Israelis like to whine, but Independence Day a chance to recognize how well we’re doing
Hanoch Daum
Israel Opinion
YNET News
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, who established Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, once asked what was the deal with all those Holy Days and Shabbats. f this world is holy, he wondered, why can’t it be holy all the time? Why do we need to set aside only a few specific days to that end? Why are we like sons of angels only on Rosh Hashana? Why do we pray the whole day only on Yom Kippur?
The rabbi asked these questions, and also offered an answer: Any day should have been a holiday. Any day should have been holy. The potential exists, yet we are unable to recognize it. We’re not built to celebrate every day and be merry every day. The holidays, said the rabbi, are our opportunity to be exposed on a one-time basis to the true holiness and true power of all days of the year. The Shabbat is our opportunity to recognize the potential inherent in all other days of the week.
If I may continue with Rabbi Kook’s logic, Independence Day is also a day where we are allowed to feel what we have been repressing the whole year. A day where we are allowed to recognize what is hidden from view during our daily life. We are allowed to be a little more optimistic, and look at our country in a somewhat different way.
Indeed, this goes against our nature: After all, we are unable to wake up every morning and admit that things are going well. Not us. We prefer to whine.
We prefer to talk about unemployment, and forget that once upon a time we had food rations here; we lament the state of education, but forget that Israel is the world’s number one exporter of scientists and men of letters; we whine about the absence of morals here, but forget that our crime rate is among the lowest in the world.
We prefer to whine about the state of our culture, but ignore the international achievements of Israeli film and Israeli literature. We talk about the Iranian threat, without mentioning that for the time being, we are in fact the only nuclear power in the region.
Independence Day is an opportunity; an opportunity to admit that something beautiful is being done here. That something touching has been built here. That we only become better with the passage of time. We have an ultra-Orthodox deputy health minister, a religious science minister, and a secular Knesset speaker, who holds his first tour in an Arab town.
We have camaraderie here and people help each other during times of crisis, we have a special culture and diversity of opinion, and we have quite a bit of love and spirituality around here, hiding behind the veneer of our hurried routine.
We have plenty of time during the year to look into what is still missing. Independence Day is the opportunity to admit that we already achieved most of it. Chag Sameach.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Proposed Concessions to Hamas Show Obama Administration Is Clueless
RubinReports
In what might eventually become its first step directly damaging U.S.-Israel relations and injuring Israel’s interests, the Obama administration has reportedly proposed allowing American aid to go to a Palestinian Authority (PA) even if Hamas, which is designated in U.S. law as a terrorist group, would be participating in it. Several notes of caution: this is a trial balloon; it isn’t clear that the administration is going to make a serious effort to pass this; it is probable that Congress won’t do it; and even if the change would be made it isn’t going to have any direct practical implication.
And what does all this start to tell us? It is more an incredibly stupid idea than it is a dangerous one on its own merit, but in the final analysis it is both stupid and dangerous.
Why does it reflect so badly on the administration’s judgment and understanding of the Middle East? Not for the reasons you probably think.
First, it is unnecessary. There is no immediate need or strategic gain to be made by such a step (quite the contrary, as we shall see in a moment). Hamas isn’t in coalition with the PA nor does it have any prospect of joining. The negotiations are going badly and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that Fatah, which runs the PA, won’t accept Hamas’s domination and vice-versa.
What do you call someone in Washington DC who sacrifices political capital for nothing? Answer: extremely stupid.
As the great French foreign minister Charles de Talleyrand once put it, in international affairs blunders are worse than crimes. Talleyrand was not a very nice man. He never apologized for anything. He was a very successful diplomatist.
Second, though, the proposal is dangerous. It signals Hamas that the United States is ready to give it a concession without that group changing anything. Go on, the administration appears to be saying, being terrorist, genocidal in intention, antisemitic, and incredibly repressive of your own people. Why should that stop us giving you money and recognition in future?
And it signals Fatah and the PA that the United States wants them to make a coalition with Hamas. That’s the way people think in the Middle East and U.S. officials are supposed to understand this. You can bet your real assets that at this very moment in Ramallah, Hebron, and Nablus people are saying: Obama is now backing Hamas!
As such, it gives aid and comfort to those in Fatah who think that the two Palestinian groups should join to fight Israel. And it gives encouragement to almost all of Fatah which would rather have peace with Hamas than peace with Israel.
Obama says he wants to move the peace process forward. Instead, he has just punctured one of its tires.
Note however that in a few weeks the administration may face a real situation like this. If the Lebanese election results in Hizballah participating or even dominating the government, the United States is signaling that it will continue aid there also, thus undermining the moderates in the voting.
What would a smart policy do? Insist that the United States will never ever give money to any PA government in which Hamas participated unless Hamas changed its goals and methods, that is recognize Israel's existence and cease terrorism. In other words, the same policy the United States has had up to now.
Why? Because that presses Hamas to change (even if it won't change, that should be Hamas's problem and loss), encourges the PA to stand tough, shows the PA and others that the United States rewards moderation and punished radicalism and terrorism. This encourages others to be more moderate and not to give in to extremists, while encouraging other extremists to think about changing their ways.
Of course, if a coalition was formed in spite of your efforts you can rethink your policy. You shouldn't give in but at least you have the option of taking new facts into account.
That's how policymakers are supposed to work.
Memo to administration policymakers: Leverage is an important principle in international affairs. You have something. Others want it. Make them pay for it. Don’t give it away free.
Memo 2 to administration policymakers: Every time you make a concession to your enemies, it hurts your friends who have the same enemies. They start thinking you are supporting their enemies. They become demoralized. They seek to cut their own deals.
Whether or not the administration does push forward with a change that might be called the Let’s Give Money to Hamas Terrorists Act of 2009, it is one more piece of evidence as to its very serious misunderstanding of how diplomacy works and the current state of the Middle East.
Thanks Barry Rubin
In what might eventually become its first step directly damaging U.S.-Israel relations and injuring Israel’s interests, the Obama administration has reportedly proposed allowing American aid to go to a Palestinian Authority (PA) even if Hamas, which is designated in U.S. law as a terrorist group, would be participating in it. Several notes of caution: this is a trial balloon; it isn’t clear that the administration is going to make a serious effort to pass this; it is probable that Congress won’t do it; and even if the change would be made it isn’t going to have any direct practical implication.
And what does all this start to tell us? It is more an incredibly stupid idea than it is a dangerous one on its own merit, but in the final analysis it is both stupid and dangerous.
Why does it reflect so badly on the administration’s judgment and understanding of the Middle East? Not for the reasons you probably think.
First, it is unnecessary. There is no immediate need or strategic gain to be made by such a step (quite the contrary, as we shall see in a moment). Hamas isn’t in coalition with the PA nor does it have any prospect of joining. The negotiations are going badly and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that Fatah, which runs the PA, won’t accept Hamas’s domination and vice-versa.
What do you call someone in Washington DC who sacrifices political capital for nothing? Answer: extremely stupid.
As the great French foreign minister Charles de Talleyrand once put it, in international affairs blunders are worse than crimes. Talleyrand was not a very nice man. He never apologized for anything. He was a very successful diplomatist.
Second, though, the proposal is dangerous. It signals Hamas that the United States is ready to give it a concession without that group changing anything. Go on, the administration appears to be saying, being terrorist, genocidal in intention, antisemitic, and incredibly repressive of your own people. Why should that stop us giving you money and recognition in future?
And it signals Fatah and the PA that the United States wants them to make a coalition with Hamas. That’s the way people think in the Middle East and U.S. officials are supposed to understand this. You can bet your real assets that at this very moment in Ramallah, Hebron, and Nablus people are saying: Obama is now backing Hamas!
As such, it gives aid and comfort to those in Fatah who think that the two Palestinian groups should join to fight Israel. And it gives encouragement to almost all of Fatah which would rather have peace with Hamas than peace with Israel.
Obama says he wants to move the peace process forward. Instead, he has just punctured one of its tires.
Note however that in a few weeks the administration may face a real situation like this. If the Lebanese election results in Hizballah participating or even dominating the government, the United States is signaling that it will continue aid there also, thus undermining the moderates in the voting.
What would a smart policy do? Insist that the United States will never ever give money to any PA government in which Hamas participated unless Hamas changed its goals and methods, that is recognize Israel's existence and cease terrorism. In other words, the same policy the United States has had up to now.
Why? Because that presses Hamas to change (even if it won't change, that should be Hamas's problem and loss), encourges the PA to stand tough, shows the PA and others that the United States rewards moderation and punished radicalism and terrorism. This encourages others to be more moderate and not to give in to extremists, while encouraging other extremists to think about changing their ways.
Of course, if a coalition was formed in spite of your efforts you can rethink your policy. You shouldn't give in but at least you have the option of taking new facts into account.
That's how policymakers are supposed to work.
Memo to administration policymakers: Leverage is an important principle in international affairs. You have something. Others want it. Make them pay for it. Don’t give it away free.
Memo 2 to administration policymakers: Every time you make a concession to your enemies, it hurts your friends who have the same enemies. They start thinking you are supporting their enemies. They become demoralized. They seek to cut their own deals.
Whether or not the administration does push forward with a change that might be called the Let’s Give Money to Hamas Terrorists Act of 2009, it is one more piece of evidence as to its very serious misunderstanding of how diplomacy works and the current state of the Middle East.
Thanks Barry Rubin
A Brief Reminder About Purpose
Daniel Gordis
There's a certain look to a widow who's in her mid-twenties, whose husband was killed in Gaza in January. Eyes swollen with tears, yet with steely determination at the same time. A certain vulnerability on her still very young face, and a face that seems too old for her age, all at the same time. An image of pain and of unspeakable sadness, but not asking for pity. Was it just me, or was it clear that even in the midst of her unbearable burden, she knew full well that she - like the young husband who was taken from her far too early - is part of something much larger than she is? Is that why, looking at her, I had a sense of - more than anything else - strength? I would have liked many more people to see her. President Obama, for example, as he prepares for another stab at Middle East peace-making. Hillary Clinton, who's now telling us to make peace lest we lose American support in the looming confrontation with Iran. All those Jews out there, beating their breasts, despondent that the Jewish state is so "un-Jewish" in its seeming unwillingness to make peace.
We hear all those people - of course we do. And as we do, we can't help but wonder if the world has begun to tire of us, to regret the decision that it made on November 29, 1947. (We know without doubt, for example, that were the UN to vote today, Israel would not be created.) Calls for Israel to negotiate with Hamas despite the latter's commitment to Israel's destruction, the poisonous environment of Durban II and the Obama administration's willingness to engage with Iran even as it continues to enrich uranium, all contribute to this sense.
So to all those who are wringing their hands about Israeli intransigence and inflexibility, on this eve of Israeli Independence Day, a brief word about nations, and states, and purpose. For without understanding purpose, there's no understanding Israel.
Israelis elected Ehud Barak in 1999 because he promised peace with the Palestinians. When Barak put the majority of the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem on the table, most Israelis went along. The deal fell apart because Palestinians unleashed the Second Intifada. The majority of Israelis supported Ariel Sharon's decision to disengage from Gaza and to uproot all the Jewish communities there. They even elected Ehud Olmert in 2006, after he ran on a platform of further withdrawal from the West Bank. How did a country that has continually favored painful concessions for peace end up with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively? It is that which Obama, Clinton and all the hand wringers must understand if they have any hope of being heard here.
To appreciate today's Israeli sentiment, all those people would do well to keep in mind two iconic photographs on which virtually every Israeli is raised. These images have come to represent two radically different eras - Jewish powerlessness under the Nazis, and Jews at the height of their power, when they captured the Old City of Jerusalem from the Jordanians.
The former period is represented in the minds of many Israelis by a black and white photograph of a Jewish boy, probably no older than nine or ten, dressed in his finest coat and hat, his black dress socks pulled up almost to his knees. He is the model of innocence, of European-Jewish financial and social success, and yet, he is pitiful - the very picture of vulnerability. His parents are not at his side, and no onlookers have come to comfort him. His hands raised high in surrender as a Nazi points a gun in his direction, the boy's fate depends entirely on the whim and will of his enemies. He might as well already be dead.
A very different image was taken at the Western Wall in the aftermath of the paratroopers' conquering of the Old City during the June 1967 Six Day War. This photo, by David Rubinger, is equally iconic. It, too, portrays Jews and soldiers - three, in fact. But now, the Jews and the soldiers are one and the same. No longer is the Jew the frightened boy looking away from the Nazi's gun somewhere in Europe. He is home, in Jerusalem, responsible for his own destiny.
Nothing in this image celebrates war. The soldiers' weapons are nowhere to be seen. Their helmets have been removed. The figure in the center is young, almost boyish. What captured the Jewish imagination was not the Jew as soldier, but image of a Jew whose existential condition had been entirely altered in the period between those two photos, all because of the creation of the Jewish state. The Jewish state, Zionism promised, would radically alter the condition of the Jew in the world. No longer would Jews live and die at the whim of others. No longer would our children's safety be dependent on what our enemies decided.
Today, Israelis are concerned that that has begun to change, that we are sliding inexorably back to the reality represented by the first image. For eight years, Palestinian rockets and mortars turned Israeli childhoods in Sderot and other cities into years of incessant fear. Thousands of Israeli children studied and slept - and some died - at the whim of Palestinian Kassam-launchers. And when Israel finally did respond, the world's outrage was instantaneous.
Now, Israelis wonder if the Americans have quietly resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran. If Israelis become convinced that that is the case, it will be not Netanyahu or Lieberman, but American policy, which will have caused Israeli intransigence. For an Iranian nuclear weapon, even were it never used, would reverse the change in the existential condition of the Jew that Israel made possible. Once Iran has nuclear capacity, every Israeli parent will put their children to bed at night knowing that once again, our survival and that of our children will depend not on what we do, but on what others decide our fate should be. An Iranian nuclear weapon would represent not only a failure of American deterrence, but the failure of the promise of Zionism, to create and sustain a Jewish state that could keep its citizens safe.
An international community committed to significant progress in the Israel-Arab conflict must first convince Israelis that we are not being abandoned, that the world is committed to the purpose for which Israel was created. Very few of us relish sending our sons and daughters off to war, to bear for life the scars of battle, or worse. We, too, would like nothing more than an end to this horrific conflict. Our voting record proves it.
But as we prepare to celebrate independence once again, one fact must remain clear: we will not end the conflict at all costs. That is what the international community must demonstrate it understands. For on this Erev Yom Ha-Atzma'ut, as on all the others, we, at least, know well what is at stake. Given the choice between sending our children off to fight yet again, or of returning to the world of that first photograph in which someone else will decide if we live and for how long, almost all of us will choose the former.
[RESPONSES AND REACTIONS can be posted at http://danielgordis.org/2009/04/28/erev-yom-ha-atzma%e2%80%99ut-%e2%80%93-a-brief-reminder-about-purpose/
There's a certain look to a widow who's in her mid-twenties, whose husband was killed in Gaza in January. Eyes swollen with tears, yet with steely determination at the same time. A certain vulnerability on her still very young face, and a face that seems too old for her age, all at the same time. An image of pain and of unspeakable sadness, but not asking for pity. Was it just me, or was it clear that even in the midst of her unbearable burden, she knew full well that she - like the young husband who was taken from her far too early - is part of something much larger than she is? Is that why, looking at her, I had a sense of - more than anything else - strength? I would have liked many more people to see her. President Obama, for example, as he prepares for another stab at Middle East peace-making. Hillary Clinton, who's now telling us to make peace lest we lose American support in the looming confrontation with Iran. All those Jews out there, beating their breasts, despondent that the Jewish state is so "un-Jewish" in its seeming unwillingness to make peace.
We hear all those people - of course we do. And as we do, we can't help but wonder if the world has begun to tire of us, to regret the decision that it made on November 29, 1947. (We know without doubt, for example, that were the UN to vote today, Israel would not be created.) Calls for Israel to negotiate with Hamas despite the latter's commitment to Israel's destruction, the poisonous environment of Durban II and the Obama administration's willingness to engage with Iran even as it continues to enrich uranium, all contribute to this sense.
So to all those who are wringing their hands about Israeli intransigence and inflexibility, on this eve of Israeli Independence Day, a brief word about nations, and states, and purpose. For without understanding purpose, there's no understanding Israel.
Israelis elected Ehud Barak in 1999 because he promised peace with the Palestinians. When Barak put the majority of the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem on the table, most Israelis went along. The deal fell apart because Palestinians unleashed the Second Intifada. The majority of Israelis supported Ariel Sharon's decision to disengage from Gaza and to uproot all the Jewish communities there. They even elected Ehud Olmert in 2006, after he ran on a platform of further withdrawal from the West Bank. How did a country that has continually favored painful concessions for peace end up with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively? It is that which Obama, Clinton and all the hand wringers must understand if they have any hope of being heard here.
To appreciate today's Israeli sentiment, all those people would do well to keep in mind two iconic photographs on which virtually every Israeli is raised. These images have come to represent two radically different eras - Jewish powerlessness under the Nazis, and Jews at the height of their power, when they captured the Old City of Jerusalem from the Jordanians.
The former period is represented in the minds of many Israelis by a black and white photograph of a Jewish boy, probably no older than nine or ten, dressed in his finest coat and hat, his black dress socks pulled up almost to his knees. He is the model of innocence, of European-Jewish financial and social success, and yet, he is pitiful - the very picture of vulnerability. His parents are not at his side, and no onlookers have come to comfort him. His hands raised high in surrender as a Nazi points a gun in his direction, the boy's fate depends entirely on the whim and will of his enemies. He might as well already be dead.
A very different image was taken at the Western Wall in the aftermath of the paratroopers' conquering of the Old City during the June 1967 Six Day War. This photo, by David Rubinger, is equally iconic. It, too, portrays Jews and soldiers - three, in fact. But now, the Jews and the soldiers are one and the same. No longer is the Jew the frightened boy looking away from the Nazi's gun somewhere in Europe. He is home, in Jerusalem, responsible for his own destiny.
Nothing in this image celebrates war. The soldiers' weapons are nowhere to be seen. Their helmets have been removed. The figure in the center is young, almost boyish. What captured the Jewish imagination was not the Jew as soldier, but image of a Jew whose existential condition had been entirely altered in the period between those two photos, all because of the creation of the Jewish state. The Jewish state, Zionism promised, would radically alter the condition of the Jew in the world. No longer would Jews live and die at the whim of others. No longer would our children's safety be dependent on what our enemies decided.
Today, Israelis are concerned that that has begun to change, that we are sliding inexorably back to the reality represented by the first image. For eight years, Palestinian rockets and mortars turned Israeli childhoods in Sderot and other cities into years of incessant fear. Thousands of Israeli children studied and slept - and some died - at the whim of Palestinian Kassam-launchers. And when Israel finally did respond, the world's outrage was instantaneous.
Now, Israelis wonder if the Americans have quietly resigned themselves to a nuclear Iran. If Israelis become convinced that that is the case, it will be not Netanyahu or Lieberman, but American policy, which will have caused Israeli intransigence. For an Iranian nuclear weapon, even were it never used, would reverse the change in the existential condition of the Jew that Israel made possible. Once Iran has nuclear capacity, every Israeli parent will put their children to bed at night knowing that once again, our survival and that of our children will depend not on what we do, but on what others decide our fate should be. An Iranian nuclear weapon would represent not only a failure of American deterrence, but the failure of the promise of Zionism, to create and sustain a Jewish state that could keep its citizens safe.
An international community committed to significant progress in the Israel-Arab conflict must first convince Israelis that we are not being abandoned, that the world is committed to the purpose for which Israel was created. Very few of us relish sending our sons and daughters off to war, to bear for life the scars of battle, or worse. We, too, would like nothing more than an end to this horrific conflict. Our voting record proves it.
But as we prepare to celebrate independence once again, one fact must remain clear: we will not end the conflict at all costs. That is what the international community must demonstrate it understands. For on this Erev Yom Ha-Atzma'ut, as on all the others, we, at least, know well what is at stake. Given the choice between sending our children off to fight yet again, or of returning to the world of that first photograph in which someone else will decide if we live and for how long, almost all of us will choose the former.
[RESPONSES AND REACTIONS can be posted at http://danielgordis.org/2009/04/28/erev-yom-ha-atzma%e2%80%99ut-%e2%80%93-a-brief-reminder-about-purpose/
Exposing The Palestinian's Phony 'Demographics' Threat Against Israel
JOSHUAPUNDIT
You've heard it all before, as the prime rationale for a Palestinian state by the left..if those stubborn Joos don't knuckle under and give the Palestinians everything they want, the Arabs will soon be a majority. And then the only choices the Jews will have left is to be a minority in their own country or to give up democracy in favor of minority rule.
I've discussed what absolute horse manure this is many times, but it might be helpful to share the latest real numbers for those who still need convincing: Israel's population on the eve of its 61st Independence Day numbers 7,411,000, according to data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics Monday afternoon.
Last year, the population was 7,282,000, and when Israel was established, it was just 806,000.
About 75.5 percent, or 5,593,000, of Israel's residents are Jews, 1,498,000 are Arabs (20.2%), while "Others" - immigrants and their offspring who are not registered as Jews by the Interior Ministry - number 320,000 (4.3%).
Let's look at this more closely. Two things the article doesn't mention. One, out of the 806,000 population mentioned in 1948, almost the exact same percentage, around 20%, were Arab, and that ratio has remained constant throught Israel's history. So much for the rapidly expanding Arab population. Second, the term 'Arab' does not mesh in the least with 'Palestinian.'
That Arab population includes not only Arabs with residence permits who are not Israeli citizens, but Druse, Circassians and Bedouins, who proudly serve in the IDF and do not regard the Quraysh Palestinians fondly, to say the least.
Another factor is increased Arab emigration and the Palestinian's constant inflation of the Arab numbers. They've got plenaty of motivation to do so, as Yakov Faitelson points in in his recounting of various bogus population estimates:
Why fudge the numbers? There are two important reasons: First, overstating the Palestinian population is good for Palestinian morale, bad for Israeli morale, and heightens Jewish fears of the so-called "demographic time bomb"; second, there is a significant financial incentive, as the international community provides money to the Palestinian Authority according to the number of its inhabitants. When the Palestinian Authority pads its population numbers, the Palestinian Authority receives more money.
(I'll say! When the Saudis demanded an audit before they would provide aid to the Palestinian Authority, they found over 37,000 'no-show jobs' - non-existant people who were nevertheless drawing paychecks from UNRWA and other idiot Western donors.)
Careful demographic analysis, however, should lead to a conclusion in stark contrast to the demographic time bomb thesis. The natural increase of the Jewish population in Israel—that is, its yearly birth rate less its yearly death rate—stabilized thirty years ago and, since 2002, has even begun to grow. The natural increase of the total Arab population, comprising both Israeli Arabs and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, continues to descend toward convergence with the Jewish population, probably in the latter half of this century.
The data, moreover, point to rising levels of Arab emigration, particularly among young people. According to the survey conducted by Bir-Zeit University, 32 percent of all Palestinians and 44 percent of Palestinian youth would emigrate if they could.[48] The official Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida has reported similar numbers.[49] A public opinion poll conducted by the Near East Consulting Corporation in the Gaza Strip reveals an even higher rate—47 percent of all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. [50] Translated into numbers of people, as of 2006, more than a million Arabs in the Palestinian territories wish to emigrate. As journalist Amit Cohen noted in 2007, "Close to 14,000 Palestinians, more than 1 percent of the population in the Strip, have left the Gaza Strip since the implementation of the withdrawal program,[51] largely for financial reasons.[52]
In an interview reported in the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat around the same time, Salam Fayyad, head of the Emergency Palestinian Government, commented: "How will we be able to deal with the problem of 40,000 to 50,000 Palestinians who have emigrated and many more that are not emigrating just because they do not have the means? We are losing in this respect."[53]
The misuse of demography has been one of the most prominent, yet unexamined, aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many Israelis have so thoroughly absorbed the repeated claims of a diminishing Jewish majority that they do not consider whether their conventional wisdom is false. Before an accurate demographic picture of Israel and the Palestinian territories trickles down to the consciousness of the residents of the region, it must first be understood by Israeli and Palestinian policymakers, academics, and journalists, who need accurate, factual information to do their jobs. The impact on the conflict of such a development would be substantial.
Moreover, the Jewish birthrate in Judea and Samaria ( AKA the West Bank) which includes a high percentage of religious Jews is almost equal to the Palestinian birth rate in terms of births per woman.If you factor out Gaza, it amounts to a 67% Jewish majority in 98.5% of the land west of the Jordan River. And that's without factoring in the 'fudge' factor from the Palestinian Authority.
Or, as Yasir Arafat once said, "I've killed for my cause..don't you think I would lie for it?"
Three Days and 61 years
Apr. 28, 2009
Sarah Honig , THE JERUSALEM POST
One of the best books anywhere about the lead-up to Israel's independence is perhaps the most unlikely, least attractive and inordinately trivia-laden little volume imaginable. It was composed by a man considered to have been one of old Mapai's particularly lackluster functionary figures - Ze'ev Sherf.
The pinnacle of his career was his brief elevation the post of finance minister in 1968. In actual fact, however, his greater distinction was to have served as Israel's first-ever cabinet secretary, a position that grew out of his appointment in December 1947 to head the committee charged with all practical preparations for Israel's declaration of independence and with the establishment of a working administration ready to take over authority as soon as the British mandatory forces depart.
Sherf in effect was the state's bureaucratic midwife, carrying out the unheroic but indispensable tasks that are later forgotten and taken for granted. As such, Sherf possessed an accumulation of seemingly tedious incidental material, the sort which is really the most telling and vital of all.
In 1959 he collected these esoteric minutiae into a thin hardcover entitled Three Days. It listed in extraordinary detail every move in the three days that preceded independence and its culmination was the actual declaration at the tiny Tel Aviv Museum auditorium in what previously was the home of the city's first mayor, Meir Dizengoff, on 16 Sderot Rothschild.
The venue was no one's top choice.
Jerusalem was besieged, while Tel Aviv's Habima Theater was ruled out precisely because it was bigger and could accommodate more participants. Even a marginally larger affair was reckoned undesirable for fear that publicity about when and where the Jewish state's birth is slated to be announced would invite Egyptian air-strikes. It was, therefore, thought advisable to keep everything hush-hush, make do with fewer honorary guests and cram them all into a minuscule hall (although the secrecy was quickly breached anyhow, in keeping with local proclivities).
The invitation (including a request to keep it confidential) was mimeographed and sent unsigned. The declaration itself was placed for safekeeping in a bank's basement vault, lest it be destroyed by enemy bombardments.
Only one-hour before the ceremony, was its final wording at last approved - after nit-picking objections over every syllable and turn of phrase.
A laborious version authored by Moshe Sharett was roundly rejected and the debates continued until David Ben-Gurion took the text home, trimmed, honed and rewrote everything himself. He accepted Bechor Sheetrit's proposal to commence the declaration by noting that it was in Eretz Yisrael that the Jewish nation was born.
Caught between religious delegates who demanded mention of the Almighty and Marxists who'd hear nothing of the sort, Ben-Gurion's compromise was to affirm "our trust in the Rock of Israel."
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the declaration never features the word "democracy" and only cursorily lists freedoms "in the light of the vision of the prophets of Israel."
Considering the meticulous attention to every nuance, this omission was no accident. Ben-Gurion repeatedly argued that "this declaration is no constitution," and that the terse reference to civil liberties was required by the General Assembly Partition Resolution.
"We inserted the basic elements demanded of us by the UN," he explained to members of the Provisional People's Council (the embryonic parliament).
Ben-Gurion also decreed that the new state's borders would remain unspecified. Again he reiterated that "this is a declaration of independence. The Americans declared independence without stipulating to which territory it would apply."
"Suppose," Ben-Gurion conjectured, "the Arabs launch a war against us. If we then foil their plans to destroy us and, for instance, capture the western Galilee and the road to Jerusalem, these then would become part of the state -assuming our strength suffices. Why should we obligate ourselves not to hold on to what the enemy forces us to fight for?"
Ben-Gurion's far-sightedness was gutsy. Bloody battles already raged and Gush Etzion fell just when the secretary who typed the declaration (the parchment-like scroll was inscribed after the event) rushed down (on her own initiative) to the nearest neighborhood stationary store to buy blue paper with which to wrap the pages, to "dress them up."
The newborn state possessed no resources or military hardware. Its population of 600,000 also comprised the old, the infirm and the very young. The risk was enormous but the spirit and grit no less colossal.
How different Israel is 61 years on. Its population has multiplied more than ten-fold and its military power exceeds anything Ben-Gurion could rationally have dreamed of.
Sherf, whose documentation no one will bother to air out on the state's birthday, recounted that at 4 o'clock on the fateful Friday afternoon 61 years ago "no foreign flags were lowered, our national banners weren't hoisted, celebratory shots weren't fired, the army didn't march, speeches weren't delivered.in barely 32 minutes was declared the liberty of the nation subjugated for 1887 years."
Following Ben-Gurion's proclamation, Hatikva was played by the orchestra in the building's upper story (there wasn't room below) "and as the sounds descended from above, it was as if the heavens had opened up. Everyone stood silent, motionless and listened to the wondrous hymn, emanating from an unseen place."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710808000&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Jewish and democratic
The notion of a Jewish and democratic State of Israel is not a contradiction
Gadi Taub
Israel Opinion
YNET News
When David Ben-Gurion declared, 61 years ago, that “This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State,” the vast majority of those who viewed themselves as enlightened, progressive, peace-seeking, and committed to human rights wholeheartedly agreed with him. Yet this seemingly taken-for-granted notion is becoming increasingly less so. Increasingly, we can hear within Israel’s elites that “Jewish and democratic” is an inherent contradiction, because if the State is associated with only some of its citizens and not to others, this violates the principle of democratic equality.
The feeling that Zionism is illegitimate is spreading even more quickly abroad. Not only in Europe, but in the United States as well. Not too long ago, a friend of mine who is a professor at Columbia University told me that his Jewish students define their identity as follows: “Jewish, but not Zionist.”
How did we get there within six decades? How did a notion that earlier appeared to be democratic and progressive turned in the eyes of many into the exact opposite? Any answer should take into account at least two dramatic processes in the history of the state, one that came from the right side of the political map and another that came from the left: The first one is the increasing identification of Zionism with the settlement enterprise and the occupation regime, and the second one is the new usage of the language of civil rights in order to revoke fundamental democratic rights.
The first of these two is easily understood: The occupation is not, and cannot be, democratic. Therefore, if Zionism identifies with the settlements, Zionism isn’t democratic. Keeping millions of Arabs devoid of rights is a blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and of Zionism’s moral basis, the right of “each and every nation” to self-determination. Practically as well, the settlement enterprise threatens to eliminate Zionism and integrate it into a form of bi-nationalism.
Deceptive interpretation
On the Left as well, many have turned their backs on partition. The longer the occupation stayed in place, the more despaired the Left became. The contempt to the settlement enterprise turned into aversion to Israel and to the very Zionist idea. This leftist camp abandoned the Declaration of Independence and limited itself to a narrow and deceptive interpretation of the idea of individual rights.
It started dreaming of the “state of all its citizens” which is not premised on nationality, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which is seen as the home of individuals only rather than peoples, and where all individuals identify with the state equally. Equality would be full and democracy would be perfect. This is the view used by leftist intellectuals, hand in hand with the “Durban II” conference, to promote the notion that a Jewish state is a racist state.
Yet the simple truth is that the radical Left’s view is no more than self-deception: The State of Israel would stop being Jewish only if it ceases to be democratic. As long as it is home to a Jewish majority, this majority will choose the Shabbat as its day of rest, the Jewish holidays as its calendar, and Hebrew as its language.
This is the meaning of democracy: it is a mechanism for realizing the right for self-determination. It entrusts in the hands of citizens the right to shape their lives, and they will do it in line with their culture. The Palestinians will do the same should they choose democracy. And to that end, we need partition and we need two states, because we have two peoples here, not only individuals.
It is therefore appropriate that on Memorial Day and on Independence Day we return to the Declaration of Independence and remember that the right of every people for self-determination is the basis of Zionism. Those who attempt to prevent other people from determining their nationality – in the name of civil rights or the mitzvah of settling the land – are blatant enemies both of Zionism and of democracy.
Gadi Taub
Israel Opinion
YNET News
When David Ben-Gurion declared, 61 years ago, that “This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State,” the vast majority of those who viewed themselves as enlightened, progressive, peace-seeking, and committed to human rights wholeheartedly agreed with him. Yet this seemingly taken-for-granted notion is becoming increasingly less so. Increasingly, we can hear within Israel’s elites that “Jewish and democratic” is an inherent contradiction, because if the State is associated with only some of its citizens and not to others, this violates the principle of democratic equality.
The feeling that Zionism is illegitimate is spreading even more quickly abroad. Not only in Europe, but in the United States as well. Not too long ago, a friend of mine who is a professor at Columbia University told me that his Jewish students define their identity as follows: “Jewish, but not Zionist.”
How did we get there within six decades? How did a notion that earlier appeared to be democratic and progressive turned in the eyes of many into the exact opposite? Any answer should take into account at least two dramatic processes in the history of the state, one that came from the right side of the political map and another that came from the left: The first one is the increasing identification of Zionism with the settlement enterprise and the occupation regime, and the second one is the new usage of the language of civil rights in order to revoke fundamental democratic rights.
The first of these two is easily understood: The occupation is not, and cannot be, democratic. Therefore, if Zionism identifies with the settlements, Zionism isn’t democratic. Keeping millions of Arabs devoid of rights is a blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and of Zionism’s moral basis, the right of “each and every nation” to self-determination. Practically as well, the settlement enterprise threatens to eliminate Zionism and integrate it into a form of bi-nationalism.
Deceptive interpretation
On the Left as well, many have turned their backs on partition. The longer the occupation stayed in place, the more despaired the Left became. The contempt to the settlement enterprise turned into aversion to Israel and to the very Zionist idea. This leftist camp abandoned the Declaration of Independence and limited itself to a narrow and deceptive interpretation of the idea of individual rights.
It started dreaming of the “state of all its citizens” which is not premised on nationality, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which is seen as the home of individuals only rather than peoples, and where all individuals identify with the state equally. Equality would be full and democracy would be perfect. This is the view used by leftist intellectuals, hand in hand with the “Durban II” conference, to promote the notion that a Jewish state is a racist state.
Yet the simple truth is that the radical Left’s view is no more than self-deception: The State of Israel would stop being Jewish only if it ceases to be democratic. As long as it is home to a Jewish majority, this majority will choose the Shabbat as its day of rest, the Jewish holidays as its calendar, and Hebrew as its language.
This is the meaning of democracy: it is a mechanism for realizing the right for self-determination. It entrusts in the hands of citizens the right to shape their lives, and they will do it in line with their culture. The Palestinians will do the same should they choose democracy. And to that end, we need partition and we need two states, because we have two peoples here, not only individuals.
It is therefore appropriate that on Memorial Day and on Independence Day we return to the Declaration of Independence and remember that the right of every people for self-determination is the basis of Zionism. Those who attempt to prevent other people from determining their nationality – in the name of civil rights or the mitzvah of settling the land – are blatant enemies both of Zionism and of democracy.
What kind of 2 states?
Sara Eliash says that ‘two states for two peoples’ is an empty, deceptive leftist slogan
Israel Opinion
YNET News
We must admit that when it comes to demagoguery, the sophisticated Left is able to produce simple and catchy phrases. The fact that these slogans have nothing to do with the truth does not stop leftists from using them, knowing that most people won’t examine these catch-phrases too deeply. The slogans will get the job done. If they repeat the lie as many times as possible, perhaps people will ultimately be convinced. For example, the slogan “two states for two people - so simple and so catchy. Numbers that create a sense of credibility. Seemingly it doesn’t get any better than this. But let’s look a little deeper: Are the numbers credible?
How many states have been established in the area that used to be called Palestine-Land of Israel? Today there are two states there, Israel and Jordan. And how many peoples live in them? If we insist on distinguishing the Palestinian people from the overall Arab world, there are two peoples living in these two countries; after all, there is no such thing as the Jordanian people, as all learned experts would agree.
Indeed, most leftists I spoke with were unwilling to relate to this argument, claiming that it is no longer relevant, yet when one looks into a conflict and its possible solutions, one needs to take into account a historical range that goes further back than 40 years.
The state of Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite regime (which isn’t exactly democratic); it settled there with the help of the British army. The Brits handed over the east side of the Jordan River, which was part of the mandated Land of Israel, to the Emir Abdullah, who arrived from Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, there are already two states for two peoples at this time; the only thing that possibly still remains to be done is to hold a multinational conference and decide on dividing the area in a more equal and just manner – by boosting the size of the Jewish State at the expense of Jordan.
The Left’s attempt to limit the conflict to the period of time between the Six-Day War and our times, without the obligation to take into consideration the historical and geographical space, brought the disasters of terrorism and Qassam rockets. The Left’s disregard for the fact that every Arab child recites terms such as “right of return” is part of its attempt to reject reality.
Experiment has failed
What does the slogan “two states for two peoples” hide? In fact, we are talking about three states for two peoples, whereby we get roughly three-fourths of one country, as opposed to two and a quarter Arab states; that is, Jordan and a Palestinian state that possess 75% of the land area, and the dwarfed State of Israel, which is also home to an Arab irredenta with a hostile identity.
Another lie inherent in this simplistic slogan is the viability of establishing a Palestinian state. Ever since the Oslo Accords we have been tirelessly preoccupied with this illusion. We crowned the arch-terrorist Arafat, and later Holocaust-denier Abbas. While doing so we also managed to contribute to Hamas’ rise,we sustained more than 1,000 terror casualties, and we also saw thousands of Arabs murdered in internal conflicts. Anyone with eyes in their head understands that this experiment, which claimed the lives of our best people, has failed.
Hence, when you encounter this empty slogan, keep in mind that there were other such slogans in the past: “Peace Now” and “Peace is better than Greater Israel.” So where is this peace that leftists governments failed to bring during their terms in office? Perhaps, for a change, we should adopt an old rightist slogan that was never attempted as a policy: “Jordan is the Palestinian people’s state.”
Sara Eliash is the Yesha Council’s deputy chairwoman
Israel Opinion
YNET News
We must admit that when it comes to demagoguery, the sophisticated Left is able to produce simple and catchy phrases. The fact that these slogans have nothing to do with the truth does not stop leftists from using them, knowing that most people won’t examine these catch-phrases too deeply. The slogans will get the job done. If they repeat the lie as many times as possible, perhaps people will ultimately be convinced. For example, the slogan “two states for two people - so simple and so catchy. Numbers that create a sense of credibility. Seemingly it doesn’t get any better than this. But let’s look a little deeper: Are the numbers credible?
How many states have been established in the area that used to be called Palestine-Land of Israel? Today there are two states there, Israel and Jordan. And how many peoples live in them? If we insist on distinguishing the Palestinian people from the overall Arab world, there are two peoples living in these two countries; after all, there is no such thing as the Jordanian people, as all learned experts would agree.
Indeed, most leftists I spoke with were unwilling to relate to this argument, claiming that it is no longer relevant, yet when one looks into a conflict and its possible solutions, one needs to take into account a historical range that goes further back than 40 years.
The state of Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite regime (which isn’t exactly democratic); it settled there with the help of the British army. The Brits handed over the east side of the Jordan River, which was part of the mandated Land of Israel, to the Emir Abdullah, who arrived from Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, there are already two states for two peoples at this time; the only thing that possibly still remains to be done is to hold a multinational conference and decide on dividing the area in a more equal and just manner – by boosting the size of the Jewish State at the expense of Jordan.
The Left’s attempt to limit the conflict to the period of time between the Six-Day War and our times, without the obligation to take into consideration the historical and geographical space, brought the disasters of terrorism and Qassam rockets. The Left’s disregard for the fact that every Arab child recites terms such as “right of return” is part of its attempt to reject reality.
Experiment has failed
What does the slogan “two states for two peoples” hide? In fact, we are talking about three states for two peoples, whereby we get roughly three-fourths of one country, as opposed to two and a quarter Arab states; that is, Jordan and a Palestinian state that possess 75% of the land area, and the dwarfed State of Israel, which is also home to an Arab irredenta with a hostile identity.
Another lie inherent in this simplistic slogan is the viability of establishing a Palestinian state. Ever since the Oslo Accords we have been tirelessly preoccupied with this illusion. We crowned the arch-terrorist Arafat, and later Holocaust-denier Abbas. While doing so we also managed to contribute to Hamas’ rise,we sustained more than 1,000 terror casualties, and we also saw thousands of Arabs murdered in internal conflicts. Anyone with eyes in their head understands that this experiment, which claimed the lives of our best people, has failed.
Hence, when you encounter this empty slogan, keep in mind that there were other such slogans in the past: “Peace Now” and “Peace is better than Greater Israel.” So where is this peace that leftists governments failed to bring during their terms in office? Perhaps, for a change, we should adopt an old rightist slogan that was never attempted as a policy: “Jordan is the Palestinian people’s state.”
Sara Eliash is the Yesha Council’s deputy chairwoman
Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA
Jim Meyers
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security. The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.
Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.
“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.
See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now
“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.
“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.
“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.
“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.
“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.
“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.
“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.
“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”
Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.
“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.
“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.
“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.
“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.
“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.
“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.
“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”
Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.
“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.
“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”
Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m.
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security. The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.
Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.
“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.
See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now
“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.
“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.
“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.
“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.
“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.
“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.
“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.
“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”
Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.
“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.
“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.
“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.
“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.
“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.
“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.
“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”
Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.
“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.
“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”
Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.
“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”
Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m.
Israel worried over US move on PA gov't
Apr. 27, 2009
haviv rettig gur and hilary leila krieger , THE JERUSALEM POST
Senior Israeli officials said Monday they were "concerned" at the prospect that the US may approve funding for a Palestinian Authority government that includes Hamas. The concern arose after it became known that the Obama administration had asked Congress for minor changes in US law that would allow the continued provision of funds to the PA even if Hamas officials became part of a Palestinian unity government.
The Jerusalem Post has learned from a highly placed source that Israeli officials are very troubled by the possibility of US funds going to a government that includes Hamas.
"Israel would be very concerned about any international funding that reaches Hamas," a senior government official said on condition of anonymity.
Israel believes that a Fatah-Hamas unity government would be harmful first and foremost to the PA's current leadership. Officials also believe that Egypt, which is hosting unity talks between the two Palestinian factions, is making a mistake in trying to achieve a unity government. Such a government won't bring the Fatah-controlled PA to Gaza, but rather Hamas rule to the West Bank, officials say.
The Post reported Sunday that some congressional supporters of Israel were dismayed by the move, quoting Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) as telling US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a House hearing last week that it was akin to agreeing to support a government that "only has a few Nazis in it."
"You're going to lose this battle," Kirk warned the administration in a conversation with the Post Monday. He noted that key Democrats on the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee were also concerned about the changes the administration would like to see.
The Obama administration requested the changes this month as part of an $83.4 billion emergency spending bill that also includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $840 million for the PA and for rebuilding Gaza post-Operation Cast Lead, but the administration is trying to work out how to deliver the aid to Gaza in light of federal restrictions on dealing with Hamas.
US officials claimed that the new proposal didn't constitute recognition of Hamas or aiding to the group. Under law, any US aid would require that the PA government recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
Even if Hamas doesn't meet those criteria, the Obama administration wants to be able to provide aid to a Palestinian unity government, if one is established, as long as the government as a whole - including its Hamas-backed ministers - does.
Last week, speaking to the Appropriations Committee, Clinton indicated that the US would not necessarily cut funding to the Palestinians even if Hamas joined a unity government and failed to meet the three conditions, noting that the US continued to provide funds to Lebanon, whose government included Hizbullah.
"We are doing that because we think, on balance, it is in the interest of the United States," she said.
Clinton said that the US did not want to "bind our hands" in the event that a Hamas-Fatah unity agreement was reached, as long as "the government that they are part of agrees to our principles."
Capitol Hill sources are predicting a tough fight over the provision. In the end, they say, Congress could likely adopt vague language that would provide the administration more wiggle-room in dealing with the Palestinians, but not go as far as the current proposal.
Nita Lowey (D-New York), who chairs the foreign operations appropriations subcommittee, questioned Clinton about the authority she was seeking. Lowey just oversaw the passage of legislation - the 2009 budget - which stipulates that Hamas as a whole would have to embrace the Quartet principles before aid could go to a government it joined. The new formulation, which is part of the 2009 supplemental budget request, would weaken that requirement.
An aide to Lowey told the Post Monday she would continue to hold conversations with the administration and her colleagues over what formulation might be acceptable to "prevent terrorist organizations from [receiving money] while not binding the administration's hands as they try to forge a peace."
The administration has pointed to the benefits of greater flexibility for engaging with the Palestinians and encouraging a unity government to embrace the Quartet principles.
Analysts also say that because a PA unity government is unlikely to be formed - and even more unlikely to include an endorsement of the Quartet principles - the Obama administration sees such latitude as a means of sending the message that it's open to new possibilities without much risk that such new possibilities will materialize.
At the same time, many Washington pro-Israel groups are concerned that the message prioritizes forming a national unity government over the risks represented in including Hamas in any process, and are looking to Congress to keep the current limitation in place. One Jewish official tracking the issue said that for now, though, many of these organizations were taking a low profile because they didn't want to create waves with the Obama administration so early on over an issue that was still hypothetical.
However, Shoshana Bryen of the hawkish Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs had no reservations about stating that "you would be hard-pressed to find anybody who is concerned about the security of Israel who thinks that funding the Palestinian Authority in a way that almost assures money will end up in the hands of Hamas is a good idea."
She warned that the administration's formulation could allow weapons as well as money to get to the terrorist group.
Some more dovish Jewish groups, however, say that the strict limitation on the funding only came into place in the recent budget and that flexibility for the US is important to pursue peace efforts.
"Palestinian reconciliation is one important step that could make ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict diplomatically more likely - and American Jews and Israelis understand that," the J Street lobby said in a statement Monday. "The president's request attempts to open a small window to such reconciliation. We urge Congress - for Israel and America's sake - to join the president in this effort as well."
Ori Nir of Americans for Peace Now said that "this kind of rational approach toward Palestinian governance and Hamas partaking in it is long overdue."
Another concern raised in Israel is that a perceived US promise to fund a government that includes Hamas would undermine Fatah and legitimize the Islamist terrorist group without requiring that it abandon its goal of destroying Israel and join the peace process.
AP and Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710798021&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Now here is an Israel story that makes sense
Foreign journalists allege harassment at airport and elsewhere
Apr. 27, 2009
Greer Fay Cashman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Members of the Foreign Press Association in Israel are complaining of harassment and discrimination.
At the FPA's Annual General Meeting in Jerusalem on Monday, several journalists from different countries complained they had been harassed when they entered Israel via Ben-Gurion Airport or Eilat. Some said that they had been taken aside into a separate room for questioning and that the process sometimes took hours. They also cited difficulties in having work visas renewed, and one journalist, in Israel for several years, said she had almost been expelled but was fortunate enough to have the phone number of an interior ministry official who could help her.
Another journalist who has lived in Israel for even longer said that every time he returned to Israel from abroad he was questioned as if he were an enemy alien.
He also contended that the foreign press was treated as hostile.
Regarding discrimination, foreign journalists said that when they had to go to places with tight security, such as the Prime Minister's Office or residence, they always had to stand in line for a long time and their credentials, though issued by the Government Press Office, were double- and triple-checked, whereas Israeli journalists just sailed through without any trouble.
Some journalists were still fuming about having been denied access to Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
When The Jerusalem Post put these matters to GPO director Daniel Seaman, he said the office was no longer responsible for work permits and that all complaints should be directed to the Interior Ministry.
As for journalists being detained at the airport, Seaman regretted the inconvenience, but said that in today's security climate - not just in Israel, but all over the world - people had to understand that any security precautions were not of a personal nature and carried out on a whim, but were part of a general policy.
Seaman, a US citizen, said that whenever he went back to the US and authorities saw that his passport had been issued in Jerusalem, they would spend a long time questioning him. He said he did not regard the Americans as being hostile when they did this; it was part of a security-related process, and he accepted it as such.
He suggested that foreign journalists take a similar attitude.
Seaman said security reasons for detaining journalists at the airport could not always be elaborated on. It is the duty of airport security to ensure that journalists are not intentionally or unintentionally being used for espionage or sabotage.
Seaman challenged the FPA to prove to him that no journalist anywhere had ever been used for espionage.
With regard to treating foreign correspondents as hostile, Seaman dismissed this as a rash generalization, but said that when foreign journalists made derogatory remarks about Israel, they couldn't expect not to be answered in kind.
"My first duty is to the State of Israel," he said, explaining that he was not prepared to tolerate anyone besmirching the country's reputation.
On the issue of discrimination, Seaman said that all over the world, local press had an advantage over foreign press, and Israel was no exception.
While he understood the frustration of journalists who could not get into Gaza, he pointed out that in other parts of the world, the authorities also clamped down on allowing journalists into war zones, and there was no logic in singling out Israel for criticism when similar restrictions were being applied elsewhere.
Apr. 27, 2009
Greer Fay Cashman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Members of the Foreign Press Association in Israel are complaining of harassment and discrimination.
At the FPA's Annual General Meeting in Jerusalem on Monday, several journalists from different countries complained they had been harassed when they entered Israel via Ben-Gurion Airport or Eilat. Some said that they had been taken aside into a separate room for questioning and that the process sometimes took hours. They also cited difficulties in having work visas renewed, and one journalist, in Israel for several years, said she had almost been expelled but was fortunate enough to have the phone number of an interior ministry official who could help her.
Another journalist who has lived in Israel for even longer said that every time he returned to Israel from abroad he was questioned as if he were an enemy alien.
He also contended that the foreign press was treated as hostile.
Regarding discrimination, foreign journalists said that when they had to go to places with tight security, such as the Prime Minister's Office or residence, they always had to stand in line for a long time and their credentials, though issued by the Government Press Office, were double- and triple-checked, whereas Israeli journalists just sailed through without any trouble.
Some journalists were still fuming about having been denied access to Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
When The Jerusalem Post put these matters to GPO director Daniel Seaman, he said the office was no longer responsible for work permits and that all complaints should be directed to the Interior Ministry.
As for journalists being detained at the airport, Seaman regretted the inconvenience, but said that in today's security climate - not just in Israel, but all over the world - people had to understand that any security precautions were not of a personal nature and carried out on a whim, but were part of a general policy.
Seaman, a US citizen, said that whenever he went back to the US and authorities saw that his passport had been issued in Jerusalem, they would spend a long time questioning him. He said he did not regard the Americans as being hostile when they did this; it was part of a security-related process, and he accepted it as such.
He suggested that foreign journalists take a similar attitude.
Seaman said security reasons for detaining journalists at the airport could not always be elaborated on. It is the duty of airport security to ensure that journalists are not intentionally or unintentionally being used for espionage or sabotage.
Seaman challenged the FPA to prove to him that no journalist anywhere had ever been used for espionage.
With regard to treating foreign correspondents as hostile, Seaman dismissed this as a rash generalization, but said that when foreign journalists made derogatory remarks about Israel, they couldn't expect not to be answered in kind.
"My first duty is to the State of Israel," he said, explaining that he was not prepared to tolerate anyone besmirching the country's reputation.
On the issue of discrimination, Seaman said that all over the world, local press had an advantage over foreign press, and Israel was no exception.
While he understood the frustration of journalists who could not get into Gaza, he pointed out that in other parts of the world, the authorities also clamped down on allowing journalists into war zones, and there was no logic in singling out Israel for criticism when similar restrictions were being applied elsewhere.
Monday, April 27, 2009
When Hatemongering is Common Currency
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Ottawa Citizen, April 24, 2009 (online edition), April 27, 2009 (print edition)
The world reacted with outrage at the speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad at the Durban Review Conference on Racism in Geneva. European countries stormed out of his talk and released an array of statements condemning his words. But the real problem is not that an Ahmadinejad exists, or that he proudly and vociferously spews hatred against Jews and blames Zionism for the world's evils. The problem is that his views are anything but unique in the Muslim world.
Tragically, it seems that Western leaders are using Ahmadinejad as their radical Islamic whipping boy in order to content themselves that they are doing all they can to fight growing radical Islamic racism, its calls for a world without Israel and genocide of Jews, and its espousal of Holocaust denial.
In reality, the strong media and government reactions to Ahmadinejad's hate promotion serve only to highlight their hypocrisy in ignoring the same ideology when it's expressed by Arab leaders who have succeeded in making the Western world's list of "good guys."
Saudi King Abdullah - whom President George W. Bush kissed and to whom President Barack Obama bowed earlier this month -- has blamed Israel for terror attacks in Saudi Arabia: "We can be certain that Zionism is behind everything ... I don't say 100 percent, but 95 percent." [Saudi 1 Television, May 2, 2004]
Grade 9 children in Saudi Arabia are taught that "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees, until the rocks or the trees say, 'O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!"
Earlier this year, the head of the Department of Islamic Studies at Saud University pronounced that "Jews are the enemies of Allah." Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi also prayed for the extermination of all Jews: "Kill them one by one and don't leave even one." [Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Jan. 12, 2009.
It is the very existence of the Jews, not their actions or even their Zionism, that fuels the rhetoric of many Islamic political and religious leaders.
"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. . . . They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing," said Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub.
". . . You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth." [Al-Rahma TV (Egypt), Jan. 17, 2009]
Is this any different from Ahmadinejad's calls for a world without Israel?
And look at Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, depicted by the West as a moderate to whom Israel is supposed to offer statehood. But the TV channel directly controlled by Abbas's office regularly runs educational programs to teach Palestinian adults and children alike that there is no state called Israel, and that all Israel's land is actually "occupied Palestine."
Palestinian children are taught that Israeli cities throughout the entire country - from Haifa in the North, to Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv), to Eilat in the south, are all actually Palestinian cities. Videos feature songs about a "Palestine" that erases Israel and a future when the Israeli cities Jaffa and Haifa will be "liberated."
Hamas, which has convinced many Western leaders and journalists that it spends more time building schools than bombing civilians, broadcast a sermon earlier this month depicting the Jews as enemies of humanity, inherently evil, seeking to rule the world and a dangerous threat to Muslims.
"The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth." [Hamas (Al-Aqsa) TV, April 3, 2009]
boy actorWhy is Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial so passionately denounced when Palestinian Holocaust denial is so utterly ignored? Hamas TV broadcast a special documentary last year, explaining that the Holocaust was a Zionist scheme to rid the world of elderly and handicapped, and to gain world sympathy. Fatah's PA TV broadcast a children's program that said explicitly that Israel burned Palestinians in ovens. (Click to view)
So why is Abbas presented as a peace partner, Egypt as a peace broker and Abdullah as a friend of the West? Why does the world not react with outrage to calls for "extermination" of Jews from anyone other than Ahmadinejad?
If the West is serious about peace, then all hatred must be condemned. And we must recognize that the real enemies of peace are not only the Ahmadinejads of the world, but the "friends" who have mastered the doublespeak of calling for peace in English while inciting hatred in Arabic.
Updated twice: The Unbearable Lightness of Wishful Thinking: Ahmadinejad and the "Two-State Solution"
The Rubin Report
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/unbearable-lightness-of-wishful.html
Unfortunately, as I predicted, Western newspapers like the Daily Telegraph are now reporting that Ahmadinejad is ready to accept a two-state solution. Like much of what happens in the Middle East, this would be worthy satire if it weren't so tragic. Iran's president has now made a significant gain in appearing "moderate" despite his Durban-2 speech (one should not overstate this, of course). Incidentally, although I feel the points I make below are sufficient to show what Ahmadinejad actually said, I could add one more point to be considered: he is capable of lying, too, hard as that might be to conceive (irony alert). Yes, you see. Here is the headlines in Canada for April 27:
Toronto Globe & Mail: "Iran prepared to back Palestinian deal with Israel, Ahmadinejad
National Post: "Iranian president appears to recognize Israel's right to exist for first time" (!)
And Agence France Presse: "Iran `Ready to Back Mideast Peace Deal`"
Congratulations, the conflict is over! Ahmadinejad isn't a radical, aggressive Islamist and Holocaust denier but a peacenik! [irony alert] Next step: Soon they will be asking, Since Iran's leader is so willing to make peace why doesn't Israel make lots of unilateral concessions? [intense irony alert]
Come to think of it, Ahmadinejad refuses to accept two-state solution and is cheered as having done so; Israel's government repeatedly endorses two-state solution and is accused of not doing so!
No wonder Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country is the current president of the EU states that the organization "underestimates the Iranian threat."
As always, one can only quote Shakespeare, one of the world's greatest political analysts:
"Shall we their fond pageant see?
Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Here is the original text of my blog item:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC. He knew what he was saying but others want to insist on refusing to understand him.
First the relevant exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide….
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that's fine.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel's existence, Iran will as well?
AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask them. But I'm asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?....
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.
And how did the Israeli online service of Yediot Aharnot newspaper, YNet News, play this? Here’s the headline: “”Ahmadinejad 'fine' with two-state solution.”
Well, not exactly. He refused to say that. All Ahmadinejad said was that he would support what the Palestinian people decided. What does that mean?
First, he personally believes that they would never accept a two-state solution so there’s nothing to worry about in that respect.
Second, of course, he knows that Hamas would never agree to such a thing and Hamas already controls how people vote in the Gaza Strip. One might presume that if a referendum was held there, the vote would be “100 percent” against a two-state solution. In addition, Hamas and others opposing a two-state solution would get between 30 and 70 percent of votes in the West Bank. A lot of Fatah supporters would also vote against it. The exact numbers aren’t important because whether the number is the higher or lower figure such a proposition would always be defeated.
Third, any two-state solution would only be made by Fatah. Iran supports Hamas. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority were to make a deal with Israel, Tehran would still back Hamas in overthrowing that government, using the deal to portray its rival as treasonous. Once Hamas took over the state of Palestine, it would tear up all the agreements and invite in the Iranian military.
So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.
But Ahmadinejad also put a little bomb in the interview which no one seems to notice. Let me repeat one of his answers:
AHMADINEJAD; “Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?“
What’s he saying here? “All Palestinian lands” might sound like saying the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem to Western ears, but everyone in Iran and among the Palestinians knows this means: all of Israel plus all the territories it captured in 1967.
So here’s what the Iranian president is saying: Suppose the Palestinians vote that they want all of Israel, would the United States accept that? The answer, of course, is “no” and so, Ahmadinejad is saying: I’m the one in favor of democracy and you’re against it.
(According to him, of course, Israelis have no rights to a state so they don’t get to vote.)
Ahmadinejad has built his own career on regarding the West as extremely stupid, cowardly, and easy to fool. Many or most of his colleagues in the Iranian regime agree with him.
I could write at this point that the one exception was when in the mid-1980s the United States was appearing ready to attack Iran unless it ended the Iran-Iraq war. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did so but I think he was misreading American intentions (albeit to the credit of U.S. policymakers in pulling off that bluff).
Still, I’m tempted to say that up to now that the Iranian leaders’ assumption has never proven to be wrong.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/unbearable-lightness-of-wishful.html
Unfortunately, as I predicted, Western newspapers like the Daily Telegraph are now reporting that Ahmadinejad is ready to accept a two-state solution. Like much of what happens in the Middle East, this would be worthy satire if it weren't so tragic. Iran's president has now made a significant gain in appearing "moderate" despite his Durban-2 speech (one should not overstate this, of course). Incidentally, although I feel the points I make below are sufficient to show what Ahmadinejad actually said, I could add one more point to be considered: he is capable of lying, too, hard as that might be to conceive (irony alert). Yes, you see. Here is the headlines in Canada for April 27:
Toronto Globe & Mail: "Iran prepared to back Palestinian deal with Israel, Ahmadinejad
National Post: "Iranian president appears to recognize Israel's right to exist for first time" (!)
And Agence France Presse: "Iran `Ready to Back Mideast Peace Deal`"
Congratulations, the conflict is over! Ahmadinejad isn't a radical, aggressive Islamist and Holocaust denier but a peacenik! [irony alert] Next step: Soon they will be asking, Since Iran's leader is so willing to make peace why doesn't Israel make lots of unilateral concessions? [intense irony alert]
Come to think of it, Ahmadinejad refuses to accept two-state solution and is cheered as having done so; Israel's government repeatedly endorses two-state solution and is accused of not doing so!
No wonder Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country is the current president of the EU states that the organization "underestimates the Iranian threat."
As always, one can only quote Shakespeare, one of the world's greatest political analysts:
"Shall we their fond pageant see?
Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Here is the original text of my blog item:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC. He knew what he was saying but others want to insist on refusing to understand him.
First the relevant exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide….
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that's fine.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel's existence, Iran will as well?
AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask them. But I'm asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?....
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.
And how did the Israeli online service of Yediot Aharnot newspaper, YNet News, play this? Here’s the headline: “”Ahmadinejad 'fine' with two-state solution.”
Well, not exactly. He refused to say that. All Ahmadinejad said was that he would support what the Palestinian people decided. What does that mean?
First, he personally believes that they would never accept a two-state solution so there’s nothing to worry about in that respect.
Second, of course, he knows that Hamas would never agree to such a thing and Hamas already controls how people vote in the Gaza Strip. One might presume that if a referendum was held there, the vote would be “100 percent” against a two-state solution. In addition, Hamas and others opposing a two-state solution would get between 30 and 70 percent of votes in the West Bank. A lot of Fatah supporters would also vote against it. The exact numbers aren’t important because whether the number is the higher or lower figure such a proposition would always be defeated.
Third, any two-state solution would only be made by Fatah. Iran supports Hamas. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority were to make a deal with Israel, Tehran would still back Hamas in overthrowing that government, using the deal to portray its rival as treasonous. Once Hamas took over the state of Palestine, it would tear up all the agreements and invite in the Iranian military.
So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.
But Ahmadinejad also put a little bomb in the interview which no one seems to notice. Let me repeat one of his answers:
AHMADINEJAD; “Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?“
What’s he saying here? “All Palestinian lands” might sound like saying the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem to Western ears, but everyone in Iran and among the Palestinians knows this means: all of Israel plus all the territories it captured in 1967.
So here’s what the Iranian president is saying: Suppose the Palestinians vote that they want all of Israel, would the United States accept that? The answer, of course, is “no” and so, Ahmadinejad is saying: I’m the one in favor of democracy and you’re against it.
(According to him, of course, Israelis have no rights to a state so they don’t get to vote.)
Ahmadinejad has built his own career on regarding the West as extremely stupid, cowardly, and easy to fool. Many or most of his colleagues in the Iranian regime agree with him.
I could write at this point that the one exception was when in the mid-1980s the United States was appearing ready to attack Iran unless it ended the Iran-Iraq war. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did so but I think he was misreading American intentions (albeit to the credit of U.S. policymakers in pulling off that bluff).
Still, I’m tempted to say that up to now that the Iranian leaders’ assumption has never proven to be wrong.
Recognition of 'Jewish state' is crucial
J Post staff
The Foreign Ministry on Monday evening responded to remarks made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who said that he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and stressed that Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of the country is a crucial step in the peace process. "Recognizing Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people is a crucial and necessary stage in the historical reconciliation process between Israelis and the Palestinians," the ministry said in a statement. "The sooner the Palestinians internalize this basic fact, the sooner the peace between our nations will progress."
Earlier Monday, Abbas delivered a tough speech on peace-making, rejecting Israeli demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying it was not his job to define the state of Israel.
"Name yourself, it's not my business," he said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept," said Abbas.
The PA president also stated that Israel was defined by the borders it had before the Six Day War and no more.
In previous talks, negotiators had discussed the idea of a land swap that would enable Israel to keep some West Bank land.
Abbas also said Monday that a complete settlement freeze was a prerequisite for resuming talks and that he would not give in to possible Israeli or international pressure on the Palestinians to resume negotiations even if such construction continues.
"For sure, we won't submit to pressures. For example, if they say 'come and then we'll see, come.' No, we won't accept. Regarding the peace talks, this is our position, even if someone, if anyone in the world, says 'you're wrong,'" he said.
The Palestinian leader's comments drew an angry response from Israel. "This is more evidence that the Palestinians are not interested in true peace with Israel," Likud MK Ofer Akunis said.
On Sunday evening, Abbas urged the United States to push Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government into accelerating the peace process.
Speaking to a Jordanian television station, Abbas questioned the US commitment to peace in the Middle East and warned Israel that if it refuses to make peace with the Palestinian people, it will be responsible for destabilizing the security and politics of the entire region.
The Foreign Ministry on Monday evening responded to remarks made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who said that he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and stressed that Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of the country is a crucial step in the peace process. "Recognizing Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people is a crucial and necessary stage in the historical reconciliation process between Israelis and the Palestinians," the ministry said in a statement. "The sooner the Palestinians internalize this basic fact, the sooner the peace between our nations will progress."
Earlier Monday, Abbas delivered a tough speech on peace-making, rejecting Israeli demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying it was not his job to define the state of Israel.
"Name yourself, it's not my business," he said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept," said Abbas.
The PA president also stated that Israel was defined by the borders it had before the Six Day War and no more.
In previous talks, negotiators had discussed the idea of a land swap that would enable Israel to keep some West Bank land.
Abbas also said Monday that a complete settlement freeze was a prerequisite for resuming talks and that he would not give in to possible Israeli or international pressure on the Palestinians to resume negotiations even if such construction continues.
"For sure, we won't submit to pressures. For example, if they say 'come and then we'll see, come.' No, we won't accept. Regarding the peace talks, this is our position, even if someone, if anyone in the world, says 'you're wrong,'" he said.
The Palestinian leader's comments drew an angry response from Israel. "This is more evidence that the Palestinians are not interested in true peace with Israel," Likud MK Ofer Akunis said.
On Sunday evening, Abbas urged the United States to push Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government into accelerating the peace process.
Speaking to a Jordanian television station, Abbas questioned the US commitment to peace in the Middle East and warned Israel that if it refuses to make peace with the Palestinian people, it will be responsible for destabilizing the security and politics of the entire region.
‘Secret’ Terrorist Attack
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
An Arab terrorist shot more than a dozen bullets at six Jews riding in car in the southern Hevron Hills last Wednesday, but the media totally ignored the incident. Israel National News learned of the incident from a student whose father was in the targeted car. The attack occurred on Highway 60, several miles southwest of Hevron. No one was injured, and the terrorists, possibly with the aide of a waiting driver, escaped to the nearby village of Samoa.
Yehoshua Rosenfeld, director of education for the Hevron Hills Regional Council, said he had left the nearby community of Otniel with the head of the region’s pre-school facilities along with four hitchhikers.
“At exactly 4:02 p.m., as we approached the road to Samoa, there was a burst of gunfire," he said. "Everyone instinctively ducked for cover, and I stomped on the gas pedal. After about a minute, I stopped the car and blocked the opposite lane so no one would drive in the terrorist’s path.”
Rosenfeld and his passengers were not wounded, and he did not see any damage to the car. But soldiers later discovered 14-15 bullet shells less than 100 feet from the road. A large number of troops, including the commanding officer of the Hevron Brigade, arrived at the scene within several minutes.
One of the passengers said she thought she saw a car waiting for the terrorist. An army spokesman said the incident is under security and intelligence wraps, however, and no further details may be published.
Unanswered questions include whether the terrorist acted alone or was a part of a cell, and whether he arrived by foot or used a road to Samoa that until the last year had been closed by the IDF for security reasons.
Two weeks earlier a lone terrorist armed with a knife infiltrated the community of Beit Haggai. The would-be attacker was shot dead by the local first-response team before he could carry out his plan. At the beginning of the month, an axe-wielding terrorist murdered a young boy and wounded another in an attack on the Judean community of Bat Ayin, located in western Gush Etzion.
The suspect in the Bat Ayin murder was arrested on Sunday, but none of the other terrorists has been caught.
he said it AGAIN: Abbas Refuses Jewish Israel
Malkah Fleisher Abbas Refuses Jewish Israel
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas openly refused Monday to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. The statement came as a direct slap against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's insistence that such an acknowledgement is a necessary condition for "progress" in final-status talks. An uproar ensued in the PA two weeks ago following an initial statement by Netanyahu aides in which it appeared the prime minister had issued an ultimatum, with PA officials calling Netanyahu's insistence on this basic understanding a "provocation" and promising a "poisonous effect" on the Israel-PA relationship. Netanyahu later clarified that recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people was a necessary component for progress in negotiations with the PA, although it would not prevent the initiation of the talks.
This is the first time since Netanyahu's statement on the matter that Abbas has publicly rejected the notion of Israel as a Jewish State.
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Abbas asked at a speech Monday in Ramallah. "You can call yourselves what you want, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."
The Ramallah-based Abbas government has been propped up by the United States and Israel since the PA's first democratic election in 2006, in which the Hamas terrorist organization won almost twice the number of parliamentary seats as Fatah. Both Israel and the United States rejected the election results, and instituted Fatah leader Abbas as PA "President," calling him a "moderate" alternative to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus.
Israel has also thwarted several assassination attempts on Abbas by providing intelligence to Ramallah-based PA officials before the attempts could take place.
Abbas will meet for talks in Washington, D.C. with U.S. President Barack Obama on May 28, 10 days after Netanyahu meets with the American president, according to the Jordan Times.
Comments by Aggie:It is infuriating that Abbas, who has been supported by millions and billions of dollars from the US, Israel, and the EU, should refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Surely his solution for a Two State Solution is not two Arab or Muslim states? And the US and world community remain silent in the face of this absolute racist approach, while demanding that Israel cede control of Judea and Samaria and divide Jerusalem. And of course, the money will continue to flow to Abbas and even Hamas in Gaza.
The position of King Abudullah of Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, is not substantially different. On Sunday, he repeatedly stated on Meet the Press that the entire problem in the Middle East is the failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Good King was clearly ignoring the Hamas, Hizballah and PA charters and manifestos which call for the destruction of Israel. As far as he is concerned, there will be another war and it is up to Israel to prevent it, by agreeing to divide Jerusalem. Yet, it was his father who illegally occupied Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, destroying all Jewish synagogues and cemeteries and forbidding any Jew to enter Jerusalem. That was never a problem.
What a swell neighborhood Israel lives in. Even its peaceful neighbors wish it ill.
--
Best,
Aggie
"We Remember"
Arlene Kushner
When the siren sounds tonight at 8:00 across the nation, we will begin Yom HaZikaron --the Day of Remembrance -- and we will pay tribute to all those who have fallen for Israel. It is because of our soldiers that we stand as a nation, and their sacrifices are keenly felt. A national ceremony will be held at the Kotel (Western Wall). Tomorrow at 10:00 AM another siren will sound, and people all over Israel will stop what they are doing and stand silently in honor of the fallen.
~~~~~~~~~~
So far, so good. Very good indeed.
Now Minister of Strategic Affairs (and former chief of staff) Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon has given an interview to the Jerusalem Post. Among the points he made:
-- President Obama must set a time frame and benchmarks for his negotiations with Iran, or else they will use the dialogue to stall for time as they move towards nuclear capacity.
"What is happening between the Western world and the Islamic jihadists of Iran is a process that is built on previous surrenders and concessions," he said. "What the West needs to do is stand up against this wave and confront it."
If the US wants to hold dialogue with Iran, it must do so while holding the "stick of military pressure."
As to whether Israel is capable of an effective strike against Iranian facilities on her own, Yaalon replied:
"We need to hope that the job will be done by someone else and at the same time, as the Talmudic sage Hillel said, 'If I am not for myself who will be?'"
-- He dismissed Hillary Clinton's statement regarding Israel's loss of support from Arab nations for action against Iran if we don't negotiate with the Palestinians as "superficial."
"I believe that this whole idea is wrong at its core."
-- As to the negotiations with the Palestinians, he stressed the PA's refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, so that even at Annapolis Abbas refused to include the phrase "two states for two peoples" in a joint declaration. (see below)
"That is why the prime minister says that we want them to recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state," he said. "This right does not depend on them [important that he clarified this!] but if they don't recognize it then there is nothing to talk about."
He rejects the Saudi plan: "From our perspective, the pre-1967 borders are not defensible. To go onto this track is dangerous."
[Note: the idea that the 1967 armistice lines were "borders" is so thoroughly ingrained in the public discourse, per the constant prodding of Palestinian PR, that even Ya'alon, who rejects return to those lines, refers to "borders."]
What the government, which is close to completing its assessment, favors, Yaalon said, is a "bottoms up" approach. This means that before anything else happens the PA has to institute serious educational, political, security and economic reforms.
This is the only thing that remotely makes sense. But Obama -- who wants to impose a Palestinian state by tomorrow, damn whether it can be a successful state -- is not going to like it.
~~~~~~~~~~
The enormous irony of the US desire for talks with Iran without preconditions is that Ahmadinejad is calling for "a clear cut framework" and a "clear agenda" in talks with the Americans. This means he wants control over what will be discussed. In fact, in an ABC "This Week" interview yesterday, he said that the nuclear program was a "special issue":
"We think that the nuclear issue needs to be resolved in the context of the agency and regulations. We are just utilizing our legal rights."
Sounds to me as if he's telling the Americans that he'll be happy to talk, but not about nuclear development. Rather puts the ball in Obama's court, I think.
~~~~~~~~~~
Never let it be said that we don't have friends (at least in some contexts). Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini proudly expresses a sense of commitment to Israel, and says that the Italian boycott of Durban 2 was required.
"...We could not participate in an event where, once again, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was manipulated and Israel labeled a racist nation, as happened in 2001. The events of [last] Monday afternoon [Ahmadinejad's talk] confirmed that foresight."
Frattini says there were three key issues in the proposed document for the conference that were of concern to Italy: approval of the Durban 2001 document, which singled out Israel; insufficient treatment of the Holocaust; and motions aimed at limiting freedom of expression regarding criticism of religions and their followers.
"An international forum on a crucial issue such as racism cannot be exploited to attack Israel," he declared. "The EU displayed political weakness and lost an occasion for expressing unity."
~~~~~~~~~~
In point of fact, the Durban 2 conference was not quite the disaster that had been anticipated -- did not have the horrific tenor of the first conference, where virulently anti-Israel groups demonstrated and documents where produced that charged Israel with every evil under the sun.
Satisfactory? Productive for the sake of human rights? Of course not. But this time we were prepared, and the willingness of several states to pull out (in part as the result of intense Israeli diplomatic effort) undercut the legitimacy of the proceedings.
My own opinion is that the organizers overplayed their hand; to have Ahmadinejad as key note speaker at a human rights conference is nothing short of farcical. Who but states such as Libya and Cuba could find him acceptable?
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay added to the sense of farce when she concluded the conference on Friday by calling it "a celebration of tolerance and dignity for all."
So much for what we can expect from the UN. Frattini recalled a former American proposal (I believe it was by John Bolton) that Western democracies form a separate coalition.
~~~~~~~~~~
Precisely what has gotten into King Abdullah of Jordan?
In the US, he met with President Obama and called for serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians based on the concept of two states. Then, on the "Meet the Press" television show yesterday, he referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the "core issue" of the Middle East. Not only is he advocating strenuously for a Palestinian state, he has suggested that one of the main reasons that Iran is working towards nuclear development is because Palestinians are suffering and there is the matter of Jerusalem [which is in Israeli hands].
Now, really... If you know the ideology of the Mullahs in Iran, and their goal of controlling the entire region in order to impose Shiite Islam, and you know that the US is referred to as the Big Satan, you know that a whole lot more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict occupies them.
But see for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30418412#30418412 (Thanks, Bob H.)
Until not long ago it was well known in intelligence circles that Abdullah preferred Israel at his border rather than a PA state. What he feared was a Hamas take-over that would cause instability in his nation. And now?
I'm not sure how to read him. Is he playing to Obama (very likely)? Afraid that Netanyahu might propose a federation of Palestinian areas with Jordan?
~~~~~~~~~~
Pope Benedict XVI is coming to Israel on May 16, and the signals about what is likely to transpire when he's here are not positive. He is scheduled to visit Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem -- as well as the nearby al-Aida UNRWA refugee camp, where he will preach.
Fouad Twal, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Holy Land, said yesterday that the camp "symbolizes the refugees' suffering and their right of return." Their right of return?
According to YNet, the stage hosting the Pope was supposed to be built in a school yard, but Palestinians violated an agreement regarding this with Israel (which controls the area) and built the stage instead near the security fence. A demolition order has been issued and the stage is supposed to be re-built.
Insisted Twal: "The fence will be seen from the location of the pope's seat."
In due course there will be more to say on this issue.
~~~~~~~~~~
PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave an impassioned speech in Ramallah today:
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly," he declared.
Accepting a "Jewish state" would mean relinquishing the "right of return" -- which is, in fact, a device for ensuring an Arab majority inside Israel, and which has been promoted among the people as a sacred and inalienable right. The current Palestinian position is not "two states for two people," but ultimately "two states for one people."
"All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."
The Palestinians would have not only Har Habayit -- the Temple Mount -- but also the Kotel, with no sharing.
He further said that there will be no negotiations unless Netanyahu puts a total freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, something Netanyahu has said he does not intend to do.
No negotiations? That's fine.
Netanyahu's tough choices
Benjamin Netanyahu discovering that things look different from Prime Minister’s Office
Eitan Haber
Israel Opinion
The legends of Israeli politics, which tend to become better with the passage of years, include the story of a meeting that took place a decade ago between US President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As the legend goes, following the meeting Clinton turned to his advisors and asked: “Tell me, which one here is the president of the US?” And to those who failed to understand what he meant, he explained: “He spoke to me as if he was the president of the world’s greatest superpower.” This legend was probably appreciated by those who are preoccupied with national pride. “This is how an Israeli prime minister should be talking,” they whispered to themselves with great pleasure.
Whether this story is true or merely a political myth, we should hope and believe that in the 10 years that have passed since then, Netanyahu learned plenty and has indeed changed, as he claims. When he arrives at the White House in May, President Obama will not be stunned. We should assume that everything would be prepared and clear to the president, his close aides, and the secretary of state by then.
One should not be jealous of Netanyahu. Obama will ask him, just like President Johnson asked late PM Levi Eshkol, what kind of State of Israel do you want? And should Netanyahu attempt to recycle diplomatic initiatives, Obama will show him the paper bin below his desk at the Oval Office. If Obama has a sense of humor (or alternately, a Jewish advisor,) he would say something in Yiddish about the “cold noodles,” and send the Israeli prime minister to prepare different answers for their next meeting.
Netanyahu apparently knows this. Therefore, there are leaks from his direction in recent days about “preparations,” and “new diplomatic plans,” as well as hints that “Netanyahu understands the issue of two states for two peoples.” I’m guessing that at this time Netanyahu is going through the process that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir (to a lesser extent,) Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Tzipi Livni went through before.
Will he make history?
Before he made it to the Prime Minister’s Office, Netanyahu had the privilege of talking without knowing too much. In the past two or three weeks he sat at his office, heard briefings, and was presented with amazing and difficult information regarding the State of Israel’s strategic, security, economic, and diplomatic position. Apparently, he discovered that speeches are one thing but reality is an entirely different thing. Dreams of generations and an ideology he innocently believed in, as well as thoughts he’s been having for years, are no longer commensurate with reality.
Yet when Netanyahu closes his eyes for a moment, he sees his father, Bentzion, who doesn’t believe in peace, and Lieberman, and his government and party colleagues, and the education he received at home, and the hundreds of thousands of people who believed in Jabotinsky’s doctrine for generations.
And now he needs to decide who he should fear more. Daniela Weiss and her friends or the Iranian bomb? His father who is waiting at home, or Obama who is waiting at the White House? The two-state solution, or the notion that the entire land belongs to us?
Netanyahu is into his second term as prime minister also (but not only) in order to make history with a historical deed. For him, the most important moment in his life as prime minister is approaching. This moment can be postponed to another visit or conversation, but it shall arrive.
In the hallway near his office, there are photos of all of Israel’s prime ministers, including Begin and Sharon, Rabin and Olmert, who changed their principled positioned completely. Now is Netanyahu’s time: Will history books be written about him, or will his name only be mentioned in the footnotes of those same books?
Thank YNET News
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Axe-Murderer Caught
Hillel Fendel Axe-Murderer Caught
It has now been released for publication that the axe-wielding murderer of 13-year-old Shlomo Nativ in Bat Ayin just over two weeks ago was arrested only a few days later. The terrorist, Mustafa Teet, 26, of an Arab village near Gush Etzion, has confessed to the murder and to the wounding of 7-year-old Yair Gamliel. He said he wished to die as a “shahid,” a holy martyr.
On Thursday, April 9, Teet entered the Jewish town of Bat Ayin in Gush Etzion. He approached a group of children who were playing outside, and proceeded to attack them with an axe. Shlomo barely managed to stagger back home, where he died of his wounds, while the terrorist continued to attack one other child and attempt to do the same to a third. A local man tried to take the axe from the terrorist, suffering wounds in the process, but the terrorist escaped.
Five days later, Shabak (General Security Service) agents apprehended him.
Yair Gamliel, wounded in the attack, is the son of Ofer Gamliel, who is serving a harsh 15-year-sentence for involvement in an attempted bombing of an Arab girls’ school. He has not been granted many of the privileges, including vacation rights, given to other prisoners, and was barely allowed to visit his wounded son. Upon hearing the news of the attack, he was taken in leg-cuffs to the hospital to see him.
The terrorist, though he expected to die in the attack, continued to live his life normally afterwards. A will he wrote before the attack is part of the evidence against him.
Palestinian terrorism targeting the Jews of Judea and Samaria has been on an upswing over the past three weeks. Recent incidents include, in addition to the murder in Bat Ayin:
* The running-over of two policemen at the Hizme checkpoint north of Jerusalem;
* the attempt to throw a Molotov cocktail at Beit El (an incident that ended with the death of one terrorist and the escape of two others, including one who was wounded);
* a bomb placed outside Dolev;
* the arrest of an attempted infiltrator into Elon Moreh;
* the arrest of a terrorist who entered a Jewish home in Hevron
Ministry Mulls Judean Expansion
Avraham Zuroff Ministry Mulls Judean Expansion
A special committee of the Interior Ministry has recommended the annexation of the Yesha [Judea and Sama community of Keidar to Maaleh Adumim, a city three kilometers away. The annexation would add another 12,000 dunam (nearly 3,000 acres) to the municipality. The Interior Ministry decided to make its recommendations in a recent report, despite U.S. objections to Jewish settling within Judea and Samaria. Keidar’s 800 residents would receive most of its municipal benefits from the neighboring Maaleh Adumim, located 7 km (4.5 miles) east of Jerusalem, on the edge of the Judean desert.
The High Court is currently deliberating where to place the security barrier in the Maaleh Adumim region. The Court will have to consider the Ministry’s new recommendations.
The Interior Ministry report calls for the annexation of additional land to Maaleh Adumim, along with plans to build another 6,000 housing units. However, Ministry officials stated Sunday that the recommendations require approval by Interior Minister Eli Yishai. The Ministry regards the decision’s political ramifications as “minor, if at all.”
In response, Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer stated that the Ministry decision has important political ramifications. “The government is attempting to use the term ‘settlements blocs’ in order to annex isolated settlements like Keidar to the State of Israel’s territory, and move the separation fence routes along the way,” Oppenheimer stated. “According to this logic, [the Arab-populated city o Ramallah will soon be able to be annexed with the assertion that it is a neighborhood within Maaleh Adumim.”
Maaleh Adumim’s mayor, Benny Kashriel, rejects Oppenheimer’s claims. “According to the decision of the Sharon and Olmert government, Keidar is within the fence,” he responded. “The attempt by people from the leftwing to remove it from the fence is against all understandings between Israel and the Americans in the Road Map agreement."
The Jerusalem suburb of Maaleh Adumim is mentioned in the Book of Joshua 15:7: “The boundary [of the tribe of Juda ascended from the Valley of Achor to Debir and turned north to Gilgal, facing Maaleh [Ascent o Adumim which is south of the wadi.” Maaleh Adumim, literally “red heights,” takes its name from the red rock lining the ascent from the Dead Sea, and from the Biblical Edomite nation.
Thanks A7 News
A special committee of the Interior Ministry has recommended the annexation of the Yesha [Judea and Sama community of Keidar to Maaleh Adumim, a city three kilometers away. The annexation would add another 12,000 dunam (nearly 3,000 acres) to the municipality. The Interior Ministry decided to make its recommendations in a recent report, despite U.S. objections to Jewish settling within Judea and Samaria. Keidar’s 800 residents would receive most of its municipal benefits from the neighboring Maaleh Adumim, located 7 km (4.5 miles) east of Jerusalem, on the edge of the Judean desert.
The High Court is currently deliberating where to place the security barrier in the Maaleh Adumim region. The Court will have to consider the Ministry’s new recommendations.
The Interior Ministry report calls for the annexation of additional land to Maaleh Adumim, along with plans to build another 6,000 housing units. However, Ministry officials stated Sunday that the recommendations require approval by Interior Minister Eli Yishai. The Ministry regards the decision’s political ramifications as “minor, if at all.”
In response, Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer stated that the Ministry decision has important political ramifications. “The government is attempting to use the term ‘settlements blocs’ in order to annex isolated settlements like Keidar to the State of Israel’s territory, and move the separation fence routes along the way,” Oppenheimer stated. “According to this logic, [the Arab-populated city o Ramallah will soon be able to be annexed with the assertion that it is a neighborhood within Maaleh Adumim.”
Maaleh Adumim’s mayor, Benny Kashriel, rejects Oppenheimer’s claims. “According to the decision of the Sharon and Olmert government, Keidar is within the fence,” he responded. “The attempt by people from the leftwing to remove it from the fence is against all understandings between Israel and the Americans in the Road Map agreement."
The Jerusalem suburb of Maaleh Adumim is mentioned in the Book of Joshua 15:7: “The boundary [of the tribe of Juda ascended from the Valley of Achor to Debir and turned north to Gilgal, facing Maaleh [Ascent o Adumim which is south of the wadi.” Maaleh Adumim, literally “red heights,” takes its name from the red rock lining the ascent from the Dead Sea, and from the Biblical Edomite nation.
Thanks A7 News
The Genocide Mechanism
PMW director Itamar Marcus was in Geneva during the UN Durban II conference and counter-conferences last week, and writes about how ordinary people can be convinced to participate in genocide.
Demonized Israeli eating Palestinian childSurvivors of the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur spoke in Geneva this week at the parallel conference on human rights to counter the UN Durban II event.Listening to them describe how they were systematically demonized by the killers made it clear that genocide does not happen in a vacuum. The hate condition of a population willing and anxious to commit genocide needs nurturing. Genocide must be framed positively to get the necessary broad public support.
Common to the framing of all genocide is a very specific kind of demonization. In Rwanda, the Hutus taught that the Tutsis were cockroaches and snakes. Tutsi women were portrayed as cunning seductresses who used beauty and sexual power to conquer the Hutus. In Bosnia, a fictitious news report said Muslims were feeding Serb children to animals at the Sarajevo zoo. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a warning that Hutus were about to be attacked by Tutsis, to convince the Hutus that they needed to attack first to protect themselves.
This demonization included two specific components. First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense. Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.
A decent person will not join in a murder of innocents, but a decent person might join in the killing of a subhuman who is threatening his very existence. Framing genocide as self-defense can turn decent people into killers. Protection of children and family can turn a calm neighbor into a passionate murderer, because self-defense is always justified.
In Darfur and Rwanda, all that was necessary to turn a society of ordinary people into killers was to convince them that they were in danger, and that the people endangering them were less than human.
LOOKING BACK on Jewish history, it is clear that the method used to foment violence against Jews has always involved the same framing of "self-defense," with only the details changed.
So when Jews were falsely accused of poisoning wells in the Middle Ages, causing thousands of deaths, even decent people joined in the killings. They did not perceive themselves as murderers because they were defending themselves and their families.
When Jews were believed to be using blood of children for Passover matzot, even decent people felt comfortable massacring Jews, as they were defending their children from horrific torture.
Even Hitler used this argument of self-defense in Mein Kampf: "In this case [given the Jews' threat to the German people] the only salvation remaining was war, war with all the weapons the human spirit, reason, and will could muster... If the Jew... is victorious over the peoples of this world, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity... Thus I believe today that I am acting according to the will of the almighty creator: When I defend myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Hitler, too, packaged his genocide as legitimate self-defense. The details may change in each society, but the framing is always the same.
EXAMINING PALESTINIAN hate promotion today, it is especially striking and disconcerting that these components of the past genocides against Jews are prominent elements of the hate promotion of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas against Jews and Israelis.
Two items on Hamas TV earlier this month clearly document this.
Hamas TV broadcast a skit featuring actors playing a Jewish father and son, in traditional hassidic garb, discussing the hatred of Muslims that their Jewish religion mandates. The father even revives the age-old libel that Jews drink the blood of Muslims: "Shimon, look, my son, I want to teach you a few things. You have to hate the Muslims... we want to kill the Muslims, we Jews want to drink the blood of Muslims." He later criticizes his son for washing his hands in water before prayer: "We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims" (Al-Aqsa TV, April 3). Ironically, the Hamas accusation that Jews drink Muslim blood came the week before Passover, the anniversary of many horrific blood libels.
That same day, a Hamas religious leader ended his sermon with the promise of eventual genocide of the Jews. But to frame it properly, he opened with a depiction of Jews as the enemies of humanity: The Jews are inherently evil, seek to rule the world and are a threat to Muslims and all of humanity.
This is how Ziad Abu Alhaj framed it: "Hatred for Muhammad and Islam is in their [Jews'] souls, they are naturally disposed to it... Israel is a cancer that wants to rule the world." He concluded that the Jews are destined to be annihilated: "The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth" (Al-Aqsa TV, April 3).
THIS DEMONIZATION and dehumanization of Jews is not limited to Hamas. Although hesitant to call for explicit murdering of Jews while seeking Western money, the PA continues its unrelenting framing of genocide as self-defense and for the common good.
In the PA-Fatah media today, Jews and Israelis are demonized through malicious libels, including such lies as the assertion that Israel intentionally spreads AIDS and drugs, conducts Nazi-like medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners and is planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Says the Palestinian chief religious justice, Tayseer al-Tamimi: "The AIDS issue needs to receive due attention... since we neighbor a society [Israel] where the disease is widespread and which acts to transmit [AIDS] to Palestinian society. The occupying authorities, especially in Jerusalem, are working to spread drugs and drug addiction, without a doubt" (PA radio, February 17, 2008).
And this from Dr. Mutawakil Taha, head of the Palestinian Writers' Union and former PA deputy minister: "We saw how they [Zionists] stab bellies of pregnant women, slaughter infants and eat life in cold blood. They targeted children and the wombs of women so this people won't reproduce" (PA TV, March 4, 2008).
A July 2008 article in Al-Ayyam accused Israeli settlers of releasing rats in Jerusalem's Old City "to turn the [Arab] residents' life into a living hell, forcing then to leave..." (July 17, 2008). A PA TV video clip juxtaposes scenes of a real Israeli tank with fictitious scenes of a child actor being shot, creating the fiction that Israelis deliberately target and shoot Palestinian children (PATV, May 15, 2008).
Just as the Tutsis were described as cockroaches and snakes, both Hamas and the PA have described Jews as loathsome and dangerous animals, including cockroaches, spiders, scorpions and alligators.
While each libel is somewhat different, their essence is the same: The Israelis and the Jews are dangerous, they are not human, we need to defend ourselves from them and we are clearly justified in doing so.
It is tragic that this framing of genocide as necessary self-defense has been so chillingly successful.
A poll after last year's murders of eight teenage yeshiva students found that "84 percent of Palestinians support the terror attack killing eight young students in a Jerusalem yeshiva on March 6, 2008" (Poll by Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, The New York Times, March 19, 2008). How can an entire Palestinian society support the murder of children? Clearly, the framing of Jews and Israelis as mortally dangerous to Palestinians has been totally successful.
Israel now faces a society that is very possibly past the stage of genocide framing and at the point of seeing the killing of Israelis, even teens, as justified. All that would be necessary for the population to go along with the final script, detailed so many times by its leaders, would be the means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)