964 pornography case: "Self-hatred is hard to define, but we know it when we see it."
Besides the self-haters, there is another small yet well-connected grouping o f British and American Jews that identifies itself as friendly to Israel, but whose endeavors undermine Israel's security. These people make a fetish out of breaking with the community's consensus.
Now they're urging the British and US governments to pressure Israel into accepting an unsatisfactory Gaza cease-fire which would leave the Islamists emboldened.
Most Israelis look past them and draw comfort from the solidarity of the vast majority of affiliated Jews.
We know the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations stands solidly with Israel. Expressions of support come from its constituents - the Union of Reform Judaism, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. We acknowledge with appreciation the support of the Board of Deputies of British Jewry, and of CRIF, the umbrella group of French Jewish organizations. The Australian community, too, is with us.
Pro-Israel demonstrations were held this past week at the gates of our embassy in Washington. A standing-room-only midday crowd packed the Sixth & I synagogue in the US capital. So many people came to a pro-Israel rally outside Israel's UN Consulate in Manhattan that police had to turn some away.
The United Jewish Communities and the Jewish Federations of North America have been steadfast. The Jews of Boston are rallying; the Los Angeles community ha s established an emergency fund for victims of Hamas terror; San Francisco's community has been praying for the peace of Israel.
Up and down America - from Providence to Tucson to Memphis; from Kansas City to Dallas to Chicago - this has been a week of solidarity with Israel.
In Europe, pro-Israel rallies have been held - or are scheduled - in every major city. On Sunday morning, London's Jews will gather in Trafalgar Square on behalf of Israel.
We Israelis don't tell our Diaspora brethren often enough how grateful we are for their support, or how cognizant we are that what we do to defend ourselves sometimes complicates their lives.
So we're telling them now: Toda raba!
This story concerns the Osirak Nuclear Reactor:
Two days after the IAF destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, the CIA held a classified briefing for members of Congress. Lawmakers wanted to know about the Arab reaction.
"Booyay," the CIA briefer said.
"Is that an Arabic word?What does it mean?" he was asked. It means publicly they were booing, the CIA official said, but privately they were cheering what came to be known as the great Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1981.
The new Reagan administration was less than=2 0enthusiastic about the Israeli action and sent its UN ambassador to sit down with Saddam Hussein's UN envoy to draft a Security Council resolution condemning Israel. The administration followed up by halting the shipment to Israel of the same kind of aircraft that had just saved the entire Middle East from an Iraqi nuclear threat.
THERE IS a similar "booyay" response today among pro-Western Arab leaders to Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza.
Moderate, pro-Western Arab leaders are praying five times a day for Israel to deal Hamas a serious setback, if not a fatal blow, because they see it as a proxy of Iran, which they consider the real threat to their regimes. They haven't the courage to say so publicly, but through the fog of denunciations, the message comes through.
The public rhetoric of most Arab states is filled with the usual venom one has come to expect when they speak of Israel, particularly when it has the audacity to strike back at terrorists like the Hamas thugocracy. But behind the angry denunciations, these same Arab leaders - Kings Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - are hoping for Israeli success.
They're not appealing to the prophet out of any love for Zion, and those public denunciations are probably sincere albeit hypocritical, but they know what is at stake. Israel is fighting their war for them, sacrificing its lives and expending its treasure to strike a blow at their common enemy, Iran.
HAMAS IN Gaza, like Hizbullah in Lebanon, is the stalking horse for Iran. Egypt had brokered the truce that Hamas ended last month with rockets, reportedly in the hopes of winning a new deal on more favorable terms. Israel's counter-offer was delivered by its air force, armor and infantry.
Egyptian and other moderate Arab leaders blamed Hamas for provoking the response, but being the courageous chaps they aren't, they couched it in bitter denunciations of Israel for having the audacity to defend itself, even if was doing a service for those same Arab autocrats.
Mubarak's "booyay" moment came when he accused Israel of "savage aggression" while noting he had "warned [Hamas] repeatedly that rejecting the truce" would produce these results.
Jordan, which has the most to lose if Hamas succeeds in taking the West Bank as well as Gaza, said if the fighting continues it might "reevaluate" its relations withIsrael.
Saudi Arabia, a principle financial backer of Hamas, put the blame on Hamas when it suggested none of this would have happened had the terror group maintained the cease-fire.
The Saudis and Egyptians blocked Syrian-led calls for an immediate Arab League emergency summit to deal with the crisis; it took five days just to convene a ministerial meeting.
The principle beneficiary of any Israeli success - besides those living in the South - would be Abbas, whose life isn't worth a plugged dinar if he dares go to Gaza. Knowing a major goal of the action is to restore his power in Gaza didn't discourage him from denouncing it as "brutal aggression" and "criminal." From this tendency of Arab leaders to speak out of both sides of their mouths, one might get the impression that they suffer from a collective case of schizophrenia, but it's actually fear mixed with hypocrisy.
NONE OF these dictators is a candidate for the next edition of Profiles in Courage. They are scared of the influence of the militant Islamists and the popularity of the Palestinian cause on the Arab street. Iran and its allies have focused on creating animosity to the entrenched and repressive Sunni regimes which, in the age of satellites and the Internet, can no longer turn public emotions on and off like a water tap.
That's why they are praying so hard for an Israeli victory.
A pro-Hizbullah newspaper said, "Israel would be satisfied with a compromise, but the Arab regimes want to finish Hamas completely." It's probably right. Israeli leaders define victory as a weakened and humbled Hamas that will halt all the attacks, honor a cease-fire and accept international supervision. Hamas, on the other hand, will declare a great victory simply if its leadership is still breathing.
Arab leaders know this is a proxy war with Iran, and Israel is on their side. Some day they may even find the courage to say so publicly.Until then, we'll have to settle for more "booyays."
Someone told the bride of my youth that I was overwhelming you with material while over here in Israel. That may have been our third son, our Pastor.
Both Dr. Israel Hanukoglu and Rabbi Yehuda Bohrer told me this morning to keep the info coming as a "yedid to the Israelis."
Dr. Hanukoglu is a brilliant man. His dear wife Sarah is brilliant also. He told me this morning, "Brother Vineyard, you need more sleep. You must get more sleep." I told him, "Israel, tell me something I don_ know." He told me, "You need more sleep for Jews need you alive til you are 120." He then said, "You are a Genius."
I told myself, "Don_t let that go to your head buddy. You_re just a poor, simple boy, from the Panhandle of Texas who had a Mama with a good mind. A fella who has as much Negev mud on his shoes as you do, cannot be any kind of smart. Take it to your heart. If you let it get in your head, your britches will be too big for you."
Right at this moment, I_m trying to set up a meal with two IDF Cannon Cocker Majors and the Brides of their Youth. One bride is named Daniella. Her husband asked me months ago to pray for her _ she_s a M.D., _ as they had been unable to have a child. She is going to have a baby at the end of this month. The other bride is named Yoel. When her husband, who is good friends with Daniella_s husband, heard the story of Daniella getting pregnant as a result of Christian_s praying for her, he asked, "Will you pray for Yoel?" I had him write his and her names _ Sagi and Yoel _ in my Bible, near Genesis 18:14's question, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" Yoel is pregnant also. I want my picture taken between those two "to-be" Hebrew Mamas.
Gratefully, humbly, sincerely and expectantly, I remain your dutiful and obedient friend and servant,
JIM VINEYARD
YEDIDIM OF ISRAEL
www.yedidimofisrael.com
In addition, I need to visit an IDF unit up that way, so, there were two reasons for the move. I will say that those IDF boys down in Gaza told me they really were appreciative of my coming, and wanted me to stay, but I wanted to keep my promise to Mrs. Judy Ronen, and her three daughters.
Having left "Rocket Reality," the Western Negev _ the place where rockets and missiles are fired at Jewish citizens on almost a daily basis by _so-called_ Palestinians naming themselves Hamas _ I will have to tell myself "not to pay any attention to the sirens here in Jerusalem" as I had to do in Beersheba. The "cottonpickers" went off twice there this morning. I heard the second one, but missed the first one.
Of those attacks, prior to this "little fracas" going on down there now, 97 percent of the attacks were launched by _so-called_ Palestinian militias from the convenient cover of civilian homes, schools, hospitals, etc., all in Gazastan.
The "so-called" Palestinian weapons were smuggled directly from Iran through Syria and Egypt to Gaza, and so the Hebrew IDF Officers, at least some of them, refer to Hamas as "Teheran_s third arm," after HizbAllah in Lebanon.
When discussing this issue with folks on the airplane coming over, some liberal Jews held a position, that commonly held illusion, that, "if the Palestinians would be able to have their own independent state _ which was taken from them in the Six-day War _then, all of a sudden they would become law abiding citizens which everyone worldwide could be proud of.
I get sick and tired of talking with Hebrews who don_t have a clue say that _firing missiles at Israel is justified, because the West Bank is still occupied territory._
They look at me like a calf looking at a new gate when I tell them, "You don_t know your Bible. In Moses and Joshua_s day, this was liberated territory. IN 1967, again, the West Bank and Gaza became liberated territory. And, if your position was valid, then the _so-called_ Palestinians would have stopped shooting missiles when Israel pulled out of the Gush Katif in August 2005."
I call that position "idiocy politics," which justifies the International News Media types to continue to make _lame-duck_ excuses for the _so-called_ Palestinians.
This morning, just as I was leaving the Hotel, when checking out, a Reporter was checking out right after me. I sucker punched him. I asked, "How has it been going for you reporters?" He complained that they kept all the press in a certain area and wouldn_t let them go close to, or in to Gaza.
I said, "I know that, but let me show you something." I fished out my little video camera, turned it on, and showed "the News line-up that he was talking about" as I drove by filming it. Then, I showed him the 155's firing, and me taking the video right beside of them. He asked, "How were you able to do that?" I answered [my wife would say, _smugly and showing of_] "I_m a Christian. I know the LORD GOD OF THE HEBREWS." He wasn_t amused.
When the KGB created "the Palestinian people" they manifested the News Media to be able to use the "so-called Palestinians" against the west in the Cold War. Presently, those "so-called Palestinians" receive the largest proportionate aid of any folks in the world.
But, as Arafat taught, he, and now Abbas and company, and whomever is the strongest thug in Gaza, bleeds off most of that aid, using the money to spawn Islamofascist terrorism.
On the plane, I told those 2 "idiot Jews," "You are simply ignoring the fact that over 7,000 missiles have been fired at Israel from your de facto Palestinian state birthed in Gaza three years ago. Having a "state within a state" gives your country_s enemies an access to be able to do, what they_ve done in missile shooting, giving we "Christian Zionist" the capability of calling the Western Negev "Rocket Reality."
In the words of the press statement that Hamas issued on November 26, 2006, the day before the last cease-fire commenced (a six-month cease-fire in which more than 300 missiles were fired at Israel): "We will not stop firing on the Zionist settlement Sderot until the last citizen of Sderot leaves." Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority's "Palestine Map," which can be purchased in any PA office, replaces Sderot with pre-1948 Najd; Ashkelon is replaced by al-Maj dal and Ashdod by Isdod.
The Palestinian "right of return" refers to the return of Palestinian refugees to all of Israel. Meanwhile, the PA schools books show no rights for Jews living in theland of Israel, no mention of the history of the Jews in the land of Israel.
By what right was the State of Israel established? What were the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel? And why has the Palestinian refugee problem persisted, like no other in the world?
It is the responsibility of anyone who speaks for Israel to emphasize that during the late 1940s, more than 40 million refuges around the world were resettled, except for one people.
They remain defined as refugees, wallowing 60 years later in 59 UNRWA refugee camps, financed by $400 million contributed annually by nations of the world to nurture the promise of the "right of return" to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages from 1948 that no longer exist.
No nation would tolerate even one rocket being launched toward its territory; but that is what Israel is asked to accept as an integral part of its existence, since the supposed root of the problem is that the Palestinian Arab people do not have a state of their own.
Yet the regime in Gaza let the cease fire lapse and resumed its rocket attacks - provoking the current Israeli military operation - not to facilitate a two-state solution, but to "liberate" the rest of Palestine.
From the Jerusalem Post I read today, "Israel has yet to exhaust all of its military options in the Gaza Strip and could step up its actions against Hamas if the government decides to press forward Operation Cast Lead, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday during a tour of the South."
Now, I want to be very careful in what I_m about to write, for I know there are good many IDF officers who read what I write, but having been here during the 2006 War, and having read what was written about the Politicians keeping the IDF "under supplied _ weapons, ammunition, body armor, etc., and undertrained," it appears to me that their "Military-Demonstration-for-Hamas_-sake" is a tremendous enhanced achievement over their 2006 showing.
Olmert visited IDF Gaza Division headquarters and was accompanied by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant.
They were briefed by OC Gaza Division Brig.-Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and other senior officers on the progress of the Gaza operation.
Night before last I spoke with a Paratrooper Officer. Off the record he told me what I_m reading today in the Jerusalem Post.
"Paratroopers in northern Gaza have uncovered a map prepared by Hamas that sh ows how the terror group prepared for the IDF's incursion by deploying different types of bombs as well as snipers throughout the town of Atatra.
"The handwritten map is based on a bird's-eye view of the town, likely taken from Google Maps.
"On the map, Hamas split the town into three sectors - red, blue and green - and highlighted important sites such as mosques, a gas station and a fuel depot.
"On the map, the terrorists also marked sniper positions, as well as the location of roadside bombs, antitank bombs and land mines," Chief Intelligence Officer Brig.-Gen. Yuval Halamish said on Thursday.
"The map was discovered by soldiers from the Paratroop Brigade during operations in Atatra and was translated in the field and used to minimize casualties.
"Halamish said the map showed how Hamas does not hesitate to use civilian infrastructure for its terrorist activity. A brown dot marked next to a mosque represents a sniper position.
"This is a civilian area, and you can see on the map how Hamas booby-trapped the entrance to homes to hit the IDF," Halamish said.
"In another case, a large bomb was marked next to a gas station. Had it been detonated it would have likely destroyed the gas station, killing and wounding civilians who live in the area.
"In another case, soldiers discovered a mannequin dressed like a soldier at the entran ce to a home, Halamish said.
"Had soldiers entered the home, the mannequin would have exploded, collapsing the floor and causing the troops to fall into a tunnel, where Hamas men would have tried to abduct them."
When I was a boy growing up, with a house full of big brothers, I enjoyed "popping people in the chops." I had to stop that when I became a Christian. But, with "idiot Jews" who call ignorantly for the "State within a State," I confess, to all you Jews, I just want to smack them in the chops.
On another side of the coin, The United Nations Security Council met overnight Thursday on a resolution designed to bring a speedy halt to Israel's 13-day-old offensive against Hamas in Gaza. The vote over a resolution was apparently postponed due to Israeli pressure.
Key Arab nations and Western powers reached agreement on the main elements of a resolution, the head of the Arab League said.
The resolution was supported by the United States and Arab nations that have close ties to Hamas. But it will be up to Israel and Hamas to decide to stop their military activities.
"Peace will be made in the region, not in New York, but actions in New York can support the search for peace in the region," a senior British official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ta lks.
The UN Security Council delayed consultations until 6 p.m. EST (2300 GMT), when the text is expected to be presented to the full 15-member council.
But France, which holds the Security Council presidency this month, might want to delay a vote until Friday, diplomats said.
The reported agreement came on the 13th day of an Israeli air and ground offensive against Hamas militants who rule Gaza and the third day of a high-level emergency meeting of the Security Council called by the Arabs to try to end the conflict.
It was based on a text drafted by Britain and backed by the US and France - all veto-wielding members of the Security Council - and amendments by key Arab negotiators including the foreign ministers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Qatar.
The latest draft "stresses
The Jewish community in Caracas is "tense" and "preoccupied" in the wake of President Hugo Chavez's decision to expel the Israel ambassador, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Venezuela Pynchas Brener said on Thursday.
"This government has been very friendly with Iran," Brener said. "And many Venezuelans make no distinction between Jews and Israelis - maybe they are right."
Brener, 77, who spoke with The Jerusalem Post by telephone from New York, said that Jewish schools in Caracas close d for few days out of concern that they would attract anti-Israel demonstrations.
Chavez's decision to expel Ambassador Shlomo Cohen came in protest against what he called Israel's "barbaric" military operation in Gaza.
In 2002, Brener, a graduate of Yeshiva University who has been a rabbi in Venezuela for 41 years, supported a coup against Chavez that succeeded in deposing him for less than a week in April 2002.
Since then, Brener has been on bad terms with the government.
The rabbi said the latest incident affecting the Jewish community was the decision by the government to expropriate ownership of a large mall that was built by a Jewish businessman outside the San Bernadino district in Caracas.
In addition, twice in recent years Venezuelan military forces have raided the 1,400-pupil Jewish school in the Los Chorros neighborhood, ostensibly looking for arms.
But the most important development, which could have a major impact on the future of the country, is a referendum slated for next month.
Venezuelans will be asked to approve a measure that would allow Chavez and other politicians to be reelected indefinitely.
Chavez has been president since 1998.
"If that referendum passes I expect a lot of Jews will leave Venezuela, because it would mean Chavez is here to stay," the rabbi said.
Shmuel Ko rnblit, Bnei Akiva's Buenos Aires-based regional director for Latin America, said that in addition to the diplomatic staff, Bnei Akiva's emissary toVenezuela, Yoav Weiner, and his wife, Maya, a Jewish Agency emissary were forced to leave.
"This move does not bode well for Jewish education in Venezuela," Kornblit said by by telephone from Argentina.
"Jewish education in South America depends on outside educators. Now with the diplomatic mission forced to leave it will be very difficult to convince educators to come to Venezuela," he said.
Kornblit explained that for security reasons the Weiners could not remain in Caracas. He added that Israelis who lacked non-Israeli passports had a difficult time obtaining visas to visit Venezuela.
"There is a strong anti-Israel sentiment in Venezuela, not so much anti-Semitism more anti-Zionism. That's why Haredim have fewer problems there."
Over the past decade thousands of Jews left Venezuela for Miami, Madrid and other cities, he said.
The Jewish community, like other affluent Venezuelan communities, was deeply concerned about Chavez's Marxist economic policies, he said.
"People are afraid he is going to nationalize the economy and take possession of privately owned factories and businesses. I think that concerns them more than anti-Semitic-related violence," Kornblit said.
What this ole warrior preacher says is, "Venezuelan Jews today. Jews somewhere else tomorrow."
In Melanie Phillips_book, Londonstan, I read that: "Pro-Israel rallies will take place on Sunday in London's Trafalgar Square and in central Manchester Albert Square, after rival demonstrations sparked conflict outside the Israeli Embassy this week.
"Around 300 police were deployed at the embassy in London on Wednesday night to keep apart pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrators after the Jewish community staged a rally of support for Israel.
"Over 600 people attended the pro-Israel rally waving Israeli flags and banners calling for "peace for the people of Israel and Gaza" and an end to "Hamas terror."
"With only 30 minutes between the two demonstrations there was a heavy police presence. The two groups were separated by three police vans, barriers and a line of officers.
"However, rival protesters came face-to-face when anti-Israel protesters remained after their demonstration to await the pro-Israel one.
"The demonstrators hurled abuse at one another as police tried to keep them apart.
"Nine people were arrested, all anti-Israel protesters, for public order offences after around 30 of them, many with
keffiyehs covering their faces, refused police orders to disperse and staged a sit-down protest.
[Condi and President George W._s peaceful Islamists will be doing the same thing in America _ forcing their Islamist ideology upon us, and hurling insults at Born Again Christians.]
"They tried to force their way through to the pro-Israel rally and began throwing objects before police moved in to make the arrests.
"Moti Freelander, organizer of the pro-Israel rally, told The Jerusalem Post he arranged it after seeing the anti-Israel protests at the embassy.
"I was disappointed with the lack of support for Israel in the media and their focus on the anti-Israel protests outside the embassy. With the help of my brothers and friends we managed to get nearly 1,000 people to support Israel, and the police and CST [Community Security Trust] did a fantastic job in protecting us," he said.
"The community, together with Christian friends and friends from overseas, came together to express a positive desire for peace for the people of Palestine andIsrael. It was an inspiring display and contrasted starkly with the angry and intolerant demonstration of the Hamas supporters several yards away," said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
"Meanwhile, the Jewish community launched an SMS service on Thursday that will allow people to donate money to hospitals both in Israel and in Gaza.
"Over the coming weeks people in Britain will be able to text the word " LIFE" to 81400 to support the hospitals where victims on both sides of the current fighting are being treated. At the pro-Israel rallies on Sunday, participants will be asked to make their donation simultaneously in a mass texting.
"The cost of the text is _1.50, and the proceeds will be divided equally between organizations caring for civilian victims in Israel and in the Gaza Strip.
"Needless to say, aid organizations do essential work, and this contribution will make a real difference to the lives of those that been affected by the crisis," Benjamin said. "After the vitriol and threats against British Jews that has characterized the response to the conflict, we are pleased that this initiative will actually have a positive impact in the region."
"US Jewish were also coordinating a national solidarity day for Israel Thursday, with rallies, prayer services, vigils and other shows of support in the face of pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
"Philadelphia, Boston, New Orleans, Chicago and a host of other cities, many of them with smaller Jewish communities, planned events.
"Wednesday also saw pro-Israel displays around the US, and other activities are slated throughout the weekend, with New York City set to host a large rally across from the Israeli consulate on Sunday.
"In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, Jewish communities and pro-Israel groups are planning rallies to support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas terrorism. In Germany, demonstrations will take place on Friday and Sunday in Munich, Frankfurt, Mannheim and Berlin.
"In Mannheim, Nickolas L_bel, the head of the Young Union, part of the Christian Democratic Union, the party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, plans a rally under the slogan "Pro-Israel - Stop Hamas" on Friday.
"L_bel told the Post he initiated the rally in response to a pro-Palestinian protest in Mannheim and views the IDF's Gaza operation as a "pure self-defense measure" conducted in response to the terrorist aggression of Hamas.
"Leo Sucharewicz, the founder of the non-profit "I like Israel," is co-organizing the Munich rally. Speaking from the Bavarian city, he told the Post that supporters of Israel would show their solidarity with the IDF operation and highlight that Hamas is "nothing but a terror organization supported by Iran."
Iran's top leader has banned hard-line Iranian volunteers from leaving the country to carry out suicide bombings against Israel.
Iran's state television on Thursday quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying that Iran can't allow volunteers to cross its border and take military action againstIsrael. But he said Iran won't spare any=2 0efforts to assist Hamas in other ways.
Hard-line Iranian student groups asked the government to authorize volunteers to go carry out suicide bombings in Israel in response to the IDF assault on the Gaza Strip.
Iran is Hamas's main backer, though the country denies sending weapons to the Islamic terrorist movement.
The volunteers staged a sit-in at Teheran's international Mehrabad airport this week, demanding they be sent to Gaza, the online Rooz agency reported.
Iran's top leader has banned hard-line Iranian volunteers from leaving the country to carry out suicide bombings against Israel.
Iran's state television on Thursday quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying that Iran can't allow volunteers to cross its border and take military action againstIsrael. But he said Iran won't spare any efforts to assist Hamas in other ways.
Hard-line Iranian student groups asked the government to authorize volunteers to go carry out suicide bombings in Israel in response to the IDF assault on the Gaza Strip.
Iran is Hamas's main backer, though the country denies sending weapons to the Islamic terrorist movement.
I just wonder if the IDF did what I told a General I would do. In the West Bank, previous to now, if "Abu" or "Mohammed" perpetrated a terror attack,Israel would tear his house down.
I told a one star General, "I would get the word to Iran: Let your terrorist come here, and when they terrorize our people, one ICBM with a large explosive in the cone will hit "Abu or Mohammed_s" town immediately. Tit for Tat kept the USSR away from our throats all during the Cold War.
Another story in the Jerusalem Post about Iran:
The boys wear yarmulkes, the girls hijabs. Chaperoned by their Muslim teacher, they hold signs with the word for "peace" in Hebrew, English and Farsi.
They are Jewish schoolchildren in Teheran - at an anti-Israel demonstration.
In times like these, our thoughts go to the predicament of Iran's 25,000 Jews.
Just 52 years after Theodor Herzl published The Jewish State, transforming the Jews' age-old longing for Zion into modern political Zionism, the State of Israelwas born.
But our visionary founder got two things wrong: He assumed that with the creation of a Jewish homeland, the Diaspora would disappear, and so would the anti-Semitism endemic to it.
Surprisingly, the non-disappearance of the galut has turned out - from a Zionist perspective - to be a blessing of sorts.
Israel and the Diaspora sustain each other religiously, culturally and politically. For affiliated Jews, some level of attachme nt to Israel has become the sine qua non of an authentic Jewish life. Jewish civilization continues to thrive outside Israel, though demographic and other challenges are seldom far from the surface.
This synergy, however, is not without its downside. As the IDF fights on the Gaza battlefield and campaigners wage an uphill battle to make Israel's case in the media, we Israelis are mindful that events here are having a deleterious security impact on the Diaspora.
We worry, for instance, about the 15,000 Jews of Venezuela, being browbeaten by Hugo Chavez.
But life is uncomfortable not just for Jews in hostile countries: Jews have also been targeted in the UK, Belgium, France and Sweden. Anti-Jewish louts marched brazenly through London's Golders Green. A synagogue in Brussels was hit by fire-bombers. A Jewish girl was beaten in Paris. A Helsingborg shul was nearly set ablaze.
A VOCAL minority of Jews has joined the anti-Zionist chorus. Our tradition teaches that such defectors have been part of the scene ever since the Israelites came out of Egypt.
For some, tragically, this is their only Jewish connection. To paraphrase the late US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart in a famous 1964 pornography case: "Self-hatred is hard to define, but we know it when we see it."
Besides the self-haters, there is another small yet well-connected grouping o f British and American Jews that identifies itself as friendly to Israel, but whose endeavors undermine Israel's security. These people make a fetish out of breaking with the community's consensus.
Now they're urging the British and US governments to pressure Israel into accepting an unsatisfactory Gaza cease-fire which would leave the Islamists emboldened.
Most Israelis look past them and draw comfort from the solidarity of the vast majority of affiliated Jews.
We know the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations stands solidly with Israel. Expressions of support come from its constituents - the Union of Reform Judaism, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. We acknowledge with appreciation the support of the Board of Deputies of British Jewry, and of CRIF, the umbrella group of French Jewish organizations. The Australian community, too, is with us.
Pro-Israel demonstrations were held this past week at the gates of our embassy in Washington. A standing-room-only midday crowd packed the Sixth & I synagogue in the US capital. So many people came to a pro-Israel rally outside Israel's UN Consulate in Manhattan that police had to turn some away.
The United Jewish Communities and the Jewish Federations of North America have been steadfast. The Jews of Boston are rallying; the Los Angeles community ha s established an emergency fund for victims of Hamas terror; San Francisco's community has been praying for the peace of Israel.
Up and down America - from Providence to Tucson to Memphis; from Kansas City to Dallas to Chicago - this has been a week of solidarity with Israel.
In Europe, pro-Israel rallies have been held - or are scheduled - in every major city. On Sunday morning, London's Jews will gather in Trafalgar Square on behalf of Israel.
We Israelis don't tell our Diaspora brethren often enough how grateful we are for their support, or how cognizant we are that what we do to defend ourselves sometimes complicates their lives.
So we're telling them now: Toda raba!
This story concerns the Osirak Nuclear Reactor:
Two days after the IAF destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, the CIA held a classified briefing for members of Congress. Lawmakers wanted to know about the Arab reaction.
"Booyay," the CIA briefer said.
"Is that an Arabic word?What does it mean?" he was asked. It means publicly they were booing, the CIA official said, but privately they were cheering what came to be known as the great Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1981.
The new Reagan administration was less than=2 0enthusiastic about the Israeli action and sent its UN ambassador to sit down with Saddam Hussein's UN envoy to draft a Security Council resolution condemning Israel. The administration followed up by halting the shipment to Israel of the same kind of aircraft that had just saved the entire Middle East from an Iraqi nuclear threat.
THERE IS a similar "booyay" response today among pro-Western Arab leaders to Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza.
Moderate, pro-Western Arab leaders are praying five times a day for Israel to deal Hamas a serious setback, if not a fatal blow, because they see it as a proxy of Iran, which they consider the real threat to their regimes. They haven't the courage to say so publicly, but through the fog of denunciations, the message comes through.
The public rhetoric of most Arab states is filled with the usual venom one has come to expect when they speak of Israel, particularly when it has the audacity to strike back at terrorists like the Hamas thugocracy. But behind the angry denunciations, these same Arab leaders - Kings Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - are hoping for Israeli success.
They're not appealing to the prophet out of any love for Zion, and those public denunciations are probably sincere albeit hypocritical, but they know what is at stake. Israel is fighting their war for them, sacrificing its lives and expending its treasure to strike a blow at their common enemy, Iran.
HAMAS IN Gaza, like Hizbullah in Lebanon, is the stalking horse for Iran. Egypt had brokered the truce that Hamas ended last month with rockets, reportedly in the hopes of winning a new deal on more favorable terms. Israel's counter-offer was delivered by its air force, armor and infantry.
Egyptian and other moderate Arab leaders blamed Hamas for provoking the response, but being the courageous chaps they aren't, they couched it in bitter denunciations of Israel for having the audacity to defend itself, even if was doing a service for those same Arab autocrats.
Mubarak's "booyay" moment came when he accused Israel of "savage aggression" while noting he had "warned [Hamas] repeatedly that rejecting the truce" would produce these results.
Jordan, which has the most to lose if Hamas succeeds in taking the West Bank as well as Gaza, said if the fighting continues it might "reevaluate" its relations withIsrael.
Saudi Arabia, a principle financial backer of Hamas, put the blame on Hamas when it suggested none of this would have happened had the terror group maintained the cease-fire.
The Saudis and Egyptians blocked Syrian-led calls for an immediate Arab League emergency summit to deal with the crisis; it took five days just to convene a ministerial meeting.
The principle beneficiary of any Israeli success - besides those living in the South - would be Abbas, whose life isn't worth a plugged dinar if he dares go to Gaza. Knowing a major goal of the action is to restore his power in Gaza didn't discourage him from denouncing it as "brutal aggression" and "criminal." From this tendency of Arab leaders to speak out of both sides of their mouths, one might get the impression that they suffer from a collective case of schizophrenia, but it's actually fear mixed with hypocrisy.
NONE OF these dictators is a candidate for the next edition of Profiles in Courage. They are scared of the influence of the militant Islamists and the popularity of the Palestinian cause on the Arab street. Iran and its allies have focused on creating animosity to the entrenched and repressive Sunni regimes which, in the age of satellites and the Internet, can no longer turn public emotions on and off like a water tap.
That's why they are praying so hard for an Israeli victory.
A pro-Hizbullah newspaper said, "Israel would be satisfied with a compromise, but the Arab regimes want to finish Hamas completely." It's probably right. Israeli leaders define victory as a weakened and humbled Hamas that will halt all the attacks, honor a cease-fire and accept international supervision. Hamas, on the other hand, will declare a great victory simply if its leadership is still breathing.
Arab leaders know this is a proxy war with Iran, and Israel is on their side. Some day they may even find the courage to say so publicly.Until then, we'll have to settle for more "booyays."
Someone told the bride of my youth that I was overwhelming you with material while over here in Israel. That may have been our third son, our Pastor.
Both Dr. Israel Hanukoglu and Rabbi Yehuda Bohrer told me this morning to keep the info coming as a "yedid to the Israelis."
Dr. Hanukoglu is a brilliant man. His dear wife Sarah is brilliant also. He told me this morning, "Brother Vineyard, you need more sleep. You must get more sleep." I told him, "Israel, tell me something I don_ know." He told me, "You need more sleep for Jews need you alive til you are 120." He then said, "You are a Genius."
I told myself, "Don_t let that go to your head buddy. You_re just a poor, simple boy, from the Panhandle of Texas who had a Mama with a good mind. A fella who has as much Negev mud on his shoes as you do, cannot be any kind of smart. Take it to your heart. If you let it get in your head, your britches will be too big for you."
Right at this moment, I_m trying to set up a meal with two IDF Cannon Cocker Majors and the Brides of their Youth. One bride is named Daniella. Her husband asked me months ago to pray for her _ she_s a M.D., _ as they had been unable to have a child. She is going to have a baby at the end of this month. The other bride is named Yoel. When her husband, who is good friends with Daniella_s husband, heard the story of Daniella getting pregnant as a result of Christian_s praying for her, he asked, "Will you pray for Yoel?" I had him write his and her names _ Sagi and Yoel _ in my Bible, near Genesis 18:14's question, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" Yoel is pregnant also. I want my picture taken between those two "to-be" Hebrew Mamas.
Gratefully, humbly, sincerely and expectantly, I remain your dutiful and obedient friend and servant,
JIM VINEYARD
YEDIDIM OF ISRAEL
www.yedidimofisrael.com
The UN War on Israel
Bush and Rice, don't let the UN sell out Israel
This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in The New York Daily News.
The United Nations war on Israel has never been on the back burner, and its feeding frenzy over Gaza is no exception. The Security Council has now held four sessions. The General Assembly has scheduled an emergency session for Thursday night, and on Friday, the UN's lead human rights body, the Human Rights Council, will hold a special session to damn Israel.. To put this in perspective, the Security Council is the UN's lead response to terrorism. After 9/11, the Security Council started convening as "the Counter-Terrorism Committee" or CTC. The CTC has never identified a single terrorist, terrorist organization or state sponsor of terrorism - because the Islamic chokehold on the UN leaves it without a definition of terrorism to this day.
The General Assembly has had 10 emergency sessions in its history. Six of those, including the 10th, have been on Israel, and the tenth has been "reconvened" 16 times since 1997. In other words, there is a permanent General Assembly emergency session on Israel. The same Assembly never managed to hold a single emergency session on the 800,000 people who died in the Rwandan genocide, or the 3 million who are dead or displaced in Sudan.
As for the "reformed" Human Rights Council, it is now holding its fifth special session on Israel. By comparison, the Council has held nine regular sessions on human rights in all of the other 191 UN states. In fact, over its two and a half-year history, the Council has condemned Israel more often than all other states in the United Nations combined.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that since Israel finally decided to defend itself against the 8,000 rockets and mortar shells directed at its civilian population over eight years, the long UN knives have been quickly drawn. In addition to all the meetings, which are now webcast for propaganda purposes around the world, UN officials have used their global platforms to vilify the Jewish state and to try to tie Israel's hands behind its back. In one form or another, UN officials always manage to choke on the word "self-defense."
From out of the woodwork come UN gurus from the myriad UN bodies which have Israel-bashing as part of their job description: Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967; Karen AbuZayd, Commission-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA); John Ging, UNRWA Director of Operations in Gaza; Maxwell Gaylard, United Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories (UNSCO), Paul Badji and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; Robert Serry, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process; and Christine van Nieuwenhuyse, World Food Program Representative in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Right alongside those folks for the past two weeks have been the UN "experts" and agencies whose well-being - their stature and internal authority, re-appointment, promotion, pension, operational funding and institutional perks of all kinds - depend on being on the Arab side of all Arab-Israeli conflicts. These people include the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and UN Emergency Relief Coordinator; the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator (OCHA); the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict; the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures; the Executive Director, UN Population Fund (UNFPA); and the Director-General, UNESCO.
Together all of these UN actors have mounted a feverish chorus alleging that Israel has committed "wanton aggression," "monstrosities," "massacres," and "crimes against humanity." In each case humanized Palestinian victims are placed on one side of the scale, and a small number of Israeli deaths are set on the other. Evidently, the UN only started counting Israeli bodies last week. Left out of this phony "proportionality test" is the terror associated with every Hamas-driven attempt to cause more death and destruction. And it is politically incorrect in the extreme to mention that the blameless Palestinians freely elected a terrorist group sworn to killing Jews.
In short, Hamas has perfected a form of human sacrifice in the 21st century. It launches rockets from schools, uses ambulances as transport, hides behind women and children, and wears civilian clothing as camouflage. Palestinian civilian casualties are the Palestinian leadership's weapon of choice. The only body still allegedly oblivious to this grotesque calculation is the UN. Asked about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields, UNRWA chief, AbuZayd responded: "I don't know of these human shields being used... What I would say is that Hamas very much leave us alone; let me say, they respect us."
The UN cacophony is not what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had envisaged for her swan song. She hoped to exit with a Security Council resolution that she rammed through on December 16th, against Israel's wishes, praising her stillborn Annapolis initiative and bringing UN tentacles ever closer to their Israeli target by involving the Security Council more closely in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Which brings us to today's situation. Every anti-Israel idea out there has one major goal - whether it is propagated by France, Europe, Russia, Egypt, or the UN. They all want in on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Solutions subject to negotiations between the parties? Israeli control over its own borders? Not if any of these players can help it.
The drafts of UN presidential statements and resolutions now being floated include one key element. Wrest control from Israel and diminish Israeli sovereignty. The drafts insert international players via calls to "provide protection for civilian populations" or "establish and deploy an international observer force." Any such insertion of international actors will have only one result: to diminish the ability of Israel now and in the future to protect its citizens.
Israeli leaders must reject any formula that smacks of such a degradation of their inherent right to control their own destiny. And as for the United States, if President Bush is looking for an honorable swan song, it's now or never. This is the moment to tell your Secretary of State, after her years of a vain-glorious search for approval from the international community, that Israel is not for sale.
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.
EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.
This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in The New York Daily News.
The United Nations war on Israel has never been on the back burner, and its feeding frenzy over Gaza is no exception. The Security Council has now held four sessions. The General Assembly has scheduled an emergency session for Thursday night, and on Friday, the UN's lead human rights body, the Human Rights Council, will hold a special session to damn Israel.. To put this in perspective, the Security Council is the UN's lead response to terrorism. After 9/11, the Security Council started convening as "the Counter-Terrorism Committee" or CTC. The CTC has never identified a single terrorist, terrorist organization or state sponsor of terrorism - because the Islamic chokehold on the UN leaves it without a definition of terrorism to this day.
The General Assembly has had 10 emergency sessions in its history. Six of those, including the 10th, have been on Israel, and the tenth has been "reconvened" 16 times since 1997. In other words, there is a permanent General Assembly emergency session on Israel. The same Assembly never managed to hold a single emergency session on the 800,000 people who died in the Rwandan genocide, or the 3 million who are dead or displaced in Sudan.
As for the "reformed" Human Rights Council, it is now holding its fifth special session on Israel. By comparison, the Council has held nine regular sessions on human rights in all of the other 191 UN states. In fact, over its two and a half-year history, the Council has condemned Israel more often than all other states in the United Nations combined.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that since Israel finally decided to defend itself against the 8,000 rockets and mortar shells directed at its civilian population over eight years, the long UN knives have been quickly drawn. In addition to all the meetings, which are now webcast for propaganda purposes around the world, UN officials have used their global platforms to vilify the Jewish state and to try to tie Israel's hands behind its back. In one form or another, UN officials always manage to choke on the word "self-defense."
From out of the woodwork come UN gurus from the myriad UN bodies which have Israel-bashing as part of their job description: Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967; Karen AbuZayd, Commission-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA); John Ging, UNRWA Director of Operations in Gaza; Maxwell Gaylard, United Special Coordinator in the Occupied Territories (UNSCO), Paul Badji and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; Robert Serry, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process; and Christine van Nieuwenhuyse, World Food Program Representative in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Right alongside those folks for the past two weeks have been the UN "experts" and agencies whose well-being - their stature and internal authority, re-appointment, promotion, pension, operational funding and institutional perks of all kinds - depend on being on the Arab side of all Arab-Israeli conflicts. These people include the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and UN Emergency Relief Coordinator; the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator (OCHA); the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict; the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures; the Executive Director, UN Population Fund (UNFPA); and the Director-General, UNESCO.
Together all of these UN actors have mounted a feverish chorus alleging that Israel has committed "wanton aggression," "monstrosities," "massacres," and "crimes against humanity." In each case humanized Palestinian victims are placed on one side of the scale, and a small number of Israeli deaths are set on the other. Evidently, the UN only started counting Israeli bodies last week. Left out of this phony "proportionality test" is the terror associated with every Hamas-driven attempt to cause more death and destruction. And it is politically incorrect in the extreme to mention that the blameless Palestinians freely elected a terrorist group sworn to killing Jews.
In short, Hamas has perfected a form of human sacrifice in the 21st century. It launches rockets from schools, uses ambulances as transport, hides behind women and children, and wears civilian clothing as camouflage. Palestinian civilian casualties are the Palestinian leadership's weapon of choice. The only body still allegedly oblivious to this grotesque calculation is the UN. Asked about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields, UNRWA chief, AbuZayd responded: "I don't know of these human shields being used... What I would say is that Hamas very much leave us alone; let me say, they respect us."
The UN cacophony is not what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had envisaged for her swan song. She hoped to exit with a Security Council resolution that she rammed through on December 16th, against Israel's wishes, praising her stillborn Annapolis initiative and bringing UN tentacles ever closer to their Israeli target by involving the Security Council more closely in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Which brings us to today's situation. Every anti-Israel idea out there has one major goal - whether it is propagated by France, Europe, Russia, Egypt, or the UN. They all want in on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Solutions subject to negotiations between the parties? Israeli control over its own borders? Not if any of these players can help it.
The drafts of UN presidential statements and resolutions now being floated include one key element. Wrest control from Israel and diminish Israeli sovereignty. The drafts insert international players via calls to "provide protection for civilian populations" or "establish and deploy an international observer force." Any such insertion of international actors will have only one result: to diminish the ability of Israel now and in the future to protect its citizens.
Israeli leaders must reject any formula that smacks of such a degradation of their inherent right to control their own destiny. And as for the United States, if President Bush is looking for an honorable swan song, it's now or never. This is the moment to tell your Secretary of State, after her years of a vain-glorious search for approval from the international community, that Israel is not for sale.
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.
EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
War Crimes
Ben Dror Yemini
Maariv
So what exactly is our story with the bombs and civilians injuries? Are we the most evil element in the world, as the Evil and Stupidity Front claims, from Professor Noam Chomsky and Jose Saramago, through Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah, and up to some of the moviemakers and authors, among us too, that agree that Israel commits crimes against humanity?
5/8/2006
A short historical reminder. This time we won't say a word about Muslims
that butcher Muslims. We got used to it. The Muslims, especially in the
eyes of the Left, are the retarded kids of the world. From them there is
no need to demand responsibility, morale, international law. They are
allowed.
This time we will deal with the West. We won't head as far as the bombing
of Dresden.
We'll go to recent history. It happened in 1999. Just 7 years
ago. Milosevic irritated the Free World when he tried to take control of
Kosovo. NATO started bombing. Following is an incomplete list of the
injuries. Just of civilian ones.
On April 12th . 12 killed in a bombing of a civilian train; on April 14th
. 70 refugees are killed in a .hunt after warriors.. NATO forces admit
that they find it hard to estimate the number of casualties; Apri 27th .
16 civilians are killed. Two missiles diverted from their course; April
28th . A stray missile reaches a peaceful neighborhood in Sophia, capital
of Bulgaria. May 1st . 27 killed in a bombing of a bus on a bridge in
Belgrade. According to other claims 47 were killed. All of them civilians;
May 6th . 15 civilians are killed in the town of Nis in Yugoslavia; on May 7th
. the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is erroneously bombed. 3 civilians were
killed; May 13th . at least 100 civilians are killed in the village of
Korisa. Burnt bodies of kids are presented in the world media. NATO.s
spokesman announces that the bombings were against .legitimate military
targets.. May 19th . NATO airplanes are bombing the Belgrade hospital. At
least 3 patients end their lives; May 30th . 11 civilians are killed in
the bombing of a bridge. They were on their way to the local market. On
the same day the NATO bombers manage to bomb an old age home, causing the
death of 20 of its residents; on May 31st another 11 civilians are killed
in a bombing.
NATO, by the way, spread leaflets telling the civilians that bridges are
about to be bombed. Obviously that didn't help. Does this reminds
something to somebody? There was a general sorrow for hurting innocents,
but nobody dreamt of a cease fire. The bombings continued. It took months.
Not days or weeks. The determination proved itself. Milosovic was forced
to accept the international terms.
We've been in this situation before
Let's continue to November 2004. The Ivory Coast Air Force
attacked rebel concentrations. Since when does anybody count black people
at all? That's it, to the bombers. bad luck 9 French were killed by
accident. Soldiers. Not civilians. The French were angry. So angry that
they wiped out the entire Ivory Coat Air Force and took control of the
country.s airport. And that was only the beginning. When it was the
natives. turn to get angry, the French were sure to enforce order in a
very aggressive way, which included killing 27 protesters.
Now let's go back and discuss the proportions. Milosovic didn't announce
that he intends to destroy all of Europe. The Ivory Coast didn't announce
that its intention is to destroy France. And yet, the reactions of NATO
and French were harsh and hard. The Security Council did not call for a
cease fire. Au contraire. It was obvious that it's necessary to get rid of
the bad guy in the story. It took a lot of time. In the end he had to
bend.
We should be sorry for every innocent that gets hurt. The question is
whether somebody has invented a formula in which it.s possible to battle
evil without hurting the innocents. In NATO they didn.t find that formula.
In France neither. When we get to Israel the rules are being changed.
Israel is required to restrain itself. Why? After all Nasrallah is much
more dangerous than Milosovic. The Hezbollah is not a guerilla
organization. It.s an organization that possesses long-range missiles. In
normal countries the state has an army. In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah
has a state. The Hezbollah controls Lebanon and Iran controls the
Hezbollah. And also develops nuclear weapons, and also announces that it
wants to wipe Israel off the map.
These are just declarations, the members of the Evil Front will tell us,
the stupidity and reconciliation, those signed on various petitions. If we
will just turn over the second cheek, Ahmandinejad and Nasrallah will send
us flowers.
We've been in this situation before. We have the right to prevent it from
recurring.
Written by Ben-Dror Yamini
Translated to English by Oren Douek
Maariv
So what exactly is our story with the bombs and civilians injuries? Are we the most evil element in the world, as the Evil and Stupidity Front claims, from Professor Noam Chomsky and Jose Saramago, through Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah, and up to some of the moviemakers and authors, among us too, that agree that Israel commits crimes against humanity?
5/8/2006
A short historical reminder. This time we won't say a word about Muslims
that butcher Muslims. We got used to it. The Muslims, especially in the
eyes of the Left, are the retarded kids of the world. From them there is
no need to demand responsibility, morale, international law. They are
allowed.
This time we will deal with the West. We won't head as far as the bombing
of Dresden.
We'll go to recent history. It happened in 1999. Just 7 years
ago. Milosevic irritated the Free World when he tried to take control of
Kosovo. NATO started bombing. Following is an incomplete list of the
injuries. Just of civilian ones.
On April 12th . 12 killed in a bombing of a civilian train; on April 14th
. 70 refugees are killed in a .hunt after warriors.. NATO forces admit
that they find it hard to estimate the number of casualties; Apri 27th .
16 civilians are killed. Two missiles diverted from their course; April
28th . A stray missile reaches a peaceful neighborhood in Sophia, capital
of Bulgaria. May 1st . 27 killed in a bombing of a bus on a bridge in
Belgrade. According to other claims 47 were killed. All of them civilians;
May 6th . 15 civilians are killed in the town of Nis in Yugoslavia; on May 7th
. the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is erroneously bombed. 3 civilians were
killed; May 13th . at least 100 civilians are killed in the village of
Korisa. Burnt bodies of kids are presented in the world media. NATO.s
spokesman announces that the bombings were against .legitimate military
targets.. May 19th . NATO airplanes are bombing the Belgrade hospital. At
least 3 patients end their lives; May 30th . 11 civilians are killed in
the bombing of a bridge. They were on their way to the local market. On
the same day the NATO bombers manage to bomb an old age home, causing the
death of 20 of its residents; on May 31st another 11 civilians are killed
in a bombing.
NATO, by the way, spread leaflets telling the civilians that bridges are
about to be bombed. Obviously that didn't help. Does this reminds
something to somebody? There was a general sorrow for hurting innocents,
but nobody dreamt of a cease fire. The bombings continued. It took months.
Not days or weeks. The determination proved itself. Milosovic was forced
to accept the international terms.
We've been in this situation before
Let's continue to November 2004. The Ivory Coast Air Force
attacked rebel concentrations. Since when does anybody count black people
at all? That's it, to the bombers. bad luck 9 French were killed by
accident. Soldiers. Not civilians. The French were angry. So angry that
they wiped out the entire Ivory Coat Air Force and took control of the
country.s airport. And that was only the beginning. When it was the
natives. turn to get angry, the French were sure to enforce order in a
very aggressive way, which included killing 27 protesters.
Now let's go back and discuss the proportions. Milosovic didn't announce
that he intends to destroy all of Europe. The Ivory Coast didn't announce
that its intention is to destroy France. And yet, the reactions of NATO
and French were harsh and hard. The Security Council did not call for a
cease fire. Au contraire. It was obvious that it's necessary to get rid of
the bad guy in the story. It took a lot of time. In the end he had to
bend.
We should be sorry for every innocent that gets hurt. The question is
whether somebody has invented a formula in which it.s possible to battle
evil without hurting the innocents. In NATO they didn.t find that formula.
In France neither. When we get to Israel the rules are being changed.
Israel is required to restrain itself. Why? After all Nasrallah is much
more dangerous than Milosovic. The Hezbollah is not a guerilla
organization. It.s an organization that possesses long-range missiles. In
normal countries the state has an army. In the case of Lebanon, Hezbollah
has a state. The Hezbollah controls Lebanon and Iran controls the
Hezbollah. And also develops nuclear weapons, and also announces that it
wants to wipe Israel off the map.
These are just declarations, the members of the Evil Front will tell us,
the stupidity and reconciliation, those signed on various petitions. If we
will just turn over the second cheek, Ahmandinejad and Nasrallah will send
us flowers.
We've been in this situation before. We have the right to prevent it from
recurring.
Written by Ben-Dror Yamini
Translated to English by Oren Douek
Friday, January 09, 2009
There you go again MR. Carter-displaying your bias
CAMERA
Jimmy Carter is the David Irving of Middle East revisionism. Whatever reputation Irving had as a military history writer he destroyed with Holocaust revisionism and denial. Carter, whose anti-Israel tantrums reveal him as much an authority on Arab-Israeli matters as Irving on the Holocaust, still finds an audience -- recurrently through The Washington Post's Op-Ed pages. His latest, "An Unnecessary War" (January 8), amounts to a Hamas' public relations release. Apparently, being a former president means never having to check your facts or logic.
* The ex-president claims the "fundamental difference between the two sides," Israel and Hamas, is that the former "wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza." The fundamental difference is that Israel seeks peace with the Arabs and Hamas seeks the destruction of the Jewish state and establishment of an Islamic theocracy in its place. It uses cease-fires to gain strength and to subvert the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. * Carter relies on an anti-Israel U.N. source to claim "we knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of [the] Gaza [Strip] were being starved." A libel, not a fact. There was no food shortage, let alone starvation, prior to Hamas' termination of a six-month cease-fire on December 19.
* The former president labels a Hamas tunnel dug as part of a scheme to kidnap Israelis as "defensive." As if such a tunnel wasn't used to facilitate the killing of two soldiers in Israel and capture of a third, Cpt. Gilad Shalit, in 2006. Carter decries Israel's November 4 tunnel destruction as a "partial" breaking of the truce, though Hamas and its allies had resumed rocket and mortar fire at Israel.
* He describes the fence helping to control terrorist infiltration as "the wall that encloses Gaza." What "enclosed" Gaza - there are a half-dozen crossing points between Israel and the Strip and one major one between it and Egypt - was the Palestinians' 2006 election of a terrorist organization, Hamas, to lead them and Hamas' bloody ouster of its former Fatah partners in the PA the following year.
Carter's pro-Hamas column seems to stem from unbridled narcissism. His lead sentence reads: "I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided." The piece contains 11 more personal references (my, we, us) in its 11 paragraphs. The text may be Gaza, but the subtext is how important Jimmy Carter is.
According to Carter, he played a key role in securing the Egyptian-mediated six-month Israeli-Hamas truce last spring. This singular delusion lets him misrepresent Arab-Israeli realities.
* He portrays positively Hamas' leaders consideration of a Gaza-only cease-fire, "provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered ...." This imputes good-faith to Hamas and implies Israel was attacking Gaza, not conducting limited counter-terrorism operations, and that it was not permitting humanitarian deliveries when it was.
* Carter claims Hamas agreed to accept any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas "approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government." Coming from Hamas, these are vitiating conditions: it could undermine or invalidate a referendum outcome it opposed, and do the same in a unity government.
* The ex-president writes of "military activity by both sides ...." Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, European Union, Canada and other countries in large part because its "military activity" consists primarily of attacking non-combatants, a basic violation of military law.
* Carter faults Israel for allegedly not restoring delivery of humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip to the level before Israeli withdrawal in 2005. He doesn't mention that Israel withdrew in the expectation of peace, not the firing of thousands of rockets and mortars by Hamas, et. al., and that even though it continued to supply the Strip with much of its electricity, water, and other basic goods and services, was under no obligation to do so for a "hostile entity."
* The ex-president puts the word in quotation marks when writing of Israeli "combat" in Gaza and implies targeting certain mosques, a school, some private homes is not legitimate. Nothing from Carter on Hamas' use of such places as firing positions, weapons storage, terrorist shelters, and so on.
* He implies Israel intentionally destroys water, sanitation and other infrastructure and refers to "heavy civilian casualties." Infrastructure damage as has occurred is inevitable, given Hamas operating among the civilian population. Though tragic, civilian fatality rates of 25 - 30 percent - as reported by U.N. and Palestinian medical sources, which may not be reliable - indicate Israeli attempts to limit such casualties.
Joshua Muravchik's February, 2007 Commentary essay about Jimmy Carter was headlined, "Our Worst Ex-President." Some might argue when it comes to Arab-Israeli pontificating, certainly The Washington Post's most frequent revisionist.
Jimmy Carter is the David Irving of Middle East revisionism. Whatever reputation Irving had as a military history writer he destroyed with Holocaust revisionism and denial. Carter, whose anti-Israel tantrums reveal him as much an authority on Arab-Israeli matters as Irving on the Holocaust, still finds an audience -- recurrently through The Washington Post's Op-Ed pages. His latest, "An Unnecessary War" (January 8), amounts to a Hamas' public relations release. Apparently, being a former president means never having to check your facts or logic.
* The ex-president claims the "fundamental difference between the two sides," Israel and Hamas, is that the former "wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza." The fundamental difference is that Israel seeks peace with the Arabs and Hamas seeks the destruction of the Jewish state and establishment of an Islamic theocracy in its place. It uses cease-fires to gain strength and to subvert the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. * Carter relies on an anti-Israel U.N. source to claim "we knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of [the] Gaza [Strip] were being starved." A libel, not a fact. There was no food shortage, let alone starvation, prior to Hamas' termination of a six-month cease-fire on December 19.
* The former president labels a Hamas tunnel dug as part of a scheme to kidnap Israelis as "defensive." As if such a tunnel wasn't used to facilitate the killing of two soldiers in Israel and capture of a third, Cpt. Gilad Shalit, in 2006. Carter decries Israel's November 4 tunnel destruction as a "partial" breaking of the truce, though Hamas and its allies had resumed rocket and mortar fire at Israel.
* He describes the fence helping to control terrorist infiltration as "the wall that encloses Gaza." What "enclosed" Gaza - there are a half-dozen crossing points between Israel and the Strip and one major one between it and Egypt - was the Palestinians' 2006 election of a terrorist organization, Hamas, to lead them and Hamas' bloody ouster of its former Fatah partners in the PA the following year.
Carter's pro-Hamas column seems to stem from unbridled narcissism. His lead sentence reads: "I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided." The piece contains 11 more personal references (my, we, us) in its 11 paragraphs. The text may be Gaza, but the subtext is how important Jimmy Carter is.
According to Carter, he played a key role in securing the Egyptian-mediated six-month Israeli-Hamas truce last spring. This singular delusion lets him misrepresent Arab-Israeli realities.
* He portrays positively Hamas' leaders consideration of a Gaza-only cease-fire, "provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered ...." This imputes good-faith to Hamas and implies Israel was attacking Gaza, not conducting limited counter-terrorism operations, and that it was not permitting humanitarian deliveries when it was.
* Carter claims Hamas agreed to accept any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas "approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government." Coming from Hamas, these are vitiating conditions: it could undermine or invalidate a referendum outcome it opposed, and do the same in a unity government.
* The ex-president writes of "military activity by both sides ...." Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, European Union, Canada and other countries in large part because its "military activity" consists primarily of attacking non-combatants, a basic violation of military law.
* Carter faults Israel for allegedly not restoring delivery of humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip to the level before Israeli withdrawal in 2005. He doesn't mention that Israel withdrew in the expectation of peace, not the firing of thousands of rockets and mortars by Hamas, et. al., and that even though it continued to supply the Strip with much of its electricity, water, and other basic goods and services, was under no obligation to do so for a "hostile entity."
* The ex-president puts the word in quotation marks when writing of Israeli "combat" in Gaza and implies targeting certain mosques, a school, some private homes is not legitimate. Nothing from Carter on Hamas' use of such places as firing positions, weapons storage, terrorist shelters, and so on.
* He implies Israel intentionally destroys water, sanitation and other infrastructure and refers to "heavy civilian casualties." Infrastructure damage as has occurred is inevitable, given Hamas operating among the civilian population. Though tragic, civilian fatality rates of 25 - 30 percent - as reported by U.N. and Palestinian medical sources, which may not be reliable - indicate Israeli attempts to limit such casualties.
Joshua Muravchik's February, 2007 Commentary essay about Jimmy Carter was headlined, "Our Worst Ex-President." Some might argue when it comes to Arab-Israeli pontificating, certainly The Washington Post's most frequent revisionist.
"Games and Risks"
Today is Friday, and Shabbat still comes early. Thus, this posting must be brief, offering only basics; more will follow after Shabbat.
~~~~~~~~~~
Late yesterday, the Security Council passed a resolution with regard to a cease-fire in Gaza. This is Resolution 9567. and was sponsored by the United Kingdom (Britain). The vote was 14-0 with the US abstaining -- choosing this time not to veto.
Please understand this is NOT a binding resolution, but only a recommendation. It is a question of what chapter of the UN charter the resolution falls under, and I hope to have more details on this soon from my legal advisor on these matters.Rice made a statement about how this will lead to a "durable" cease-fire. Don't believe her.
The resolution was without teeth, and depends upon the details to be worked out via the Egyptian proposal.
After all of the statements regarding grave concern about the humanitarian situation and escalating violence, the need for "sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings" (a nod to Hamas), and condemnation of all acts of violence against civilians, what it calls for, in brief, is:
"... an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza."
It calls on UN member states "to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable cease-fire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms" and ensure the "sustained reopening" of border crossings. (Note the balanced response to demands here.)
It urges international efforts to provide humanitarian aid and rebuild Gaza's economy.
And it welcomes the Egyptian initiative to arrange and implement a cease-fire as well as other regional and international efforts that are underway.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, what is this?
It is simply words without substance: Cut out the fighting, guys, and figure out how to make peace work. Everything theoretically depends upon the strength of the Egyptian initiative, the details of which have not been revealed and very likely have not even been structured yet.
Israel should stop fighting but doesn't have to withdraw until the details are in place and the cease-fire is seen to be "sustainable." But this is not a tenable place for us. At some point we must either move ahead with attack or move out. We cannot keep troops in Gaza in static positions, waiting.
~~~~~~~~~~
This what Gerald Steinberg, Chair of the Political Studies Dept. of Bar Ilan University, has to say about what's happening:
"Every political leader and diplomat wants to be seen as the key actor, or at least a major player, in the cease-fire game. The appearance of peacemaking suggests international power and prestige, and is accompanied by meetings in exotic settings, providing excellent photo-opportunities and constant press coverage.
"Politicians thrive on the process, and politically correct talk about ending the 'humanitarian suffering of Palestinians' gains them a major boost.
"As a result, the field has become more crowded...
"But most of these mediators have little to offer in terms of substance. Indeed, the gap between the public relations and the detailed negotiations towards a sustainable end to conflict is huge. In many cases, beyond the photos and press statements, these virtual mediators do not have the knowledge or resources required for this complex process.
"This is the case for the cease-fire initiatives of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, both of whom gain primarily from the media attention. Israel is playing along with the facade in part to enhance the prestige of these leaders, and in part because the appearance of a readiness to negotiate a cease-fire softens the hostile media image, particularly in Europe.
"In reality, a stable cease-fire requires an external actor that has the depth, power and political will to insure that the terms are implemented - otherwise, the violence will resume and escalate."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424896098&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
The Israeli delegation to Egypt, sent to discuss the plan, has returned and reported to the government leaders. Olmert, Livni and Barak have met in preliminary consultation, prior to a Security Cabinet meeting scheduled for later today.
The statement Livni made this morning was this:
"Israel's past, present and future actions are based solely on its considerations, the security of Israel's residents and its right to self-defense."
In other words, we'll do what we decide, not what the UN thinks we should do. Please G-d, she should mean it.
~~~~~~~~~~
The decision of the Security Cabinet will be released too late for me to include it in this posting. But as things stand now, I believe there can be no question of our ceasing fire in Gaza now.
Hamas has already said it would not accept a cease-fire as proposed by Egypt. Its response to the UN resolution has been to launch a major attack on our south: There have been today, as I write, 25 rockets launched in a short period of time. Grads hit areas around Beersheba and Ashkelon, Kassams hit Sderot region, mortar shells struck in Eshkol.
Fighting inside of Gaza has also been heavy.
~~~~~~~~~~
Other issues to be looked at after Shabbat: the UN (and particularly UNRWA) as a PR voice for Hamas, and the fact that PA President Mahmoud Abbas's term has now expired, at least according to Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
~~~~~~~~~~
Late yesterday, the Security Council passed a resolution with regard to a cease-fire in Gaza. This is Resolution 9567. and was sponsored by the United Kingdom (Britain). The vote was 14-0 with the US abstaining -- choosing this time not to veto.
Please understand this is NOT a binding resolution, but only a recommendation. It is a question of what chapter of the UN charter the resolution falls under, and I hope to have more details on this soon from my legal advisor on these matters.Rice made a statement about how this will lead to a "durable" cease-fire. Don't believe her.
The resolution was without teeth, and depends upon the details to be worked out via the Egyptian proposal.
After all of the statements regarding grave concern about the humanitarian situation and escalating violence, the need for "sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings" (a nod to Hamas), and condemnation of all acts of violence against civilians, what it calls for, in brief, is:
"... an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza."
It calls on UN member states "to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable cease-fire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms" and ensure the "sustained reopening" of border crossings. (Note the balanced response to demands here.)
It urges international efforts to provide humanitarian aid and rebuild Gaza's economy.
And it welcomes the Egyptian initiative to arrange and implement a cease-fire as well as other regional and international efforts that are underway.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, what is this?
It is simply words without substance: Cut out the fighting, guys, and figure out how to make peace work. Everything theoretically depends upon the strength of the Egyptian initiative, the details of which have not been revealed and very likely have not even been structured yet.
Israel should stop fighting but doesn't have to withdraw until the details are in place and the cease-fire is seen to be "sustainable." But this is not a tenable place for us. At some point we must either move ahead with attack or move out. We cannot keep troops in Gaza in static positions, waiting.
~~~~~~~~~~
This what Gerald Steinberg, Chair of the Political Studies Dept. of Bar Ilan University, has to say about what's happening:
"Every political leader and diplomat wants to be seen as the key actor, or at least a major player, in the cease-fire game. The appearance of peacemaking suggests international power and prestige, and is accompanied by meetings in exotic settings, providing excellent photo-opportunities and constant press coverage.
"Politicians thrive on the process, and politically correct talk about ending the 'humanitarian suffering of Palestinians' gains them a major boost.
"As a result, the field has become more crowded...
"But most of these mediators have little to offer in terms of substance. Indeed, the gap between the public relations and the detailed negotiations towards a sustainable end to conflict is huge. In many cases, beyond the photos and press statements, these virtual mediators do not have the knowledge or resources required for this complex process.
"This is the case for the cease-fire initiatives of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, both of whom gain primarily from the media attention. Israel is playing along with the facade in part to enhance the prestige of these leaders, and in part because the appearance of a readiness to negotiate a cease-fire softens the hostile media image, particularly in Europe.
"In reality, a stable cease-fire requires an external actor that has the depth, power and political will to insure that the terms are implemented - otherwise, the violence will resume and escalate."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424896098&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
The Israeli delegation to Egypt, sent to discuss the plan, has returned and reported to the government leaders. Olmert, Livni and Barak have met in preliminary consultation, prior to a Security Cabinet meeting scheduled for later today.
The statement Livni made this morning was this:
"Israel's past, present and future actions are based solely on its considerations, the security of Israel's residents and its right to self-defense."
In other words, we'll do what we decide, not what the UN thinks we should do. Please G-d, she should mean it.
~~~~~~~~~~
The decision of the Security Cabinet will be released too late for me to include it in this posting. But as things stand now, I believe there can be no question of our ceasing fire in Gaza now.
Hamas has already said it would not accept a cease-fire as proposed by Egypt. Its response to the UN resolution has been to launch a major attack on our south: There have been today, as I write, 25 rockets launched in a short period of time. Grads hit areas around Beersheba and Ashkelon, Kassams hit Sderot region, mortar shells struck in Eshkol.
Fighting inside of Gaza has also been heavy.
~~~~~~~~~~
Other issues to be looked at after Shabbat: the UN (and particularly UNRWA) as a PR voice for Hamas, and the fact that PA President Mahmoud Abbas's term has now expired, at least according to Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)