Zionism and Aliya

The Villification of Prime Minister Netanyahu

2012-01-22T13:46:00.001-06:00

If you read the left-leaning and much of the mainstream press it's easy to believe the Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is the problem, or at least a big part of the problem, in the stalemated talks between Israel and the Palestinians. He is often described as "right wing" and "hard line" when nothing could be further from the truth.

Part of the reason, of course, is that he is from the Likud party. Likud is seen as the Israeli equivalent of the Republican Party by many American liberals. That is an oversimplification and is really incorrect. The Prime Minister himself corrects journalists, steadfastly referring to Likud as center-right. Israel is a multi-party system and, much unlike the Republicans, those right of center divide into a number of secular and religious parties. Prime Minister Netanyahu has committed himself to "two states for two peoples" and he is the elected leader of Likud. That position is an anathema to the truly right-wing parties, for example, National Union, which is in opposition to the current government.

This Prime Minister lost his government during his previous term when the right wing parties pulled out of the ruling coalition, including breakaway members of Likud. It wasn't the left that brought him down; it was the right. Why? He signed the Wye River Memorandum and gave control of more land to the Palestinian Authority, including most of Hebron. I have no doubt that Prime Minister Netanyahu would do the same again if there was a real chance for peace. Right now there isn't one.

The problem is, and always has been, the Palestinian leadership. They have had a total of three leaders since 1919: Haj Amin al-Husseini, who sided with the Nazis in World War II and wanted to bring Hitler's final solution to Palestine, his nephew and chosen successor, Yassir Arafat, and Arafat's hand-picked successor, Mahmoud Abbas, whose doctoral dissertation amounted to Holocaust denial. Yes, people can overcome their past. Anwar Sadat flew planes for the Nazis and led Egypt to war on Yom Kippur in 1973. Today we remember Sadat as a man who gave his life for the sake of peace. Sadly, Abbas is no Sadat. He insists on terms that he knows Israel can never meet as preconditions to negotiation, guaranteeing their failure in advance.

Look what Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians in 2008: land equal in area to what Jordan and Egypt occupied prior to 1967 with land swaps to account for present demographics, a divided Jerusalem with holy sites under international control, and a symbolic, limited acceptance of some Palestinian "refugees" into Israel. It's the most Israel probably could ever offer. The Palestinians didn't even respond and offered no counter-proposal.

What on earth could Prime Minister Netanyahu offer that hasn't already been offered? How is Prime Minister Netanyahu an obstacle to peace when he repeatedly says he will negotiate at any time in any place the Palestinians may choose? He's made the same offer to Syria. The answer is simple: Prime Minister Netanyahu is not a problem except in the minds of those who always find reason to blame Israel and those who believe them.

How President Obama and the Democrats are Losing My Support

2012-01-21T19:14:00.004-06:00

The Center for American Progress (CAP), a prominent Washington think tank, are the folks behind the Think Progress website. Their views are both influential in and often representative of the Progressive (liberal) wing of the Democratic Party. They have always had anti-Israel writers. That's nothing new. However, their writing has recently descended into anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism of the ugliest kind. Normally this is the sort of thing I would write off as far left and move on. What makes CAP different is that the group routinely advises the Obama administration on Middle East policy.

The statements in question are blog posts and Twitter tweets referring to American supporters of Israel as "Israel firsters", a term which originated and until recently resided exclusively in the neo-Nazi fringe. It's the old charge of dual loyalty or disloyalty to America leveled at American Jews since the 1920s. The term was used by Think Progress blogger Zaid Jilani according to pieces in The Washington Post, The New York Post and The Jerusalem Post.

Another example was penned by CAP’s director of Middle East Progress, Matt Duss:

“Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza (and the entire Israeli occupation, for that matter) is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values,”

Other Think Progress writers have made statements that are equally offensive.

Is that really anti-Semitism per se? Faiz Shakir, who is editor-in-chief of the ThinkProgress.org website and a Vice President at CAP agrees that it is:

“Yes, I agree ‘Israel Firster’ is terrible, anti-Semitic language. And that’s why that language no longer exists on Zaid’s personal twitter feed, because he also knows and understands the implications.”

Despite this clear statement Progressives are still claiming that the whole issue is an attempt to smear CAP. One example, written by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com blames everything on "the predictable roster of neoconservative, hatemongering extremists..." while expounding on his own anti-Israel positions that are every bit as biased, misinformed and even repeat the popular and libelous "apartheid" charge against the Jewish state.

Who are the hatemongers Greenwald is talking about? Who made these charges? We're talking about the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. From The Washington Post article:

“The language is corrosive and unacceptable,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He added that the blog posts and tweets from CAP staffers “are the responsibility of the adults who run the place, not only the kids who play.”

From The Jerusalem Post and The New York Post pieces:

Speaking with the Jerusalem Post recently about CAP and Media Matters, the American Jewish Committee’s Jason Isaacson said, “Think tanks are entitled to their political viewpoints — but they’re not free to slander with impunity . . . References to Israeli ‘apartheid’ or ‘Israel-firsters’ are so false and hateful they reveal an ugly bias no serious policy center can countenance.”

These aren't right wing groups, nor are they neocons. These are some of the most respected and influential Jewish groups in the country.

Perhaps the folks associated with CAP and their defenders, instead of lashing out at their critics, should remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, whose work we commemorated just a week ago, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism." Indeed, and many if not most American supporters of Israel, both Jewish and Christian, identify themselves as Zionists.

What makes this issue so very critical is the fact that this is the organization that advises President Obama on the Middle East. I am now genuinely worried the Obama administration's schizophrenic policy towards Israel would turn to open hostility in a second term. I remember how President Bush was supposed to be the "best friend" Israel had in the White House and how that friendship evaporated in his second term. Those who read this blog between 2004 and 2008 will remember just how critical I was of the Bush administration.

During the 2008 campaign I blogged about my concerns about President Obama's then foreign policy advisers. While I had endorsed John Kerry in this blog back in 2004 I could not, in good conscience, do the same for then Senator Obama. In the end Mr. Obama distanced himself from the ones that were most troubling to Jewish and Christian supporters of Israel. The President captured 78% of the Jewish vote as a result. I freely admit I voted for President Obama, mainly due to economic issues, but I had been sufficiently reassured that the new administration would not be hostile to Israel.

In order to repeat the 2008 results the President will have to repeat his actions from that campaign: distance himself from the fiercely anti-Israel and sometimes even anti-Semitic crowd at CAP. If he can't do that then I can and will vote Republican for President for the first time since 1988. There's an old proverb that dates back to at least the 16th century that is apropos here: "He that lies with the dogs, riseth with fleas." If the President chooses to keep the folks from CAP as foreign policy advisers and if CAP, in turn, keeps these writers on board I have a real problem. How can I trust that the President doesn't share some of their views or won't come to adopt some of their anti-Israel policies? I am deeply worried about what the President is thinking about Iran, about Israel, about the Palestinians and about foreign policy in general and how things might change in 2013 if he is reelected.

I wish I could have President Obama's social and economic policies and Speaker Newt Gingrich's foreign policy. I can't have both so I have to choose. So... I am definitely undecided at this point.

The Republicans and the right have been trying and failing to make Israel a right/left wedge issue for years. Now the Progressives in the Democratic party have done it for them. Is this really the path you want to go down?

When the Democratic Party is on the verge of losing someone who has voted straight Democratic Party line in every election since 1992 you know something is wrong. Mainstream Democrats had better think twice about the trend towards virulently anti-Israel positions in their Progressive wing. If the Democrats lose people like me at the time Republicans have shifted way to the right you know they are going to have problems winning elections.

[NOTE: Posted after the end of Shabbat.]

How is it "Liberal" to Advocate Genocide?

2012-01-12T23:31:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I once again found myself defending Israel and watching the opponents' arguments descend into defense of Iran and the desire they share with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map. They would never admit they support genocide but that is precisely the only way the nearly 6 million Jews of Israel will be removed. These "liberals" are supporting a new Holocaust.

To them I say "Never Again!" and I share this reminder. The music is by Ofra Haza, from the album Kirya, and is her tribute to the victims of the Holocaust:

Be Careful What You Wish For

2011-12-04T23:07:00.002-06:00

For months the American and European media reported on the so-called Arab Spring as if it was a breakthrough for democracy in the Arab world. Dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen have now been overthrown, with varying degrees of force and loss of life. The Western media acted as cheerleaders and Western leaders, including President Obama, first encouraged the overthrow of these regimes and then hailed these events as victories for freedom. Sadly, they were nothing of the sort.

Across the Arab world where elections, many of them the first free elections these countries have seen, are being won by Islamists who believe that democracy is a form of Western decadence. Assuming the Islamists come to power in some of these countries we could see the sort of one and done elections we saw in Gaza, where the winners, Hamas, promptly eliminated the democratic process that brought them to power as well as their opponents. It is very likely that the end result could be even more repressive than the dictators which have been deposed.

Somehow this hasn't quite dawned on the press who are trying to find distinctions and differences between the various Islamist and jihadist groups who seem poised to come to power across the Middle East. The Associated Press, in reporting the results of the Egyptian elections, engaged in some truly amazing and contradictory double speak. The first few paragraphs of their article are factual. For example:

The High Election Commission said the Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party garnered 36.6 percent of the 9.7 million valid ballots cast for party lists. The Nour Party, a more hardline Islamist group, captured 24.4 percent.

Having accurately described the parties involved the author(s) of the piece then find it necessary to tell us that, really, the Muslim Brotherhood might be moderates after all:

The party has positioned itself as a moderate Islamist party that wants to implement Islamic law without sacrificing personal freedoms, and has said it will not seek an alliance with the more radical Nour party.

Really? How could anyone come to that conclusion in the wake of what was said at the Brotherhood rally just before the election? The following is from The Jerusalem Post article on the rally since the American media somehow didn't find this newsworthy:

Muhammad Ahmed el- Tayeb, the imam of al-Azhar Mosque, told the crowd: “Al- Aksa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews... We shall not allow the Zionists to Judaize al-Quds [Jerusalem]. We are telling Israel and Europe that we shall not allow even one stone to be moved there.”

Protesters chanted, “Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv: Judgment Day has come,” and passages from the Koran vowing that “one day we shall kill all the Jews.”

How is promising genocide for the Jewish people moderate? Can someone please explain that to me? Why are mainstream media outlets making excuses for these people?

John Henry, of the liberal Low Genius blog, hit the nail squarely on the head in a discussion on Facebook:

I think that western minds have a very serious problem parsing the idea that there really are some people - ordinary people who live under these regimes - who *don't want democracy*. We could go round for hours about why that is, but all the talk won't address that simple issue: what do you do when a people, given the option, *choose despotism*?

His comments referred both to the Russian elections and the recent elections in the Arab world. Here was my response to him:

Mostly it falls into cultural differences and what these people are taught in their schools (assuming they have them), by their media, and in their houses of worship. One of the reasons American foreign policy fails in so much of the world is that we tend to look at everyone as if they are displaced Vermonters. All we have to do is show them freedom and democracy and "the American way" (whatever that is) and they will suddenly be just like us. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have operated under this illusion. The result is what we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Americans are absolutely despised and where we will likely end up with totally hostile regimes.

Sadly the media also operates under the "displaced Vermonter" notion and wishes for events that have horrendous consequences that they can't seem to fathom even though they should be obvious to anyone who knows the Middle East at all. I fear the end results will not only be more repressive regimes but also a destabilization of the Middle East and a bloody regional war started by an attack on Israel. An old saw seems to apply: Be careful what you wish for; it may come to pass.

A Meaningful Fast

2010-09-17T13:01:00.002-05:00

Tonight at sunset is the beginning of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. Observant Jews fast for 24 hours and go to services. It is meant to be a day of prayer, reflection and repentance.

There are three forms or good wishes I see around Yom Kippur every year: a wish for an easy fast, a wish for a meaningful fast, and the more religious Gmar Hatima Tov, a wish that the person receiving the greeting is inscribed in the book of life for good.

While roughly 70% of Israel's Jewish population is categorized as secular I read this week that only 6% refrain from observances during the High Holy Days. I believe it is the same for many American and other diaspora Jews who disregard observance during most of the year. Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are different.

So... if you are observing the Yom Kippur holiday this year, may it be a meaningful fast and a meaningful day for you.

NOTE: Cross-posted from my personal blog.

Shana Tovah

2010-09-08T12:02:00.003-05:00

This evening at sundown is the start of Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year. It is also the beginning of the High Holy Days for Jewish people, 10 days of reflection and penitence. It is the start of the year 5177, a year that is shaping up to be interesting to say the least.

New year's resolutions are not part of the Jewish tradition but I am going to make one anyway. In the coming year I will be reviving this blog and writing actively about Israel and Jewish issues. If there ever was a time when we needed more pro-Israel voices, more hasbara than now, well... I haven't seen it. The old saw, attributed to Lenin, that a lie told enough times becomes the truth, has certainly shown itself to be true in discussions of and news coverage of Israel and the Middle East. It is time I once again take an active role in debunking myths and discrediting lies and telling the truth about what is happening in our world.

I would like to take a moment to wish everyone Shana Tovah. May the coming year be happy, healthy, prosperous and sweet for you.

Traitor!

2010-04-09T14:12:00.008-05:00

Today I received an interesting response to one of my old blog posts on another website. I haven't changed a thing so the spelling, usage and capitalization errors belongs to the anonymous author.

You people - christian and jewish zionists have decieved American and the American taxpayer to send over 150billion in aid to Israel and now they disrespect our President - your a traitor.

Very nice. This is, of course, mild, compared to some of the virulently hateful anti-Semitic comments I receive.

Since when has disagreeing with the President been considered disrespectful? I've always believed that a vigorous and open political debate is the hallmark of a free society. Also, since when is disagreeing with the President the equivalent of being a traitor? That may have been the case in the old Soviet Union and it may still be in Cuba today, but not in the United States.

Then let's look at what this person had to say. Israel receives less than $3 billion a year in US aid, $2.4 billion of which is military aid, not $150 billion. President Obama's 2010 budget calls for $2.8 billion in aid to Israel. According to the Congressional Research Service total aid to Israel, from the creation of the state in 1948 until 2007 was $101 billion. In other words, his number is from fantasy land, not the real world. He or she also neglects to mention that a large portion of aid is in the form of loan guarantees which Israel repays with interest.

What does the United States get for that aid? First there is almost completely unrestricted access to Israeli intelligence, the best there is in the Middle East. Second is the access to Israeli technology which is used extensively by the U.S. military. Third is the guaranteed availability of an entire (admittedly small) country as a base if ever the United States military wanted to use it. The U.S. also has been able to veto technology sales it doesn't like. The Clinton administration encouraged Israeli technology sales to China, including some military technology. When President Bush decided that Israel should make no further sales the Israeli government complied despite the loss of billions in revenue.

"You people", all us awful Jewish and Christian Zionists, are a majority of the American people, and a solid majority at that. According to recent polls 80% of Americans see Israel as an ally and nearly two thirds say they support Israel. Meanwhile President Obama's latest approval rating is at 48% according to the latest Rasmussen Reports number. Maybe the majority of Americans are really "traitors" too.

Nobody has fooled the American people. The American people have made choices and the government has acted on them precisely because support for Israel is in the American interest. It's a pity some people are so blinded by their prejudices that they make up numbers and throw around accusations without bothering about little things like facts.

Hag Sameach! Happy Passover! A Zissen Pesach!

2010-03-29T14:51:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone reading this has a great Pesach. For those of you who aren’t Jewish and don’t know much about the holiday, Pesach (Passover) is the celebration of the deliverance of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt as told in the biblical book of Exodus. It’s all about freedom, something which is always worth celebrating wherever we find it.

Pesach is also about the food! Really good homemade matzo ball soup is to die for. I’ve also have some Israeli chocolate this year and some triple dipped bittersweet chocolate covered matzoh.

I’ll be back during Hol Hamoed with more to say. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to post as frequently as I’d like. With Israel under unprecedented pressure and so much misinformation out there we need more Zionist voices giving the other side of the story and I will try to do my little part.

Would Muslims Surrender Mecca? Should Catholics Give Up The Vatican?

2010-03-18T12:25:00.004-05:00

Would Muslims surrender Mecca? Should Catholics give up the Vatican? These may seem like ridiculous questions. The answer to both by any sane person would be "of course not." Why on earth would the answer to "Would Jews ever surrender Jerusalem?" be any different? The answer is simple. It shouldn't.

With the exception of a seven year period in the sixth century when the Persians restored Jewish sovereignty, the Jewish people were denied a homeland from 70 C.E. until 1948. During that time the Jewish people suffered pogroms, expulsions, mass murder, persecution, and assorted other forms of denial of basic human rights. Throughout that time the Jewish people prayed for one thing consistently: "Next year in Jerusalem." It's part of the Passover seder, the ceremonial feast, which the world's Jewish population will celebrate in two weeks time.

Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, is a Zionist prayer in song, a prayer for a Jewish home in the land of Zion and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is stressed and is in the refrain, the only part of the anthem which is repeated. Here is a translation of the lyrics:

As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul still yearns,
And onward, towards the ends of the east,
An eye still gazes toward Zion;

Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

These words, taken from a poem and set to music in 1888, are the essence of Zionism. More, they are the essence of Jewish national and cultural identity.

In recent days some have said that Prime Minister Netanyahu, and indeed the nation of Israel as a whole, will eventually have to make a choice between concessions which amount to surrendering sovereignty over much of Jerusalem or the friendship between Israel and the United States. Actually, that is no choice at all. Jews simply will not surrender sovereignty over Jerusalem. Those, particularly in the United States, who argue that we should include Jews who have somehow become divorced from their traditions, culture, their very identity as Jews. If we have to say goodbye to those people and say goodbye to support from the White House then that is what we will do.

Notice that I have made this argument without even once referring to Jewish and Christian religious beliefs. Of course it is religion which makes Jerusalem holy to Jews, just as Mecca is holy to Muslims and the Vatican is holy to Catholics. These beliefs, which the majority of Americans happen to share, are also being challenged by the White House. That has never been a recipe for much political support.

During Israel's 1948-49 War of Independence my father fought to lift the siege of Jerusalem. To him a Jewish state and the city of Jerusalem was worth fighting for. I can't say my views are any different. Israel survived against what seemed like impossible odds without any American help then. If need be it will do so again.

Anyone who insists that Israel should offer sovereignty as a concession prior to any negotiations for peace, with nothing in return, is asking Israel to surrender. What is the point of a Jewish state if not to maintain Jewish identity and hold on to what is precious to the Jewish people? Anyone who demands such a thing is no friend of Israel or the Jewish people, even if they can claim to be Jewish by birth. Oh, and yes, that includes the Obama Administration and anyone within the administration who insists that Israel not build in Ramat Shlomo or anywhere else in our holy city and capital.

When It Comes To Jerusalem, The Washington Post and President Obama Rewrite History

2010-02-15T11:55:00.008-06:00

The Washington Post had an article by Howard Schneider yesterday about the dispute over property in in Sheikh Jarrah, a small Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem. I have no problem with an article that presents both the Israeli and Palestinian side of a story like this. I have a huge problem with asserting facts which simply are not in evidence and skewing the picture in favor of one side, in this case the Palestinians.

The article plays fast and loose with the facts. For example, it states that

"Israel asserts its jurisdiction over the entire city -- including Arab areas it captured in a 1967 war and annexed in a step not recognized by the international community."

First, the United States did recognize all of Jerusalem as part of Israel in The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. In addition there are several countries which do have embassies in Jerusalem. To say that the "international community" as a whole doesn't recognize Israel's sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem is inaccurate. The international community is not monolithic and is divided on this issue unless, of course, you don't consider the United States part of the international community.

Yes, the Obama administration has protested the eviction of Arabs from Sheikh Jarrah. They argue that any change of the status quo undermines the peace process. Never mind that the land was taken by force from Jewish owners in 1948. Never mind that the United Nations, which moved the original 28 Arab families into the neighborhood, never obtained or provided any title to the property. Never mind that the families would have had tenancy rights and could not be evicted under Israeli law if they paid rent to the rightful owners. Never mind that the issue was decided through a very long legal process, complete with appeals and due process of law. None of those facts matter. The Obama administration has decided, in advance of any negotiation, that Jerusalem will be divided again. Never mind that President Obama has no say in the matter whatsoever, has no jurisdiction over Jerusalem, and is in effect ignoring American law.

Yes, the article does mention the Jewish ownership but it assumes that "East Jerusalem" is rightfully somehow Palestinian. Please read my post on the relevant parts of the history of Jerusalem from 2007. One point which every article like this ignores:

What made east Jerusalem Arab? 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation ending in 1967. In 1948 when Jordan captured the old, walled city they destroyed 58 synagogues. 58! I somehow don't think Arabs were worshiping in those synagogues. Yep, in 1948 there were still lots of Jews in "Arab East Jerusalem".

As the article correctly points out, Silwan, another eastern Jerusalem neighborhood embroiled in a property dispute, was a haven for Yemeni Jews in the 1800s. These were Jews escaping persecution in the Arab world. Why are changes which are a result of Jordanian occupation just fine while reversing those changes as a result of Israel capturing the eastern part of the city unacceptable? Somehow it's acceptable to ignore the fact that there were Israeli controlled enclaves in "East Jerusalem" between 1948 and 1967 and there never was a clean east/west division of the city.

Certainly the Obama administration is working under false assumptions when it comes to Jerusalem. The President of the United States should know better. Unfortunately, the position of his administration is nothing new. It is a continuation of misguided Bush administration policy. The last President who seemed to understand the history was Bill Clinton. How do those who claim that American Jews or a pro-Israel lobby have some sort of undo influence on U.S. foreign policy explain a decidedly pro-Palestinian position on an issue so critical not only to Israel but to Jewish identity as a whole?

The article assumes, like so many others, that "East Jerusalem" is Arab, period, end of story. To the Washington Post this clearly isn't open to debate. They even have the Office of the President agreeing with this incorrect assertion. History to the contrary is conveniently ignored. This is a sort of pernicious, almost hidden media bias in favor of the Palestinians and against Israel. Since the Washington Post is so well respected their assumptions become the assumptions of many in the American public. After all, who has the authority and credibility to challenge the Washington Post, especially when their misinformation is repeated at the highest levels of government?

A Sign Of Things To Come? Malmö, Sweeden: Jewish Population Flees Violent Anti-Semitism

2010-02-12T11:25:00.004-06:00

A most disturbing report by Avi Yelin for Arutz Sheva two weeks ago detailed how members of the tiny Jewish community in Malmö, Sweden's southern city, are fleeing violent anti-Semitism. In a city with only 700 Jewish residents there were 79 crimes against Jews reported to the Malmö police last year, doubling the number reported in 2008. The article continues:

"Jewish cemeteries and synagogues have been repeatedly defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti, and a chapel at another Jewish burial site in Malmö was firebombed last January"

Fredrik Sieradzki of the Jewish Community of Malmö is pessimistic about the future of his community unless there is a "complete change in attitude." That seems unlikely in Sweden.

While various and sundry media reports claim that the U.K. has the highest level of anti-Semitism in Europe, Sweden cannot be far behind. For example, Sweden's daily newspaper with the largest circulation, Aftonbladet, reported last August that Israel was murdering young Palestinians and harvesting their organs. The report is yet another piece of blood libel worthy of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. The reaction by the Swedish government, including Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, to Israeli outrage caused a serious rift in relations between the two countries. In a detailed report published last month, Mikael Tossavainen chronicles the events, the subsequent fallout, and the consequences of the Aftonbladet piece.

The diplomatic crisis is, to me, a secondary issue. Much more serious are the impact on public opinion. How many people believed the story? How many used it to further hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism in general? Just last week I reported that an anti-Semitic blogger claimed that Israel's aid to Haiti after the earthquake last month was a ruse to allow for the harvesting of organs there. Last August Nathalie Rothschild wrote a piece for Spiked Online that started with this premise:

"An article about the IDF stealing organs suggests ancient myths are becoming acceptable again in polite society."

That certainly seems to be the case in Sweden.

Yossi Klein Halevi, in a September article for Jewish World review makes a point that sums up the situation perfectly:

"Accusations like the Swedish blood libel aren’t just a threat to Israel’s good name, but could become a physical threat to Jews everywhere. The Israeli “crimes” raised by Aftonbladet are precisely the kind of rationale used by terrorists to incite violence against Jews. In the current atmosphere, where the most inconceivable conspiracy theories involving Jews are readily believed by millions in the Muslim world, Aftonbladet’s recklessness is, potentially, an incitement to murder."

The problem is far more widespread than just the Muslim world. Violent anti-Semitism is becoming a worldwide epidemic.

The former Israeli ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, noted that the Aftonbladet incident is hardly unique, but rather reflects a trend across Sweden and, indeed, all of western Europe.

“In the last two decades, Israel has been indiscriminately attacked by European governments while the European press routinely distorts information coming from the Middle East. The Swedish press has been at the forefront of this trend, and with the article published last week by Aftonbladet it has clearly gone over the bend. About 80 percent of the newspapers there, especially the four national papers in Stockholm and hundreds of papers in the countryside, which set the tone in Sweden, are connected in some way to the Social Democrat movement and the trade unions, both of which are anti-Israel. There is a kind of dictatorship of the Social Democrats over the press in Sweden.

We have to face the facts. Israel cannot keep ignoring the onslaught coming from Europe, especially Western Europe and the EU countries. This demonizing of Israel is a very real threat that must be taken seriously."

Lets look at the consequences of the demonization of Israel: Jews in Malmö now feel they must flee for their lives. Hatred of Israel is the justification for anti-Semitic attacks across Europe and the Americas as well. I have to conclude that those who routinely claim that constant criticism of Israel doesn't equate to anti-Semitism are simply ignoring the facts and the consequences of their words.

Anti-Semitism in Europe is now reported to be at the highest level since World War II. The very people who hate Israel make it clear that now, more than ever, a safe, secure Israel is vital to the survival of the Jewish people. It remains a refuge for Jews who are reviled and persecuted the world over.

No Israeli Good Deed Goes Unpunished

2010-02-03T12:13:00.008-06:00

The two week IDF rescue and medical mission to Haiti drew some absolutely amazing press. Even media outlets normally critical of Israel couldn't heap enough praise on what Israelis did in Haiti. For example, watch this brief (under two minute) report on CNN:

Here is another CNN story about Israeli rescue efforts. Even some in the Arab media covered the story. Here is what Palestinian-American journalist Ray Hanania had to say:

"200,000 Haitians died in an earthquake. They sent doctors and supplies to help. That is a good thing. Just because we are fighting with Israel doesn't mean we should sneer at that assistance to people in need. YES, I wish Israel could show the same compassion for Palestinians. But Israel and Haiti are not at war and Israelis and Palestinians (mainly Hamas and the settlers) are."

Despite this some have used the IDF efforts in Haiti as an excuse to bash Israel according to an article in Ha'aretz published on January 21. Those who hate Israel accuse the Jewish state of giving aid not out of concern for the suffering in that country, but rather for ulterior motives:

"...for a shocking number of others, the bottom line is simple: Israel, and Israelis, can do no right. In its most extreme there are those who have accused Israel of using the Haiti catastrophe as a new reservoir for harvesting organs.

But even many of those who shun blood libels, have seized on the Haiti mission to bash Israel, revealing in many cases a hatred - and a bigotry - that borders on the visceral.

'I guess giving Israel credit for good deeds in Haiti,' wrote reader John Smithson on the widely read Mondoweiss site, 'is like watching a serial killer or other sociopathic type mow an old woman's lawn (or some other charitable thing).'

This sort of reaction is not surprising giving the almost daily anti-Israel diatribes found on that website. The Ha'aretz article continues:

"The contention is that Israel sent aid to Haiti on purely cynical motives [...] it is nothing short of racism to maintain, in Haiti and in general, that Israelis can do no right.

In his book The Case For Peace, Alan Dershowitz claims that many of the supporters of the Palestinians in the West are "more Palestinian than the Palestinians" and that their hatred of and vitriol towards Israel is far greater than what is found among Palestinian Arabs. This latest round of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred, complete with blood libel which would make the authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion proud, is a prime example. No Israeli deed, no matter how noble, will go unpunished by those who truly hate the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

A British Commander's Testimony On The Goldstone Report and Gaza

2010-02-01T11:15:00.004-06:00

The Goldstone Report is, unfortunately, once again in the news day in and day out. The usual media outlets and organizations who work to demonize and delegitimize Israel are once again treating it as a statement of fact rather than a biased and one sided political propaganda piece. This despite the fact that the Obama administration condemned the report as, in the words of U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell, "one-sided and deeply flawed". The critics of Israel never mention, as a Miami Herald editorial did, that Operation Cast Lead followed "eight years of relentless rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups." Daily rocket attacks against civilians in Israel continue to this day without one word of protest from the international community.

I know many in the world see the United States as hopelessly biased in Israel's favor. The British, on the other hand, have not exactly had warm relations with Israel lately and, indeed, the U.K. has been the country with the highest level of anti-Semitism in Europe. Perhaps the testimony of a high ranking British military officer will be a bit more convincing.

Colonel Richard Kemp served as commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. He previously has served as a commander in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia. UN Watch has provided not only video of his October 16, 2009 testimony but also translations into nine languages. Here are some of his most salient points:

During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

[...]

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

I urge everyone to read or watch Col. Kemp's full testimony and pass it on to anyone who quotes the Goldstone report as some sort of evidence of Israeli war crimes.

Iran: "A Moment Of Truth", CNN Style

2009-10-09T14:14:00.011-05:00

This article is part of this week's Jerusalem Post Submission Contest. You can rate my post and affect the outcome of the contest here.

Last Sunday Fareed Zakaria, the host of GPS on CNN, opened his program with an analysis of the Iranian nuclear crisis. He started by saying:

A moment of truth is arriving on the Iran Issue. Western countries will have to face up to the fact that there are only really two choices with Iran: one, a military strike, effectively preventing the country from continuing to expand its nuclear capacity; or, secondly, learning to live with such a capacity."

Up to this point Zakaria was 100% correct in his assessment. The current talks with the Iranian regime have produced no concrete results and based on comments by the Iranian government they never will. I can understand why President Obama wants to give diplomacy every reasonable chance at success. If nothing else it provides the U.S., and perhaps by extension Israel, some diplomatic cover with the rest of the West when the inevitable war with Iran comes.

Zakaria went on to describe some of the consequences of a strike by either the U.S. or Israel on Iran. Once again he was spot on:

Now, I think striking Iran would have the first effect of uniting the country behind the regime. It happens in every country that is attacked from abroad. George w. Bush's approval ratings on September 10, 2001, were around 40 percent. In one month, after 9/11, they had risen to 93 percent. Iranian dissidents warn that the day after an American attack or an Israeli attack, they would all have to come out in support of the regime.

The political spillover from such an attack in Arab countries would also be large, and the military spillover in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iran still funds militias, would probably take the lives of American and European soldiers. The price of oil would skyrocket, and, at best, such a military strike would delay the Iranian program, not end it, and probably delay it by just a few years.

It's all true. Indeed, the consequences to both Israel and some Sunni Arab nations, which Iran would likely attack to disrupt oil supplies, would be very high indeed. Let's also not forget the loss of innocent lives among Iranian civillians. Iran has placed it's nuclear and missile launching facilities in populated areas. Yes, the cost of a war with Iran will be terrible for all involved and many nations will get dragged in.

The rest of Zakaria's analysis is seriously flawed. Worse, it seems to reflect and reinforce the thinking of some in the Obama adminstration, which makes it downright dangerous. Zakaria continued:

Is it possible to live with a nuclear Iran? I would argue yes. Living with it is not a passive option. Iran's behavior will make it possible to maintain, perhaps even expand, sanctions on it. It will strengthen western resolve and, more importantly, make most Arab states ally themselves far more closely with the United States and Europe than ever before. The great strategic threat in the region would no longer be Israel but Iran.

These countries, the Arab countries, would make vigorous efforts to contain Iran's influence militarily and politically, as would western nations. We could press for more sanctions, inspections of all kinds. And, finally, Israel's vast nuclear arsenal, 250 nuclear weapons by most accounts, plus that of the United States would act as a deterrent on Iran. It would not use its nuclear weapons because it would clearly trigger an overwhelming response.

This is not a perfect option. But, in the real world, it seems to me a far more sensible one than a gamble that attacking Iran would solve this problem.

I don't believe for one moment that the Islamic religious fanatics who run the Iranian regime would be deterred by Israel's weaponry or any likely retaliation.

Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, often referred to as a "moderate" in the press, called for a nuclear attack on Israel on December 14, 2001. His comments included the following:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world

We are all aware of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's repeated calls to destory Israel. For the Iranian leadership this is an ideological and religious imperatives. Against such imperatives conventional deterrence simply does not work.

Zakaria went on to interview three "distinguished experts", none of whom expressed the idea that Israel may have no choice but to preemptively strike Iran to avoid their own destruction. When PBS' Newshour With Jim Lehrer has a panel on issues like this they make sure to have all views represented. Even unabashedly left-wing MSNBC has had balanced panels where the idea that Israel may have absolutely no choice but to act if it is to survive has been clearly voiced. Not so on CNN. I couldn't help but remember a discussion some years ago on CNN hosted by Christiane Amanpour where her idea of differing viewpoints, left and right, meant that she had Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration National Security Advisor, a Democrat, and Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Advisor to President George H. W. Bush, a Republican, as her guests. Both men are notoriously anti-Israel and spent significant parts of the segment complementing each other's analysis of why everything wrong in the Middle East is Israel's fault. Zakaria's guests weren't so blatant but none disagreed with Zakaria's analysis.

In his next segment Zakaria went on to interview Judge Richard Goldstone of the infamous Goldstone report, a report widely seen as denying Israel any reasonable right of self-defense.

CNN no longer seems to be engaging in the in-your-face anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks like the August, 2007 two hour "Special Investigations" piece called "G-d's Jewish Warriors", also hosted by Christiane Amanpour. They have learned to be slightly more subtle. Still, there is no mistaking the purpose of a program that first presents the awful consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran and then trots out the Goldstone Report, no matter how reasonable and erudite the smiling Mr. Zakaria may seem.

CNN may be willing to gamble the lives of 7.28 million Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, on the belief that the Iranian regime is sane and can be deterred. They may be willing to gamble the lives of my family in Israel. Americans should not be. First, friends don't ask friends to die in a nuclear holocaust. Second, once Israel is gone, can some attempt to destroy "The Great Satan" be far behind? Didn't President Ahmedinejad chair a conference on the world without the United States? If deterrence doesn't work as Mr. Zakaria suggests it would what would the consequences for all of the West be?

We need to remember CNN's long history of anti-Israel bias and take all their reporting on the Iranian nuclear threat with an appropriately large grain of salt. We need to remember that the CNN agenda will undoubtedly include blaming Israel for any and all consequences of a conflict with Iran.

Boycott Britain

2009-10-02T16:06:00.003-05:00

Anyone who knows me knows I like tea. I drink a lot of it. I always buy loose leaf tea of all sorts. One of the least expensive brands of loose leaf tea, and one that sells excellent English and Irish Breakfast Tea blends, is Twinings, a British company. Today I went shopping and walked right past the Twinings tea. I am buying tea from American companies, imported Chinese tea, anything but British. Today I started my personal boycott of all things British and I urge everyone who supports Israel to join me.

In case you haven't following the news the British are increasingly boycotting Israeli goods and services. Major British trade unions have been boycotting Israel since 2007. AISH has published an alarming report about the rise of anti-Semitism, not just anti-Zionism, in the UK and how it is no longer taboo to express hatred and loathing for the Jewish people in Britain. Even the BBC, which has repeatedly stoked the flames of anti-Semitism with its strong anti-Israel bias, reported a record rise in UK anti-Semitism in the first half of this year. In the spring of last year Hebrew University historian Robert S. Wistrich, who was himself educated at Cambridge Univesity stated, ”Britain has become the center for the meeting of anti-Semitic trends in Europe.” The sharp rise in anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic attacks in Britain has been reported every year since 2005.

So.. if the British hate me and my family just because we are Jewish why should I support them, their businesses and their economy? If the British hate Israel, where much of my family lives, with a passion, why on earth would I want to send my hard earned money to that dispicable country? I'd rather buy American or Israeli products. When it comes to products that aren't made or grown in the U.S. or Israel, like tea, then I'll support almost anybody else before I'll support the UK. I'm enjoying a wonderful cup of Blooming apricot flavored black tea from China right now.

Please follow the links I've provided and read up on this for yourself. If you're Jewish, a supporter of Israel, or just plain think that anti-Semitism is as disgusting as any other form of ethnic or religious intolerance or racism, please join me in this boycott.

Shana Tovah! Happy New Year!

2009-09-18T13:28:00.000-05:00

Shana Tovah! I hope everyone has a happy, healthy, and sweet new year!

The Amazing and Twisted Right Wing Smear Campaign Against President Obama

2009-09-08T17:24:00.007-05:00

NOTE: This has been submitted to this week's Jerusalem Post Submission Contest. You can rate it and vote on it here.
-----------

This is from an e-mail circulating around the Internet which someone in my family received:

HB 1388 PASSED !!

You just spent $20,000,000 to move members/supporters of Hamas, a terrorist organization, to the United States ; They get housing, food, the whole enchilada.

HB 1388 PASSED

Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. needs to know.....

Something happened.... H.R. 1388 was passed, behind our backs. You may want to read about it.. It wasn ' t mentioned on the news... just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.
Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that didn ' t make the headlines...

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza . (...including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations...") The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States , was signed and appears in the Federal Register.

It sounds really sinister, doesn't it? Thankfully it's all a pack of lies designed to mislead the ignorant.

If it's a House Resolution (H.R) it passed in the House of Representatives and is not an Executive Order. It would also have to pass the Senate and be signed by the President to become law. This person is mixing apples and oranges. Whatever they are concerned about can be either an Executive Order or a bill that passed Congress, not both. For someone who knows anything about how the American legislative process works that should be the first obvious clue that something is very wrong with this e-mail.

So, let's take a look at H.R. 1388 and see what it's all about. The title of the bill is: "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." It's an extension and expansion of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, first signed by President George H.W. Bush. In 1993 this was expanded with the founding of AmeriCorps, created by by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, signed by President Clinton and expanded by 50% by President George W. Bush. H.R. 1388, which was signed into law back in May, is about Americans doing national service: public service work for the country. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Middle East or Palestinians or Hamas. After repeatedly mentioning H.R. 1388 the e-mail has no specifics and completely misrepresents the bill.

OK, maybe the author got his or her numbers wrong and really wants us to look at an Executive Order. He or she was even kind enough to provide a link to the Federal Register, so naturally I followed the link to see what it's all about. I assume the author was hoping that either nobody would actually follow the link or that they simply wouldn't bother to read the details. The Presidential determination in question, which I do remember well, spent funds already allocated for refugee assistance. It is dated January, a full eight months ago, and has nothing to do with any bill currently before Congress or which passed Congress recently. Second, the idea, as I read it, was to help people flee Hamas, not help Hamas. These are refugees from Hamas, not Hamas supporters. If you followed the news at the time you know that Hamas used the conflict with Israel as cover for arrests, torture, and murder of Fatah members in Gaza and any remaining non-Muslim Palestinians (mainly Christians) in the territory. The idea of helping these people did have support from members of Congress of both parties: the same members of Congress who voted unanimously to support Israeli defensive actions in Gaza just three weeks earlier.

The author goes on to list a bunch of other horrible things that President Obama has done, from closing Guantanamo (which hasn't actually happened) to federally funding abortions (which also actually hasn't happened). It ends with the ominous line: "We are losing this country at a rapid pace." Actually, the far right and the know-nothings among the conservative movement haven't figured out that they lost the 2006 and 2008 elections. They already lost the country as the American people have rejected their agenda.

What is so galling about this is that it's all lies. Nothing new has passed Congress, President Obama hasn't signed any new laws or issued any new executive orders regarding Hamas or the Palestinians. If he had I'd be the first to write about it. If this President supported Hamas in any way, shape, or form I'd be up in arms about it. Here's reality: it never happened. It's just part of the right wing smear campaign, the hatred directed at President Obama, which goes on each and every day in this country. It absolutely disgusts me.

NOTE: This is rare cross-post from my Ever Increasing Entropy (personal) blog.

US Congress Should Cut Off Aid To Palestinians

2009-08-21T15:14:00.005-05:00

NOTE: The following piece was first published as part of this week's Jerusalem Post Submission Contest earlier today. You can rate and vote on this piece here.

When the Bush administration laid out the Roadmap peace plan it, together with the United Nations, Russia, and the European Union, clearly laid out three conditions that Hamas would have to meet to be included:

Recognition of Israel
Renunciation of terrorism and violence
Acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap

Hamas has never accepted any of the Quartet's conditions and, as a result, remains classified strictly as a terrorist group by the United States and most of the West.

Further attempts at a peace process were based on the idea that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority did meet this conditions and had, in fact, agreed to them as part of the Oslo Accords. This has also been the basis of all U.S. aid to the Palestinians, including the training and arming of security forces.

Since March of this year we have seen one senior Palestinian Authority official after another make clear, in no uncertain terms, that they don't accept any of the three conditions either. It started with Muhammed Dahlan, a former Palestinian security chief and senior Fatah official, during a March 17 interview on Palestinian television:

"I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel even today."

Rafik Natsheh, a member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," expanded on Dahlan's comments during an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi last month. He stated that Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, effectively closing the door to any future peace agreement. He also made clear that Fatah intends to launch a new intifada or "armed struggle."

"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false. It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel.

[...]

I am certain that we will hinder all the traitors who wish to remove the resistance option from the movement's charter. Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen."

Finally, at the sixth Fatah General Assembly earlier this month these positions were formalized and reiterated by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In effect the Palestinians have abrogated the Oslo peace agreement signed by Yasser Arafat. The Fatah-run Palestinian authority no longer meets any of the three conditions placed on Hamas. Why, then, is Fatah still somehow defined as "moderate" and treated differently than Hamas?

Back in December, 2007 I wrote that absent a recognition of Israel's right to exist as defined by both the League of Nations Mandate and by the United Nations in Resolution 181, which means as a state for the Jewish people, there was no basis for any negotiations with the Palestinians. Now, nearly two years later the Netanyahu government has made clear that it is ready for negotiations without any preconditions. The Palestinians, emboldened by President Obama's shortsighted and ill advised pressure on Israel over settlements, are demanding unilateral concessions from Israel before even agreeing to sit down and talk. Rather than bring Israel and the Palestinians closer to peace the Obama administration has foreclosed any chance of meaningful negotiations.

Right now the American taxpayer is footing the bill for arming and training security forces aligned with or which are part of Fatah, even as Fatah makes clear that those arms will be turned on Israel. We are, in effect, arming one terrorist faction while snubbing another. We are doing so in a time of huge budget deficits. Does this make any sort of sense?

In the United States the President determines foreign policy. However, that power is not absolute. The U.S. Constitution put in place a system of checks and balances. Congress controls the purse strings. Israel enjoys overwhelming support in Congress from both political parties. It is time that Congress acts to cut off all aid to the Palestinians until they meet the three clear conditions set out by the international Quartet. Doing so will stop the arming of unrepentant and unreformed Palestinian terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and send a strong and unequivocal message to President Obama that his Middle East policies, which are increasingly seen as pro-Arab and anti-Israel, have little or no support.

Shabbat and Respectful Blogging

2009-08-14T17:44:00.005-05:00

Anyone who has read my blogs and other writing over the years has almost certainly figured out that I am not religious and certainly not Orthodox. I went to a mixture of Conservative and Orthodox congregations growing up and I was part of a modern Orthodox congregation for a time when I was in my twenties. I am not ignorant when it comes to Orthodox Judaism but there are elements of it that I am just not comfortable with or which just do not match up with my own beliefs. I do feel comfortable with the Conservative (Masorti) movement.

A couple of years ago I wrote posts for this blog whenever I had time. If that was on Shabbat then that was when I posted. Some of you may have noticed that I haven't posted on Shabbat for quite some time now. No, I haven't begun observing the sabbath in a religious sense. My work pretty much requires me to be available 24x7. So long as I want to succeed in IT (computer work) in the U.S. that won't change.

Religious views in my family range from pretty much atheist, albeit with a Jewish ethnic identity, to ultra-Orthodox. When I was in Israel I stayed with a modern Orthodox cousin and his wife over Shabbat. I must say that I think a day each week without computers or cell phones, without driving or work, without shopping or television, without all the stress of modern life, is actually very refreshing. I think being Shomer Shabbat is probably very healthy. I have written before that I believe that when I make aliya I may very well observe the sabbath. I think it would be a very positive change in my life.

In the meanwhile, though, I still do what I need to do. I do post to other blogs whenever I have time. However, I will continue to refrain from my Zionist writing or publishing on Shabbat out of respect to my Orthodox readers. I look at the divisions between religious and non-religious in Israel and in the wider Jewish community and I think that all we really need is a bit more respect for each other to get past our differences. We are all Jews. The anti-Semites out there don't make such distinctions.

Shabbat Shalom!

Why American Jews Voted For President Obama

2009-08-12T16:11:00.007-05:00

Mark Gold wrote a piece published on the right-wing Israpundit website on August 6th titled "Were Jewish Obama Voters Fooled?". He also submitted the post to The Jerusalem Post blogging contest. I originally wrote a brief comment objecting to his assertions but the more I through about what he wrote the more I realized just how insulted and offended I was by his article. I decided a longer and more forceful response was in order.

The principle assertion made by Mr. Gold is that "Obama’s Jewish voters were not fooled by his campaign, but rather that, unfortunately, Israel is just not a major concern or issue to them." Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Gold also claims that none of his Jewish acquaintances have any regrets about voting for President Obama. Perhaps that is because the Republican alternative still looks, in retrospect, even more likely to have done serious harm than the Obama administration, even with its current misguided policies towards Israel.

Mr. Gold's claims that Israel is relatively unimportant to American Jewry or that American Jews continue to blindly support the President and his policies is belied by an article in today's Jerusalem Post with the headline "Most US Jewish Obama backers oppose his Israel policies". The article quotes frequent Fox News contributor Dick Morris:

"Democratic Jews in the United States strongly support Obama, but also strongly support Israel. Asked explicitly to choose between Obama's position and that of the Israeli government on issues such as construction in the settlements, or the two-state solution, they back the Israeli view by more than two to one. To me this indicates that the jury is still out and that a backlash may yet develop against Obama's policies."

Sorry, Mr. Gold, but two to one in support of Israel and opposed to the President's policies vis a vis Israel among Jewish Democrats indicates, to me, that Israel remains a major concern for most of us.

The alternative Mr. Gold presents, that we were "fooled" by the Obama campaign, is also completely wrong. As a religious minority we watched John McCain sell his soul to the religious right of the Republican party. We watched him select Sarah Palin, an incompetent and absolutely unprepared less than one term governor from Alaska as his Vice Presidential choice. Mrs. Palin is also an overtly right wing evangelical Christian. Jewish Americans who aren't wedded to the Republican Party or the conservative movement still distrust evangelicals with good reason. First, they seek tirelessly to convert us to Christianity and strip us of our Jewish religion, traditions, and culture. Second, for many evangelicals their support for Israel includes a prophetic view of the future in which the Jewish people either accept Jesus or are slaughtered in a coming apocalypse. Consequently they support the most right wing and intransigent forces in Israel who work against any hope of peace at any time in the future. Sorry, but to most American Jews these people are not our friends. The prospect of Mrs. Palin, who shares those views, a heartbeat away from the Presidency was truly frightening.

We saw a right-wing Republican campaign as contrary to the liberal values most American Jews, and indeed the majority of Jews in Israel, share. We saw Senator McCain and Governor Palin, and the prospect of their likely Supreme Court nominations, as a direct threat to our religious freedom in America.

American Jews were faced with a difficult choice. We looked at Barack Obama's record in the U.S. Senate, which was staunchly pro-Israel. We wondered if it was sincere or merely a necessity to be elected Senator from Illinois. We looked at his statements while in the Illinois Senate which also were positive. We heard his campaign statements and we heard reassurances from Joe Biden, whose record of support for Israel is long and impeccable. We watched other strongly pro-Israel Democrats line up behind Obama.

After all that many of us still had our doubts but looking at the candidates and hearing the reassurances about Mr. Obama we made what seemed to be the less onerous choice. I am still not at all sure it was the wrong choice. Yesterday I wrote about the power of Democrats who support Israel to influence the President and help to change his policy towards Israel. I will remind my readers once again that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were seen as anti-Israel early in their respective administrations. Early in the Bush administration when Prime Minister Sharon visited the President pro-Israel voices in the press colorfully stated that the Prime Minister had been "bushwhacked." The Prime Minister then famously warned President Bush that Israel is not Czechoslovakia in 1938, to be sacrificed to appease the Arabs. The President's policies changed and Mr. Gold is one of those that still sees Mr. Bush as the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.

Much as an assessment based on the first six months of the Clinton or Bush administrations would have reached the wrong conclusion about how these Presidents would shape American policy towards Israel, so too might Mr. Gold's assessment of President Obama prove false. The truth is we just don't know yet. I also find it interesting that Mr. Gold is attacking American Jewry for a lack of loyalty to Israel. Didn't Mrs. Palin, a candidate he supported, characterize anyone in areas which weren't supporting her candidacy as essientially un-American? I wonder how Mr. Gold reconciles that with condemning American Jews for putting American interests ahead of his notion of Israeli interests. That is the assertion Mr. Gold is making.

Simply put, Mr. Gold's article does not pass the smell test. I wrote yesterday that Republicans and conservatives who see political gain in discrediting President Obama will always throw proverbial stones regardless of the policy. They will always find fault. It is in their political interest to do so. If we ignored Republican warnings about Mr. Obama during the campaign it was simply because the source of those warnings was not trustworthy. Democrats, liberals, and moderates are not interested in condemning the President. We are more interested in meaningful policy change towards Israel. Mr. Gold, as a conservative Republican, is in no position to castigate and condemn Jewish Democrats when his true agenda has less to do with what is right for Israel than it does with pushing a conservative Republican agenda, one most American Jews simply do not agree with.

I am an American Jew of Israeli heritage. Much of my family lives in Israel. I am actively planning aliya. My love for the State of Israel and my support of Israel could not be stronger. I also love the United States of America and all the opportunities this country has given me. I don't see a conflict or a tension between the love of these two countries. I am also a Democrat who voted for President Obama. I don't think I made the wrong choice. As such I find Mr. Gold's article questioning my values and loyalties and those of other Jewish Democrats offensive and insulting.

Israel Must Live Up To Its Commitments If Israel's American Supporters Hope To Change Obama Policy

2009-08-11T20:24:00.005-05:00

NOTE: First published as part of The Jerusalem Post blogging competition earlier today

It seems that every day I read an editorial piece in a right-leaning or overtly right-wing publication or blog about the deteriorating relations between the Obama administration and Israel. The President has been, without any doubt, increasing pressure on Israel to halt all construction over the green line including eastern Jerusalem. Those on the political right continually portray President Obama as hostile to Israel. For example, Anne Bayefsky, writing for National Review Online, characterized the administration's policies at the U.N. as "a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves."

It is becoming increasingly difficult for those on the political left to simply dismiss these comments as just so much more Republican or right-wing anti-Obama rhetoric. Many of us in the American Jewish community who voted for President Obama did so with real reservations about his commitment to Israel. Candidate Obama did all he could to reassure the American supporters of Israel: Jewish, Christian, and others, and for many of us it was sufficient to allow us to focus on other issues when we entered the voting booth. When President Obama did meet with Jewish leaders he chose to exclude those who did not agree with his policies, even though that meant excluding the largest Jewish and Zionist organizations in the United States. Rather than reassuring American supporters of Israel the President further alienated those with legitimate concerns about his policies.

Israeli Deputy Premier Dan Meridor, speaking to reporters on July 21, correctly pointed out that agreements between Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush regarding settlement construction should be binding on the two countries:

"We never had an agreement with the previous administration. We had an agreement with America. The agreement we had with the Americans is binding on us and them [...] They should keep to the agreement. [...] It was agreed that the Israelis can go on building within certain parameters. That's what happened, and no word was said against it in six years."

There is still plenty of support for Mr. Meridor's position among Democrats and those left of center in the United States. Support by political leaders of both parties, as demonstrated by the unanimous support for Israel in both houses of Congress during Operation Cast Lead, remains as strong as ever. Many Congressional Democrats have been quietly or not so quietly expressing concerns about the President's policies in the Middle East.

Mr. Meridor speaks about the U.S. keeping agreements. That means that Israel must do the same. The most obvious example of where the Netanyahu government and, indeed, prior Israeli governments have not done so, or at the very least have dragged their collective feet and moved as slowly as possible, is in meeting the commitment to remove illegal settler outposts. Oh, and before someone challenges my use of the word "illegal", I mean illegal under Israeli law. Prime Minister Sharon, Prime Minister Olmert, and now Prime Minister Netanyahu have all committed to building no new settlements and to removing unauthorized ones set up by far right settlers.

Yes, I am aware that two small outposts were evacuated in May. I am also aware that the IDF has denied there are plans to quickly evacuate the remaining 23 outposts. The Chinese news agency Xinhua is reporting that evacuations will take place in September, citing the Jerusalem Post as a source. However, I have repeatedly read of plans for evacuating all the illegal outposts over the years and it never seems to happen.

Obviously I would like to see Mr. Meridor's words taken to heart by Democrats who can influence the President and hopefully bring about a policy change. However, it will be difficult if not impossible to convince the President to honor American commitments if Israel does not honor similar commitments.

I will remind people who see no point in even trying to influence the Obama administration of a little history. Initially President Clinton was seen by some to be hostile towards Israel. Relations between the Clinton administration and the first Netanyahu government were rocky at first. In the end President Clinton's efforts at peacemaking failed. His view on Israel evolved during that process and he placed the blame for that failure where it belongs, squarely with the Palestinians. It didn't take long before President Clinton was seen as a friend of Israel.

Early in the Bush administration when Prime Minister Sharon visited the President pro-Israel voices in the press colorfully stated that the Prime Minister had been "bushwhacked." The Prime Minister then famously warned President Bush that Israel was not Czechoslovakia in 1938:

"We are currently in the midst of a complex and difficult diplomatic campaign. I turn to the western democracies, first and foremost the leader of the free world, the United States. Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of a temporary, convenient solution. Don't try to appease the Arabs at our expense. We will not accept this."

After 9/11 President Bush found common cause with Prime Minister Sharon and relations improved to the point that some called the President the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.

Republicans and conservatives who see political gain in discrediting President Obama will always throw proverbial stones regardless of the policy. They will always find fault. It is in their political interest to do so. Democrats, liberals, and moderates are more interested in meaningful policy change. History argues that it may be possible to bring about that change and that it is far too early to judge President Obama's administration. However, if we are to insist on change in a meaningful way we can't ask of American what Israel itself fails to do. If commitments are to be met they must be met by both countries.

NOTE: You can rate this article or comment on it as part of the competition.

Jerusalem Post Blogging Competition

2009-08-11T14:47:00.003-05:00

I received an e-mail today about a blogging competition sponsored by The Jerusalem Post. Top rated entries will be included in both the online and print editions of the newspaper. I was invited to join the competition based on my posts here. I've recently run into increasing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism (more about that soon) and had already decided that I really needed to get back to blogging about Israel and Jewish issues as I have done in the past. The invitation was well timed and one I simply could not resist.

My first post is entitled: Israel Must Live Up To Its Commitments If Israel's American Supporters Hope To Change Obama Policy. There appears to be no rule against cross posting so I will also publish the piece here shortly.

The contest has five or six days to run. My intention is to publish at least high quality piece per day. With any luck I can maintain something close to that pace after the contest ends. If you create an account with BloggerBase you can vote on my articles and help me get published in The Jerusalem Post. Obviously I'd love it if you could take the time to do that.

UPDATE: It now appears I can only submit one post for the contest, at least for now. That didn't stop me from writing a second article. I am happy with the one I submitted yesterday in any case.

Prime Minister Netanyahu on Iran

2009-06-24T16:06:00.003-05:00

If you haven't seen Prime Minister Netanyahu's interview last Sunday on Meet The Press it really is "Must See TV", to borrow NBC's slogan. (NBC is the network that broadcasts Meet The Press in the U.S.) For those of you who prefer to read the transcript you can find it here.

A few high points:

Obviously, you see a regime that represses its own people and spreads terror far and wide. It is a regime whose real nature has been unmasked, and it's been unmasked by incredible acts of courage by Iran citizens. They go into the streets, they face bullets and, I tell you, as somebody who believes deeply in democracy, that you see the Iranian lack of democracy at work, and I think this better explains and best explains to the entire world what this regime is truly about.

[...]

Andrei Sakharov, the great Russian scientist and humanist, said that a regime that oppresses its own people sooner or later will oppress its neighbors and, certainly, Iran has been doing that. It's been calling for the denial of the Holocaust. It's threatening to wipe Israel off the map; it's pursuing nuclear weapons to that effect; it's sponsoring terror against us but throughout the world. So I think what everybody would like to see is a change of policy, both outside and inside.

[...]

I don't subscribe to the view that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a status symbol. It's not. These are people who are sending thousands and thousands of missiles to their terrorist proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas, with the specific instruction to bomb civilians in Israel. They are supporting terrorists in the world. This is not a status symbol.

To have such a regime acquire nuclear weapons is to risk the fact that they might give it to terrorists or give terrorists a nuclear umbrella - that is a departure in the security of the Middle East and the world, certainly the security of my country. So I wouldn't treat the subject so lightly."

Watch the full interview:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Carter on Settlements: Gush Etzion Will Remain Israeli "Forever"

2009-06-15T12:14:00.008-05:00

Yesterday former U.S. President Jimmy Carter visited Neveh Daniel and met with Shaul Goldstien, who leads the Gush Etzion Regional Council, in Goldstien's home. Here are some of President Carter's comments as reported by The Jerusalem Post:

This particular settlement area is not one I ever envision being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory."

He added that the Jewish communities in Gush Etzion are among a number of West Bank settlements "...that I think will be here forever." The former President also thanked the Gush Etzion residents he met with:

I recognize that their suffering is taking place in an area where strife and misunderstanding and animosity exists. I have been fortunate this afternoon in learning the perspective that I did not have. I explained to those listening of my long-time commitment to Israel. The most important element in my life in the last 30 years is to bring peace...

What makes this statement so important is the fact that it came from President Carter, a political leader widely considered to be strongly pro-Palestinian and who has wrongly compared Israeli policies to South African apartheid. I have been harshly critical of Mr. Carter in the past but this time he absolutely gets it right.

President Carter has come to the same realiztion that Presidents Clinton and Bush have reached: the 1949 armistice line, to so-called "pre-1967 borders" were never intended to be borders at all and simply are not defensible. Israel can never return to those "borders" and the intransigent Palestinian position of refusing to budge from the armistice line or engage in land swaps is a real obstacle to any hope of peace in the future.

Even the use of the term "settlements" is often inaccurate and misleading. Here is what I wrote about the history of the Etzion bloc in March, 2006:

Gush Etzion and pretty much the entire Etzion bloc were Jewish property and Jewish towns prior to 1948. Israeli forces had to evacuate the population when the Jordanian army conquered the area during Israel's 1948-49 War of Independence. Why does 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation turn Israeli Jewish towns into colonies? Why was Jordan's occupation deemed somehow legitimate and Israel's subsequent control of the area for the next nearly 39 years somehow illegitimate?

The fact is that all "settlements" are not equal. They do not all have the same history and are not somehow stolen Palestinian land. President Clinton recognized this in regard to the Jewish community in Hebron as well. From the same March, 2006 piece:

...the Jewish community of Hebron lived for many centuries in peace with their Arab neighbors. It was only the violence incited by then Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, the British appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the subsequent Hebron massacre of 1929, that drove the Jewish community out. The "settlers" in Hebron have simply reclaimed homes and property that was Jewish for centuries and restored a community in a city that is holy to the Jewish people. Hebron is, after all, the site of the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. President Bill Clinton recognized this, proposing at Camp David in 2000 that Palestinians lease the Jewish enclaves in the city to the Jewish inhabitants and/or Israel indefinitely. His idealistic vision was one of Jews and Palestinian Arabs once again living together in peace. Does either the terrorism and slaughter of 1929 or the Jordanian occupation of Hebron from 1948 until 1967 negate the Jewish claims in the city and centuries of continued Jewish presence there?

Sadly it does not appear that President Obama understands this history in his call for a freeze to all settlement activity. If he was calling for no further expropriation of land from the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea and Samaria I'd agree with the President. If he was talking about not expanding settlements geographically I'd agree that such expansion would be damaging to any prospects for a meaningful peace process. That isn't what the President is talking about. He is opposed even to natural growth within Jewish towns and cities on land within those communities. President Obama is critical of Israel at a time when Israeli policies have allowed for negligible settlement growth or, in some cases, actual declines in population and as the Netanyahu government forcibly evacuates illegal outposts.

It is high time President Obama stops trying to determine the outcome of peace talks in advance at a time when the Palestinian leadership seems to have little or no interest in compromise or peace. It is particularly important that the President learns more of the history of the Jewish communities in question and comes to the same realizations that President Clinton, President Bush, and now even President Carter have come to. There are Jewish communities beyond the Green Line that are legal, legitimate, and here to stay.

Iranian Opposition Arrests Are For "Traffic Violations"

2009-06-14T07:41:00.005-05:00

I watched part of the press conference today by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad today. I heard his claim that the reporting of what was essentially a stolen election was "slander" by Western journalists. He claimed that the arrests and violence with riot police seen beating protesters was just the normal sort of thing that happens when people "leave a soccer stadium". I listened to him claim that everyone is equal in Iran and that the people arrested were being "fined" by the police for violating traffic laws. He repeatedly claimed that 40 million people voted in Iran and that "safeguards" the elections. He insisted that there is "no partisanship" in Iran as in the West, that everyone remains friends and nobody asks who you voted for in Iran. All of this was to justify his government's claim that President Ahmadenijad was reelected with 63% of the vote despite the fact that they have not released any vote tallies and that all polls and press reports prior to the voting indiciated a likely opposite result.

Despite President Ahmadenijad's claims to the contrary it is clear to all the world that is willing to look at Iran honestly that what exists is a theocratic totalitarian state, not a democracy in any sense of the word. This is, of course, the same President Ahmadenijad who denies the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the map and says so to thunderous applause at the U.N. This is the same President Ahmadenijad who sees his country's quest for both nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology as a "right".

Today The New York Times and The Jerusalem Post are reporting that President Obama is still determined to enter into direct talks with Iran in spite of the stolen election. This makes the previous report that that the U.S. administration is not accepting the election results ring hollow. It is time for President Obama and his administration to end their timid, almost acquiescent, approach to Iran. If the President ever needed a justification to change his policy towards Iran he has it in this stolen election. U.S. policy needs to return to one that recognizes that Iran simply will not engage in any meaninfuly negotiations and is effectively immune to diplomacy. If Iran does enter into any talks with the West in general or the United States in particular it is simply to buy time to allow the nuclear and missile programs to be completed.

Three and a half years ago I used this blog to call for U.S. military action to end the Iranian nuclear program. The point I made then is that the consequences for the U.S. and the world as a whole would be much less severe and fewer lives would be lost if the U.S. rather than Israel took such action. I still believe that is true but I also believe that the Obama administration will never do any such thing. We know that last September Israel was prepared to go ahead with such an attack. It has been widely reported that President Bush effectively vetoed the action and that Prime Minister Olmert decided not to act without American support. Earlier this month we had the spectacle of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman assuring the Russians that Israel will not attack Iran and that this is an international problem, not an Israeli one per se. Never mind that the international community, as demonstrated in April at the U.N. Durban II conference, would be perfectly content to see Israel destroyed and that Iranian leaders have promised to do just that.

The "election" in Iran demonstrates clearly that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is very much in charge and that Iran's President will be whomever Khamenei decides will be President. The people of Iran, whom President Ahmadenijad insists have "total freedom", have no say whatsoever. The aftermath of the election, with internet services blocked, newspapers shut down, and the opposition either arrested or under threat of arrest, signals clearly that nothing is going to change in Iran. Their desire to destroy Israel and to have a leadership that proclaims that openly has not changed.

What needs to change is the timid response by the United States and the equally timid response by Israel at America's behest. Americans need to remember that there is only one nation that the Iranian leadership hates more than Israel: the "Great Satan", the United States. With a theocratic regims that believes that an apocalyptic battle will set the stage for the return of the 12th Imam, the Islamic messiah, it would be foolish to believe that given nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them that Iran would not use them. This sham election should serve as a reminder than nothing short of military action will prevent that. I said it three and a half years ago and I repeat it now.

At the very least President Obama needs to untie the hands of Israel's leadership. Failing that it is time that Prime Minister Netanyahu realizes that he cannot count on the United States to prevent Israel's destruction. Israel must act to safeguard her citizens and her survival with our without U.S. approval.

President Obama Hosting Passover Seder

2009-04-08T15:07:00.006-05:00

Barack Obama will become the first American President ever to host a Passover seder at the White House.

While the story has received minimal mainstream media coverage here in the U.S. it was much bigger news in the Jewish and Israeli press. The historical significance was not lost on The Jerusalem Post:

'I'm really happy to hear about it,' said Steve Rabinowitz, who once led a staff Seder in the Clinton White House but didn't know of any White House Seder in which the president had personally taken part before now. 'It's been an extremely open White House to all faith communities, certainly including ours.'

William Daroff, who runs the United Jewish Communities' Washington office, recalled that former president Franklin D. Roosevelt snuck out the back door of the White House in 1943 to avoid seeing rabbis marching out front to demand US action to save European Jews from the Nazis.

'Sixty-six years later the President of the United States is spending Thursday evening with his friends and family celebrating the liberation and survival of the Jewish people,' Daroff noted, calling the event 'a testament to how far we have come as a Jewish people in America.'

In a bit of irony former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) chose today to declare that the Obama administration is "anti-religious". He was referring to the appointment of Harry Knox, a former Methodist minister and an outspoken gay rights advocate to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives. Apparently Mr. Gingrich believes anything other than right-wing evangelical Christianity isn't worthy of consideration as a religion. There are any number of liberal and tolerant Christian denominations. Reform Judaism is openly supportive of gay rights as are many in the Conservative (Masorti) movement.

I'm often asked why Jews tend to vote Democratic by conservative friends who see liberals as insufficiently supportive of Israel. While many European leaders were issuing warnings and thinly veiled threats to the new Israeli government even before Prime Minister Netanyahu officially took office President Obama chose that day to declare America's "unwavering support" for Israel. Support for Israel among Democratic leaders is not lacking.

Many right-wing Republicans, on the other hand, are very tied to Christian fundamentalism. Mr. Gingrich also accused President Obama of being "intensely secular". As a Jewish woman and a member of a religious minority in this country I am more comfortable with a secular government than an intolerant fundamentalist Christian one. My mainstream Jewish values are very different than those of the American Christian religious right.

I, for one, am grateful to President Obama's support for Israel even if I have some reservations about specific elements of his foreign policy. I think Mr. Gingrich's comments on the day before the President is taking part in a truly historic Jewish religious observance illustrate very well why I can't support his views.

To President Obama, and to all my readers:

Hag Sameach! Happy Passover!

A Breath Of Fresh Air From The Israeli Foreign Ministry

2009-04-08T14:09:00.009-05:00

The rather right-wing One Jerusalem website, in an April 2nd article, characterized new Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman as having the right message but of being the wrong messenger. They describe the vilification of Lieberman in the media:

Critics of Lieberman included the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, western public officials, editorial boards, and most anyone else involved in foreign affairs.

In the vast majority of the reports Lieberman is depicted as a 'racist' who hates Arabs. He is also seen as an international outlaw who is challenging the very foundations of Middle Eastern international relations.

The Jerusalem Post covered Lieberman's speech to his new staff at the foreign ministry. Here are a few highlights:

I think that we have seen the cheapening of many concepts, first and foremost of the word 'peace.' The fact that we say the word 'peace' 20 times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We have seen the disengagement and witnessed the Annapolis accord. I read in the newspaper about the far-reaching proposals made by the prime minister to the other side, which I do not think have ever been made, outside of Barak's visit to Camp David.

Israel Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition; Avigdor Lieberman was not the foreign minister. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't have hampered bringing peace. But I do not see that it brought peace. To the contrary. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly becoming extremist.

We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions, and constantly saying 'I am prepared to concede,' and using the word 'peace' will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. 'Si vis pacem, para bellum' - if you want peace, prepare for war, be strong. We certainly desire and want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility."

Am I the only one who is cheering these words? The Foreign Minister is absolutely correct that Israeli concessions have been interpreted as weakness, both in the Arab world and among Israel's critics in Europe and elsewhere. Withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza didn't bring the opening for peace that Prime Minister Sharon hoped for. It only brought more bloodshed: bloodshed initiated by Hamas. It also brought more international condemnation. It didn't matter that not a single Israeli remained in Gaza. It didn't matter that Egypt also controls a border with Gaza. Somehow Israel was still guilty of "occupation" and "oppression" because it wouldn't allow the free flow of goods, including weapons, and people, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.

Foreign Minister Lieberman is also right to put the onus for peacemaking on the Palestinians. Palestinian President Abbas is boycotting the new Israeli government even as Prime Minister Netanyahu is talking about strengthening the Abbas-led Fatah government and moving ahead with the peace process. To me the speech is a breath of fresh air. It's about time Israel had a Foreign Minister who is not timid and not afraid to speak the truth.

One Jerusalem has its own objections to Foreign Minister Lieberman. He is an outspoken proponent of a two state solution who has said that he would gladly give up his West Bank home for peace. One Jerusalem doesn't support a two state solution.

Usually if you are criticized from both the left and right you are doing something right. Next week I'll look at Foreign Minister Lieberman's record and statements in more detail. While some respectful criticism of and concern about the Foreign Minister is certainly justified much of the media attacks on him are certainly not.

Fatah: "Hamas Are Criminals"

2009-01-13T22:48:00.006-06:00

It seems the criticism of Hamas, including blaming Hamas and its supporters for the current death and destruction in Gaza, isn't limited to Israel and its supporters. A Fatah official in Ramallah, speaking on condition on anonymity to the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, said, in part:

"The Iranians and Syrians are using Hamas to undermine the Palestinian Authority and other moderate Arab governments. Victory for Hamas in this war would mean victory for Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. This is something we need to prevent."

So it seems even moderate Palestinians want an Israeli victory in Gaza. The anonymous official also hopes that Hamas leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Ismail Haniyeh would be tried before a Palestinian court as "war criminals." The Hamas leaders, he charged, were responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinians.

"Ever since they came to power, they brought death and destruction to our people."

Funny, if you listen to the U.N. and some media outlets you'd think that Israel was responsible for all the killing and only Israelis could ever be considered war criminals. It seems that objective and honest people, even Palestinians, see things differently.

On the record Abdel Rahman, a senior advisor to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, mocked claims made by Hamas leaders about their successes against Israel. He added:

"The Gaza Strip belongs to the Palestinian people. The Gaza Strip is part of Palestine and not a Hamas-owned estate."

I will repeat my contention that the only hope for peace to ever be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians depends on an Israeli victory in Gaza, not the premature ceasefire the U.N. is pushing for. Hamas must be removed from power and Gaza must be returned to Palestinian Authority control under international supervision.

International Law and the Fighting In Gaza

2009-01-11T22:52:00.006-06:00

Earlier today the Global Law Center issued a report titled International Law and the Fighting In Gaza. The report finds that Hamas has repeatedly violated international law and also cites "Israel's exemplary conduct." Here are a few key excerpts:

"Each one of the 6,000 rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian terrorists on civilian targets in Israeli towns is a war crime. Both the terror squads carrying out the attacks, as well as their commanders, bear criminal responsibility."

[...]

"A consortium of Palestinian terrorist groups have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit incommunicado and out of reach of the International Committee of the Red Cross since 2006. This is a clear violation of international law concerning prisoners of war."

[...]

"The Palestinian attacks must be seen as terrorist attacks under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which makes it a crime to bomb public places (such as city streets) with the intent to kill civilians. Under this Convention, the Palestinian attackers are considered international terrorists and Israel is required to assume criminal jurisdiction over them."

[...]

"The Hamas attacks fall within this definition of genocide. The Covenant of Hamas explicitly advocates a religious holy war aimed at creating a regional Islamic entity encompassing the territory of Israel and the disputed areas."

[...]

"In contrast to the illegal Palestinian attacks from Gaza, Israeli counter-measures have been legal. Indeed, Israel’s responses to Palestinian terrorist attacks and war crimes have been limited to far less than the full measure of actions Israel could legally have undertaken. In fact, Israel’s responses may be properly criticized on the grounds of international law, if at all, for being insufficient rather than excessive.

Many of the legal criticisms of Israel are implicitly based upon misinterpretations of the relevant international law. Moreover, many of the charges are disingenuously based upon misstatements of fact or misuse of legal terminology."

[...]

"Under international law, it is certain that Israel has the right to use force in defending itself against Palestinian attacks from Gaza. If Gaza is an independent sovereignty, and entitled to all the rights of states under jus ad bellum, Israel would be entitled to use force against Gaza by authority of the inherent right to self-defense referenced by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Gaza would have lost its general immunity from attack by repeatedly striking at its neighbor state and Israel’s use of force would therefore be permissible on the grounds of self-defense."

[...]

"At the same time, it is clear that Palestinian actions in conducting military operations from within built-up civilian areas, thereby increasing Palestinian casualties, constitute war crimes. It is important to note that Israel is not required to refrain from attacking Palestinian combatants simply because they have chosen to hide behind civilians. As Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear, the presence of civilians 'may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.' The article also makes Palestinian attempts to use civilian shields unlawful. "

All of the accusations made against Israel to date have come from organizations with a long history of an anti-Israeli bias. These include Arab sources, the United Nations, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The U.N., in particular, stands accused of conducting a diplomatic and political war against Israel in an editorial published in last Thursday's New York Daily News by Anne Bayefsky of Eye On The U.N. Ms. Bayefsky believes that the 63 "Islamic [states] chokehold on the UN" leaves the organization incapable of even defining terrorism. She points to all the various condemnations of Israel and notes that the General Assembly has never found fault with other nations even in clear cases of genocide.

"The same Assembly never managed to hold a single emergency session on the 800,000 people who died in the Rwandan genocide, or the 3 million who are dead or displaced in Sudan."

A former President of the International Committee of the Red Cross once equated the Jewish Star of David with the Nazi swastika. Enough said.

Unfortunately much of the international media seems to share the anti-Israel agenda and serve as willing accomplices in the attempt to strip Israel of any ability to defend itself. Consequently I expect the Global Law Center report will get little or no media coverage. Both the organizations making the war crime changes against Israel and many in the media count on the fact that most people just aren't educated about international law or what it really has to say. We can't have the truth actually get out to people, can we? Rather the media assumes that a lie, repeated enough times, will become the truth.

A Great Example Of Why I Love The United States: Today's Senate Resolution

2009-01-08T15:47:00.007-06:00

Today the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution supporting Israel's right to defend itself against the ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza. The resolution was cosponsored by the normally unlikely duo of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

Senator Reid (D-NV) stated that the resolution would :

"..."strengthen our historic bond with the State of Israel by reaffirming Israel's inalienable right to defend against attacks from Gaza, as well as our support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

Senator McConnell (R-KY) made perhaps the strongest statement about why the United States continues to back the Israeli military action in Gaza, saying that Israel

"...responding exactly the same way [the US] would if rockets were being launched into the United States from Canada or Mexico."

This is a perfect example of why I love the United States. The U.S., like Europe, has strong commercial interests in the Arab world, not to mention U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be expedient to criticize Israel to protect those perhaps larger interests in the Muslim world. The U.S., unlike Europe, rarely if ever does that. There is an understanding of the history involved and a moral clarity that transcends the almighty dollar or partisan politics. There is a certain dishonesty in those who would condemn Israel and yet would demand action much like that taken by Israel if their own nations and families were under fire.

Sadly this resolution by the U.S. Senate today received little or no coverage in the American media. I had to go to the Jerusalem Post to find the story.

UPDATE: The Senate resolution actually passed unanimously, as did an identical resolution in the House of Representatives. Every single U.S. member of Congress, without exception, voted to support Israel.

On Gaza: It's Time The World Sees What American Leaders See So Clearly

2009-01-07T23:23:00.012-06:00

Last July President-elect Barack Obama visited Sderot, the Israeli town which has suffered most from Hamas rocket attacks eminating from Gaza. His words then were clear and unequivocal:

If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries.

President Bush has been equally clear. On Monday he spoke about the current fighting:

The situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas. Instead of caring about the people of Gaza, Hamas decided to use Gaza to launch rockets to kill innocent Israelis. Israel's obviously decided to protect herself and her people.

Democratic leaders in Congress have been almost uniformly taking exactly the same position. This is perhaps the one and only issue in American politics today where there is no partisan divide. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has been a particularly forceful voice:

Israel is acting in clear self-defense in response to heinous rocket attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza. As a sovereign nation, Israel has an unequivocal right to take action to ensure the security and safety of her citizens. Indiscriminate attacks by Hamas are a serious detriment to the peace process in the region.

There are very few, even among Israel's harshest critics, who would deny the fact that the current crisis was started by unprovoked rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas. They, however, ignore this issue, reciting tired old lines about Palestinian grievances against Israel to justify Hamas terrorism and decry "Israeli aggression". The usual suspects on the far left and in the international media highlight Palestinian deaths and show us pictures of crying Palestinian children to tug at the heartstrings and turn public opinion against Israel. Outside the United States and Canada they have largely succeeded.

Maintream American media, thankfully, has been more balanced. CNN's Anderson Cooper showed the same disturbing images from Gaza but followed them with photos of Hamas rockets and destruction in southern Israel. PBS program "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" has, as always, shown both sides of the conflict. This seems to me to be the main reason why American public opinion is so different from that in the rest of the world. Americans have all the facts at their disposal, something those who rely on more biased media simply do not have.

The most interesting reaction has been from the Arab world. Oh, the streets and most media outlets have been denouncing Israel steadily, using extreme language and exaggeration together with graphic images to stoke passions against the Jewish state. This is to be expected. Every Israeli action is a new "genocide" or "holocaust". Those words have been so cheapened in that part of the world that they have almost lost any meaning, a tragedy in and of itself.

The reaction from Arab leaders has been far more muted for good reason. Moderate, mainly Sunni Arab leaders know that Hamas is their enemy as well and a proxy for Iran. Douglas Bloomfield, writing in the Jerusalem Post, calls these leaders "Israel's reluctant allies:"

From this tendency of Arab leaders to speak out of both sides of their mouths, one might get the impression that they suffer from a collective case of schizophrenia, but it's actually fear mixed with hypocrisy.

None of these dictators is a candidate for the next edition of Profiles in Courage. They are scared of the influence of the militant Islamists and the popularity of the Palestinian cause on the Arab street. Iran and its allies have focused on creating animosity to the entrenched and repressive Sunni regimes which, in the age of satellites and the Internet, can no longer turn public emotions on and off like a water tap.

That's why they are praying so hard for an Israeli victory.

Defeating Hamas now will certainly result in a tragic loss of life. Many innocent people, the majority of them Palestinians, will certainly die. However, it is time that the bleeding hearts on the left in both North America and Europe realize that dislodging Hamas now will prevent repeats of this war and bloodshed in the future and might, just maybe, revive some slim hope for peace in the future. In the long run letting Israel finish what it has started will save lives. My biggest fear is that world leaders, including American leaders, will allow images from Gaza and public sentiment to sway them into pressuring Israel to end the conflict prematurely.

I also ask those who only mourn Palestinian casualties to think about President-elect Obama's words. What would you want your government to do if missiles were raining down on your home and your family? Can any of you honestly say that you wouldn't want your government to do anything and everything necessary to stop the rockets and save your family?

Happy Hanukkah!

2008-12-25T01:29:00.001-06:00

I just want to wish everyone a very Happy Hanukkah!

To my Christian friends: a very Merry Christmas!

To anyone who celebrates something else or nothing at all: a very happy holiday season.

I haven't forgotten this blog and yes, I have lots to write about.

Gmar Hatima Tov

2008-10-08T11:17:00.003-05:00

Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar and the most solemn day in the Jewish year, starts at sundown this evening. (As of this writing it has already started in Israel.) For Jews around the world it is a time of fasting, prayer, and repentance. In Israel everything shuts down for Yom Kippur, from television and radio stations, to public transportation, to all non-emergency government services. Most Israeli Jews, even those who normally consider themselves secular, will be in a synagogue for Kol Nidre services tonight.

For everyone who observes Yom Kippur I wish you an easy fast and a meaningful observance.

Shana Tovah!

2008-09-29T17:08:00.001-05:00

Shana Tovah! I hope everyone has a happy, healthy, and sweet new year!

I hope that I'll be able to be actively blogging again after the Rosh Hashana holiday.

Change To Google Earth Requires Corroboration For User Entries

2008-09-02T01:12:00.005-05:00

Last week I wrote an article for O'Reilly News and for this blog documenting alleged anti-Israel political bias and the posting of false information at Google Earth. Similar charges had been previously made about Google News. The main point of the article was to question the integrity of the data provided by Google and questioning if, in effect, Google was losing the trust of its wider user community by making decisions which suited a specific political agenda.

While the article appeared on Friday, August 29th it was actually sent to Google for comment more than 24 hours earlier. While I received no directly reply an article in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, August 31st reported changes at Google Earth:

A new super-layer of geographic information in the popular Google Earth program now requires corroboration before user-generated content can be added to the default map display. The move means that anti-Israel markings placed by a Jenin resident are no longer visible to users when they first open the program.

[...]

Key to the new layer are special algorithms that corroborate information received through one source with the other sources. According to a company statement, this will make "it easier for users to learn about a given place through photos, videos, and annotations contributed by users around the world."

But it will also allow Google Earth to automatically corroborate any information received from users before displaying it on the default layer. Only information appearing in more than a single source will be displayed in this layer.

It appears that Google has made changes which do address the concerns of the company's critics on this issue.

I don't know if this is the result of nearly two years of criticism in the Israeli press and the pro-Israel blogosphere or if my effort to raise the issue in another forum, in the tech community to be specific, made a difference. One thing I am sure of: all of us who wrote to raise this issue deserve some credit. That includes both reporters and bloggers. Google is no longer in the business of delegitimizing Israel because we made our voices heard. Such efforts need to continue, calling into question every bit of misinformation and outright falsehoods that are published about Israel. The change at Google Earth proves that we, as a group, can make a difference and stand up for the truth.

Google Earth Delivers Geographic Data, Satellite Imagery, and Political Bias

2008-08-28T17:26:00.006-05:00

NOTE: This piece was written for O'Reilly News in an attempt to reach an audience outside the Israeli, pro-Israel, and Jewish media where the ongoing issue of bias at Google has not been widely reported.

Last Friday Media Backspin, the weblog of HonestReporting.com, reported that Google Earth had removed a notation which falsely claimed that the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Yam was built on the ruins of Ghawarina, an Arab town which supposedly has been destroyed during Israel's 1948-49 War of Independence. Google, which researched the notation made by Dr. Thameen Darby, a Palestinian physician living in Jenin, used maps dating back to 1880 to justify the change. A new notation on Google Earth reads:

The 1880 Palestine Exploration Fund map designates a region by this name east of Acre. This area is populated with Israeli Arabs. The map does not have any towns here.

Translation: Ghawarina was someplace else and Arabs still live there today.

At first glance it looks like Google corrected an error and all is well. Sadly, it took two years and a libel suit by Kiryat Yam to get the error corrected. An Associated Press report on February 11 about the complaint quoted Professor Yossi Ben-Artzi of Haifa University:

That's simply complete nonsense. Kiryat Yam was built on sand dunes, and there wasn't any Palestinian village in the area. The lands were bought in 1939 by the Gav Yam construction company.

This isn't an isolated case. On June 26 Andre Oboler of the Jerusalem Center For Public Affaris published a report titled Google Earth: A New Platform for Anti-Israel Propaganda and Replacement Geography. In the report Dr. Obeler states, in part:

...sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction. The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history.

[...]

The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology. Those wishing to find directions, explore the cities of Israel, or randomly wander across this small piece of land are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest.

What makes Obeler's report compelling is not the fact that users have altered history and geography to suit their political purpose. Rather, it is that Israel, unlike other nations, has had this information included into the default display.

"Generally, Google allows all kinds of organizations or individuals to create overlays with their own information on its map. These overlays are only available to those who specifically request them, but they are not automatically incorporated into the core map of Google Earth that every user entering its website can see. Disturbingly, Google has incorporated the Palestinians' overlays and their accompanying narrative into its core maps of Israel. As Google maintains editorial control over its core layer, it has responsibility for its content, which it clearly has not adequately exercised."

The crux of the issue is Obeler's charge that Google made a deliberate decision to place pro-Israeli content in one user layer which is not displayed by default and pro-Palestinian content in another user layer that is displayed by default overlaying the core layer. Obeler is charging that Google, the company, has made a deliberate and conscious decision to use Google Earth to promote a specific political agenda. This charge of explicit bias by Google can be substantiated today even after the Kiryat Yam correction.

A July 1st Jerusalem Post report actually claims that anti-Israel posting on Google Earth increased in the wake of Obeler's report.

Google's overall response has been less than helpful. From the Jerusalem Post article:

Google spokesperson Jessica Powell said on Tuesday that Google has no plans to restrict the application's content, despite claims that Israel is being uniquely and malevolently targeted.

[...]

"This layer reflects what people contribute, not what Google believes to be true [...] While we recognize that some may find the user-generated content objectionable, we are careful to balance the integrity of an open forum with the legal requirements of local governments," Powell said. "

Obeler, who was interviewed for the Jerusalem Post article, challenged Powell's assertions:

The orange dots posted by Darby can be immediately found on the map, while other pro-Israel and corrected postings have to be downloaded separately. A user has to actively seek for another perspective on the map.

The core layer is what people get when they download and install Google Earth. It is there by default. The problem we have here is that the core layer is being used to promote propaganda, and this is being done openly and without penalty. If we treat Google Earth as the primary geographic information tool in the world, having such propaganda included becomes a problem.

On July 15 the Zionist Organization of America sent a letter to Google executives asking for changes. ZOA President Morton Klein added:

Google markets Google Earth as a reliable resource and teaching tool. It even publishes a Web site for teachers to use in the classroom. The company can't have it both ways. It can't benefit from a reputation as a credible source of information and yet take a hands-off approach when users post information on the map of Israel that is false and hateful. Google exercises editorial control over some of the content on Google Earth, but not when it comes to anti-Israel falsehoods.

The claim of anti-Israel bias at Google also stretches beyond Google Earth. For years right wing and pro-Israel websites and bloggers have claimed that Google News showed the same bias in their editorial selections. HonestReporting.com took Google News to task on the issue back in 2004.

For those of you who share Google's political perspective I ask you to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if the West Bank was shown on Google Eath only as Yehuda and Shomron (Hebrew for Judea and Samaria), as integral to Israel, and covered with orange dots which only refer to the Palestinian people as terrorists while describing the area as solely Jewish in history? Would the Palestinians and their supporters be up in arms? Of course they would and rightfully so. Google Earth should only show factual information with user commentary available on demand, not one sided commentary shown by default without fact checking.

There is a wider issue for all of Google's hundreds of millions of users. Google has built a reputation and a successful business based on trust. Google users trust that when they do a search, look at Google Earth, or use any of Google's other services that accurate data is being provided to them. I have no evidence that Google's search engine, for example, is in any way tainted by politics Despite that I find myself double checking the results Google provides with new search engines like Cuil and Mooter and even the venerable Alta Vista. Google has already lost the trust of many Israeli, Jewish, and pro-Israel users. What happens to Google's business if this lack of trust spreads to the wider user community as they become aware of the charges of political bias?

Google is best served by insuring the trust of their user community regardless of politics. Using Google Earth or Google News as a platform for political advocacy is destructive to their business.

Obeler and Klein made a reasonable suggestion which would restore trust while allowing Palestinian users and their supporters largely uncensored access. They propose that Google treat the Virtual Palestine user layer exactly the same way they treat other user layers. Don't display the information by default overlaying the core layer. Make it available for download by request. Google also has a responsibility to investigate complaints about false and malicious content as they did in the Kiryat Yam case. Google's actions last Friday are a model for what needs to be done. It just shouldn't take a lawsuit for them to act.

Technorati Tags: israel google google earth bias google news political bias revisionist history palestine middle east

Barack Obama and Israel, Part 3

2008-05-24T00:35:00.005-05:00

In Part 1 and Part 2 I acknowledged that Senator Barack Obama, now the likely Democratic nominee for President, has generally been supportive of Israel and has a solid voting record during his four year tenure in the U.S. Senate. I expressed deep reservations, however, about his choice of foreign policy advisers, specifically Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom are stridently anti-Israel and have a history of blaming all the ills of the Middle East on Israel in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Even more worrisome is Obama campaign co-chair and chief military adviser, General Merrill "Tony" McPeak. Writing about McPeak in the conservative American Spectator Robert Goldberg describes the General's views:

He also has a penchant for bashing Israel or, more particularly, Jews who oppose negotiating with terrorists.

McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not going back to the 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.

In a 2003 interview in The Oregonian newspaper, when asked why efforts at peacemaking between Palestinians and Israel have failed McPeak had the audacity (to borrow Obama's favorite term) to blame it on American Jewry. Asked where the problem lies, McPeak responded:

New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.

McPeak also blames Jewish and Christian Zionists of manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq:

Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq.

While Senator Obama has recently started distancing himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski and has clearly staed that he disagrees with Brzezinski on Israel he has made no similar statements about McPeak. Quite the contrary. In the run up to Tuesday's Oregon primary television commercials with Obama and McPeak together appeared. (McPeak is an Oregon native.) Obama turned to McPeak to boost his credibility as a future Commander-In-Chief.

McPeak clearly doeen't believe that Israeli interests and American interests coincide in the Middle East. If Obama's top military man is McPeak can an Obama administration be trusted to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Would McPeak simply dismiss any calls to do so as another attempt at manipulation of U.S. foreign policy by Jews and Christian Zionists? Would Obama take his advice? I don't know for certain but I certainly don't want to find out.

Technorati Tags: israel obama barack+obama mcpeak tony mcpeak 2008 elections politics palestine middle east

Barack Obama and Israel, Part 2

2008-04-03T22:43:00.006-05:00

In Part 1 I acknowledged that Barack Obama's record supporting Israel during his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate has been excellent. Despite that I am extremely worried about what an Obama administration would mean for Israel because he has surrounded himself with a foreign policy team that is openly hostile towards Israel.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter. The ex-President has famously written a book equating Israeli policy to South African apartheid. As I frequently point out accusing Israel of apartheid is reserved for people who are either totally ignorant both about Israel and what apartheid in South Africa meant or else simply want to spread propaganda with no regard for facts. President Carter certainly isn't ignorant and neither is Brzezinski. In addition to serving as a senior foreign policy to Senator Obama, Brzezinski has made a career of writing scathing attacks on Israel and making the rounds of the talk show circuit eloquently explaining to Americans why Israel is at the root of all evil in the Middle East and probably beyond. I cringe every time I see him on TV.

Brzezinski is the only senior American official, past or present, who has openly supported John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's claim that the "Israel lobby" has shaped American foreign policy to the detriment of the United States. Alan Dershowitz cited Brzezinski's views as damaging to the Obama campaign:

It is a tremendous mistake for Barack Obama to select as a foreign policy adviser the one person in public life who has chosen to support a bigoted book.

More recently, in response to the Annapolis peace conference Brzezinski signed a letter calling on the Bush administration to open a dialogue with Hamas terrorists, the same people who daily fire rockets and mortars into southern Israel, in part to scuttle any chance for peace. Brzezinski also blamed American and Israeli foreign policy rather than Hizbullah for the 2006 Lebanon War.

Brzezinski's quickness to attack any Israeli government as an obstacle to peace was demonstrated in 1996 appearance on PBS's The Newshour With Jim Lehrer when he had signed a letter urging pressure on the then new government of Binyamin Netanyahu. Brzezinski gave this assessment of the Israeli Prime Minister:

In my view, there is the real danger that Netanyahu is pursuing a policy not of peace with security, which is what he was elected to pursue, but of peace with territory, which is what the Likud has stood for, for a long time--peace with territory, which really means security with territory, and peace being sloughed off.

Prime Minister Netanyahu went on to negotiate, sign, and implement the Wye River Agreement and pulled out of most of Hebron in an attempt to push the Oslo peace process forward. We may have already seen some of Brzezinski's antagonism toward Netanyahu expressed by Senator Obama in his statement that supporting Israel doesn't mean supporting Likud.

How damaging is Brzezinski to Obama with supporters of Israel? Just ask Mark Siegel, who served as Jewish liason for President Carter until 1978:

Brzezinski was a major obstacle to bridging the divisions between the president and the Jewish community. I’m very, very surprised that someone would have him directly involved in a presidential campaign.

Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to fail to capture a majority of the Jewish vote. With foreign policy advisers like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley I think it is very likely that Obama will follow in Carter's footsteps. The loss of supporters of Israel, Jewish, Christian, and other, could easily cost Obama a close election is he is the Democratic nominee.

In Part 3 of this four part series I'll introduce one more adviser that's even more worrisome than Brzezinski.

Technorati Tags: israel obama barack+obama brzezinski zbigniew brzezinski 2008 elections politics palestine middle east

Stop Canadian Apartheid Now!

2008-04-02T17:12:00.005-05:00

I think I'm going to start a campaign against Canadian apartheid. After all, in Canada's reserves (native villages) you have to be a native to live there. Isn't that a form of apartheid? The Inuit people, part of Canada's First Nations, live in territories rather than provinces. Why the unequal status? Why are these natives treated differently? Isn't this apartheid?

Accusing Canada of apartheid is patently ridiculous, of course. It's every bit as ridiculous as accusing Israel of apartheid. Either example shows a profound ignorance of the country in question (Canada or Israel) and is an insult to those in South Africa who truly suffered under the apartheid regime.

Despite this every year the University of Toronto hosts Israel Apartheid Week, filled with all sorts of propaganda that goes beyond anti-Israel into outright anti-Semitism. From the description in the Jerusalem Post article:

In 2006, Toronto's IAW featured, among others, Ward Churchill, who has argued that the murder of European Jews was not at all a "fixed policy objective of the Nazis"; As'ad Abu Khalil, who has said that "Israel will have to submit to the will of the Palestinians"; and Ilan Pappe, an Israeli professor who supports Hamas and has called for the dissolution of Israel.

There is some good news in the article: 125 faculty members ran a full page ad in the National Post calling on the University to stop hosting the annual event. They noted:

"...the university would not tolerate homophobia, racism and Islamophobia on campus, and questioned why the school continued to host IAW."

Kudos to these conscientious faculty members and all the other Canadians who have spoken out against this. Perhaps, if the effort to end Israel Apartheid Week fails we can organize Canadian Apartheid Week to point out how ludicrous this is. I can see the banners: "Stop Canadian Apartheid Now!" Hopefully the University of Toronto will come to its senses and no such campaign will be needed.

Technorati Tags: israel canada academic bias apartheid university of toronto palestine middle east

Barack Obama and Israel, Part 1

2008-03-30T15:27:00.008-05:00

During his three years in the U.S. Senate, Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's voting record and statements have generally been quite supportive of Israel. In an op-ed piece which appeared in the New York Times on February 11, Roger Cohen quotes Obama and seeks to reassure Jewish voters that the Illinois Senator is, indeed, a supporter of Israel.

Shortly after launching his own Presidential campaign Ralph Nader, speaking on CNN, complained that Obama was pro-Palestinian prior to entering the Illinois Senate and urged the candidate to abandon his support of Israel. He followed that up on NBC by claiming that Obama is too pro-Israel. That Nader, who is of Lebanese descent, is staunchly anti-Israel is old news. The question he raises isn't: Is Barack Obama, in his heart of hearts, more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to Israel? Is his support for Israel a position he adopted for the purpose of running for public office rather than something he truly believes? Would an Obama administration continue the special relationship between Israel and the United States or would it condition that relationship on Israeli concessions that would seriously undermine Israel's security in the short term and its survival in the long term?

Senator Obama has precious little foreign policy experience of his own. He will undoubtedly depend heavily on his key foreign policy advisers. I think the best way to answer the questions I've posed is to take a look at the positions and records of his foreign policy and military advisers.

Robert Malley was a special assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs under President Bill Clinton. He is also the only member of President Clinton's negotiating team at Camp David in 2000 who places the blame for the failure of the Oslo preace process squarely on the backs of the Israeli government. Prime Minister Sharon, who took the oh-so-controversial step of a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was repeatedly accused by Malley of "unswerving goals [...] for the last 30 years, to vanquish Mr. Arafat, and more recently, to undo the foundations of the Oslo agreement" while presenting Arafat as a man unswervingly dedicated to peace in spite of all evidence to the contrary. He also blames Israel and American foreign policy, not Hizbullah, for the 2006 Lebanon War. Malley has repeatedly called for providing Hamas with international aid and has equated the policies of Hamas terrorists with those of the Israeli government. Malley has called for a radically different approach to the Middle East, an approach which would not be supportive of Israel.

Would you want a man with these views to have the ear of the President of the United States? Malley has been touted as a possible Secretary of State in an Obama administration. I find that prospect worrying indeed. Yet, of all of Obama's close foreign policy and military advisers, Malley is the least objectionable to supporters of Israel. In Part 2 we'll take a look at those advisers: people who will inform Obama's decisions on how to deal with what they consider to be "an apartheid state."

Technorati Tags: israel obama barack+obama malley robert+malley 2008 elections politics palestine middle east

The Latest Threats From Iran & Reactions Inspired By The Ostrich

2008-01-31T14:21:00.000-06:00

Yesterday Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, speaking in Bushehr, where an Iranian nuclear facility is expected to come on line in October, promised Israel's "imminent demise". Oh, he didn't use the name Israel, which Iran refuses to recognize, but rather referred to the "filthy Zionist entity". Here's some of what Ahmadinejad had to say:

"...abandon the filthy Zionist entity, which has reached the end of the line.

[...]

...stop supporting the Zionists, as [their] regime reached its final stage. Accept that the life of Zionists will sooner or later come to an end. What we have right now is the last chapter [of Israeli atrocities] which the Palestinians and regional nations will confront and eventually turn in Palestine's favor.

[...]

It has lost its reason to be and will sooner or later fall. The ones who still support the criminal Zionists should know that the occupiers' days are numbered."

That last bit is a threat aimed at the United States, of course.

Yet thanks to a National Intelligence Estimate that contradicts Israeli intelligence reports, the Bush administration is pretty much ignoring Iran these days. Certainly action in this election year now seems highly improbable at best. Prime Minister Olmert, who has been singularly responsive to U.S. pressure to act or not act based on American interests, seems unlikely to do anything about the Iranian nuclear program in general or Bushehr in particular.

For the first time in a long time I'm wondering if aliya really is a good idea. Yes, I'd like to live in Israel. I have no desire to die there in a nuclear holocaust anytime soon. Right now both American and Israeli policy towards Iran seems to have been inspired by the ostrich: ignore Ahmadenijad and maybe the problem will go away. It won't.

Technorati Tags: israel iran nuclear+weapons nie israeli+intelligence ahmadenijad mahmoud ahmadenijad palestine middle east

Republican Presidents Haven't Been All That Good For Israel

2008-01-30T21:02:00.000-06:00

I originally wrote this in somewhat different form as a comment rebutting Tom's post on Blogs of Zion claiming that electing a Democratic President this fall would be "trouble" for Israel. History, including very recent history, suggests otherwise. It's also dangerous to take one statement out of context and assume that all of the Democratic party ascribes to far left positions. Anyway, here is my rebuttal in edited form:

Traditionally Democrats have been far better than Republicans for Israel, the sole exception in my lifetime being Jimmy Carter. The only Republican President who was a true friend of Israel was Richard Nixon. Dwight Eisenhower forced the return of Gaza in 1956 which directly led to another war. George H.W. Bush froze loan guarantees to Israel in 1992, a move repeated by the current President Bush in 2003. I could write a whole book on how President Bush has pushed Israel into actions contrary to the Israeli national interest. The latest NIE report is an example of the James Baker school of foreign policy. Who can forget Mr. Baker’s comment: “F-ck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Both Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates are Baker proteges. At least Prime Minister Sharon had the backbone to remind this President that Israel cannot be treated the way Czechoslovakia was in 1938. Prime Minister Olmert lacks the backbone to do even that.

The anti-Israel view Tom describes as belonging to “the left” only belongs to the far left. Most Democratic leaders strongly support Israel. Since neither Dennis Kucinich nor Mike Gravel will win the nomination you probably have nothing to fear from a Democrat.

Technorati Tags: israel president bush elections politics republicans 2008 elections

OK, Make That Hillary Clinton For President

2008-01-30T17:15:00.000-06:00

Today two friends of Israel, John Edwards and Rudolph Giuliani, dropped out of the race for the White House. Senator Edwards was the only candidate I really felt good about -- one I would vote for because I believe he'd make an excellent President, just not that he'd be less of a disaster than the opposing candidate. Mayor Giuliani was the only Republican in the race that wasn't totally unpalatable to me. There are a lot of Giuliani's positions that I'm uncomfortable with but from the Republican field he was the best available.

Of the choices remaining I have no doubt that Senator Hillary Clinton would make the best President. She is a two term U.S. Senator with what I consider an excellent voting record on the issues important to me. If I go by issues and not personality or campaign style there is no question that she has the qualifications and experience to be President. I don't believe the same can be said for Senator Obama.

The number one key issue to me is support for the State of Israel. I believe anyone who doesn't understand Israel's importance to the United States as a strategic ally in the Middle East doesn't have much of a clue about foreign policy. Since entering the Senate Hillary Clinton has been a steadfast supporter of Israel. She admitted early in her first term that it wasn't always so and many on the right will never forgive her for a certain meeting and photo op with Suha Arafat when she was First Lady. Senator Clinton claimed after entering the Senate that studying the issues in the Middle East forced her to alter her position. Whether that change was heartfelt or a political necessity for a Senator from New York I simply can't say. I can say that her voting record, her speeches since then, and her actions show that she understands the importance of Israel now. Once again, I am not sure I can say the same of Barack Obama. There isn't much of a record there.

Perhaps in four or eight years I'll be convinced that Senator Obama is ready for the Presidency. Perhaps then I will look at his record and extol his virtues. I can't do that yet and in a dangerous world we need an experienced leader. Senator Hillary Clinton is the best remaining candidate with the credentials to be that leader.

Technorati Tags: clinton john edwards elections politics democratic primaries hillary clinton rudy giuliana barack obama

John Edwards On Gaza

2008-01-17T17:37:00.000-06:00

The following is from the Vice Presidential debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards on October 5, 2004. Senator Edwards made perhaps the best, most concise, clearest defense of the Israeli government and it's fight against terror. He did so during an IDF incursion into Gaza which drew major international criticism, a situation which is being repeated now. This first appeared in this blog on October 6, 2004. Current events demonstrate that nothing has changed in the last four years and that Senator Edwards ' statement is as timely now as it was then.

First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves.

I mean, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel.

We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.

What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists?

They have not only the right but the obligation to defend themselves.

Now, we know that the Prime Minister has made a decision, an historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It's important for America to participate in helping with that process.

Now, if Gaza's being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself. They don't have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.

And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people.

Replace Arafat with Abbas and that might have been a speech yesterday rather than four years ago.

I am supporting John Edwards for President, just as I did four years ago. Of the three main contenders for the Democratic nomination he is the only one who has shown consistent, unwavering heartfelt support for Israel throughout his political career. Ignore the pundits who have pronounced his campaign as all but dead. These are the same folks who assured us Senator Obama would win big in New Hampshire. The latest polls show Senator Edwards in a statistical dead heat with Senators Obama and Clinton in Nevada. A win in the Nevada caucuses could propel him to a win in South Carolina, the state where he was born and a state which he won in 2004. If a Democrat is going to win the White House in 2008 lets make sure American Zionists, both Jewish and Christian, help select the right Democrat. I believe that's John Edwards.

Technorati Tags: israel gaza john edwards 2008 elections palestine palestinians elections politics terrorism middle east

Another "Massacre" That Wasn't

2008-01-17T15:20:00.000-06:00

On Tuesday approximately 50 rockets and mortars slammed into Israel from Gaza wounding five Israelis. Yesterday 40 more rockets were fired into Israel, injuring 10 people, all civilians. The Israeli Air Force responded and eight Palestinians, including three civilians, were killed in air strikes yesterday.

In recent days the usual suspects have been crying "massacre" and blaming Israel for derailing the peace process. For those who always blame Israel for all the ills in the Middle East the facts simply don't matter. It doesn't matter that Israel wouldn't have taken any action against Gaza at all if rockets weren't raining down on Israeli cities and towns. It doesn't matter that the Israeli military never deliberately targets civilians and that most of those killed in Gaza recently were Hamas gunmen or Islamic Jihad terrorists who were firing the rockets. It doesn't matter that the Qassam and Katyusha rockets are always aimed at Israeli civilians. After all, there was no international outcry when a Qassam rocket struck a kindergarten near Ashkelon. If a Palestinian child is tragically killed, though, the world cries and condemns Israel. Why does nobody condemn the Palestinian terrorists who fire on Israel from heavily populated civilian areas? International law clearly places the brunt of responsibility on those using human shields.

Despite President Bush's rather delusional assertion that peace could be achieved in a year I don't think anyone in Israel believes anything like that is remotely possible. Perhaps Prime Minister Olmert is shrewder than we give him credit for being. He makes all the requisite conciliatory speeches to keep President Bush and the American Congress happy while adding that there will be no peace while terrorism continues. He knows there is, at present, no Palestinian leader strong enough or even willing to do anything about terrorism.

Technorati Tags: israel gaza gaza massacre qassam rockets palestine palestinians media bias peace process terrorism middle east

Bush Administration Opposition To Har Homa Contrary To U.S. Law

2008-01-08T17:05:00.000-06:00

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has expressed the Bush administration's absolute opposition to construction in Har Homa:

Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning.

She went on to explain that "the United States doesn't make a distinction" between settlement activity in the West Bank and in east Jerusalem. This position completely flies in the face of U.S. law which, since 1995, demands that the U.S. Embassy be moved to Jerusalem and which also explicitly recognizes Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Yes, folks, that includes east Jerusalem, which in turn includes Har Homa. The Dry Bones Blog did an excellent little piece on this yesterday. The entire text of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act can be found here.

What is especially galling about the Bush administration's new found support for Palestinian claims to east Jerusalem is that Bush himself promised to move the U.S. embassy to the site the U.S. owns for that purpose during his 2000 election campaign. Guess where that site is? Yep, it's in the eastern part of the city. He also expressed strong support for an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital at that time.

I'd also like to invite everyone to reread my post on the history of east Jerusalem from last year. Palestinian claims to the city fly in the face of history as well.

I can only hope Prime Minister Olmert shows some backbone on this issue and stands up to the Bush administration on the issue of Jerusalem. A cooling of relations with President Bush won't mean much after a new President takes office a year from now.

Technorati Tags: israel Bush visit jerusalem har homa palestine palestinians condoleeza rice peace process jerusalem embassy relocation act middle east

Ignore Israeli Intelligence at Your Peril, Part 2

2007-12-09T10:55:00.000-06:00

Back on October 11, 2004 I wrote a piece in my blog titled Ignore Israeli Intelligence at Your Peril. Here is an excerpt from that post:

Israeli intelligence is among the best in the world, and is probably the best when it comes to what is happening in the Middle East and with radical Islamic terror groups...

I am reminded of another pronouncement from Israeli intelligence sources way back in September, 2002, six months before the U.S. invaded Iraq. It said, in a nutshell, that Saddam Hussein had been successfully contained and the real danger in the region was Iran. President Bush ignored this assessment. He also ignored a CIA report which predicted the Iraqi insurgency before the war, a report which turned out to be prescient. Over 1,000 American service men and women have paid the price for President Bush's decision to ignore both Israeli and CIA reports which simply did not support his decision to invade Iraq.

Once again the United States is foolishly ignoring Israeli intelligence, this time vis a vis Iran. Considering the poor track record of American intelligence in the Middle East you would think that the Bush administration would trust what Israeli agencies and officials have to say just a bit more. Sadly that is not the case.

Both Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Deputy Defense Minister, MK Ephraim Sneh, have made the case that Iran did halt it's nuclear program in 2003 but then promptly restarted it. Israeli intelligence clearly believes that Iran is still aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. From the Jerusalem Post:

The Mossad claims that the Iranians will be able to develop a nuclear bomb by the end of 2009; Military Intelligence warns that Teheran will cross the technological threshold within six months; and now the Americans are putting the timeline toward the middle of the next decade, or 2013 at the earliest.

Defense officials in Tel Aviv admitted Tuesday that the report would probably embolden Iran, even though the differences between Israel and the US were not so great as a superficial reading of the report might indicate.

In other words, not only is the NIE wrong but it actually makes things more dangerous. The The IDF is sharing it's data with the U.S. military but it is not at all clear that anyone in the Bush administration is willing to reconsider the issue.

Iran is not only a threat to Israel. They will happily share nuclear weapons technology with Islamist groups. When will America wake up and realize that Iran still would like to harm the U.S. or, in Iranian terms, "the Great Satan"? I fear it may only be after an American city is wiped off the map.

Technorati Tags: israel iran nuclear+weapons nie israeli+intelligence iraq barak ehud barak middle east

Abbas: "No Concessions"

2007-12-07T11:56:00.000-06:00

I read in the Jerusalem Post that the Palestinian Legislative Council is in the process of passing a law making it illegal to make any concessions on Jerusalem and defining such concessions as "high treason." From the article:

However, many Fatah legislators have made it known that they too support the law, which states that Jerusalem is a Palestinian, Arab and Islamic city and that it is totally forbidden to give up or conduct negotiations about any part of the city.

[...]

Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a top aide to Abbas, said in response that, as far as the PA was concerned, Jerusalem was a "red line" that cannot be crossed.

Abbas told supporters in Ramallah Thursday that he did not go to Annapolis to make concessions. "There are some people who are trying to distort the truth," he said. "They are saying that we went to Annapolis to sell our cause, negotiate and sign agreements. But we went there to convey our principle and fixed positions."

That's it then. Negotiation over since the Palestinians, both Hamas and Fatah, including President Mahmoud Abbas, say they will make no concessions whatsoever.

Jerusalem, the Old City in particular, is the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people. My father fought to lift the siege of Jerusalem durig the 1948-49 War of Independence. Some things ARE worth fighting and even dying for. If the only way to achieve "peace" is to surrender our holiest sites in Jerusalem then I am opposed to this so-called "peace". Surrendering our history, our culture, our religious heritage, the very heart of the Jewish people is not worth it.

I expect to be called an intransigent right winger for this post. That's fine. I've always voted for liberal candidates, always supported the Oslo peace process prior to 2000 when the Palestinians abandoned it in favor of war, and always thought that accommodation was possible. No more. The Palestinians, through their actions and words, have convinced me. They have a "red line". So do I. I can only hope that the majority of Israelis see the same red line I do.

Technorati Tags: israel annapolis jerusalem plc palestine palestinians abbas peace process mahmoud abbas middle east

Happy Hanukkah!

2007-12-04T11:18:00.000-06:00

I would like to wish everyone a very Happy Hanukkah. Hag Sameach!

Oh, and for your own sake, go easy on the latkes and the sufganiyot. :)

Technorati Tags: hanukkah chanuka happy hanukkah jewish state holiday jewish holidays

No Basis For Negotiation

2007-12-02T13:11:00.001-06:00

This week, in the wake of the "peace conference" at Annapolis, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. 60 years ago last week the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181 ending the British mandate and specifically creating a Jewish state. Israel's purpose, it's raison d'être, was and is to provide a safe haven for the Jewish people. This, plus the fact that the Jewish people originally come from Israel, was the reason the international community created Israel in the first place. This took place in the wake of the Holocaust and growing persecution in the Arab world.

It's simple: if Abbas doesn't recognize Israel as a Jewish state that means he doesn't recognize Israel as defined and created by the U.N. It means he does not accept U.N. resolutions that are inconvenient for him. It means that he, like Hamas' leadership, wants Israel destroyed. Only his methods are different.

Why don't the U.S.,. the U.N., and the E.U. deal with Hamas? Why won't Israel negotiate with Hamas? Once again, it's simple: Hamas won't recognize Israel. Now it turns out Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas don't either, at least in any meaningful way. It seems to me there is no basis for negotiation. What applies to Hamas applies equally to Fatah. Look, I understand the hasbara (PR) value of Annapolis and going through the motions of a peace process. Having said that there are some principles that can't be bargained away. A nation's right to exist as constituted by it's people is one of them. Prime Minister Olmert should call off the next round of negotiations in Moscow until President Abbas recognizes Israel properly. Nothing less will do.

Technorati Tags: israel annapolis annapolis conference jewish state palestine palestinians abbas peace process mahmoud abbas middle east

What Annapolis Accomplished For Israel

2007-11-28T12:20:00.001-06:00

Today the world press is full of pundits declaring the failure of Annapolis and the probability that nothing will come of the peace conference. Voices in the Arab press, the Israeli press, the American press all seem to share this view. At least we can all agree on this much even if we don't agree on who to blame. All sarcasm aside, I do share this view in the near term, at least as far as any practical accomplishments are concerned. Having said that, Prime Minister Olmert and President Bush did accomplish something important at Annapolis.

For the first time since the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948 all of the Arab countries sat around a table with Israel and talked about peace. They all acknowledged peace between the Palestinians and Israel as a goal to achieve. This is a far cry from the aftermath of the Six Day War and the statement of the Arab League summit in Khartoum in 1967 with it's famous three no's: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it". By attending the Annapolis conference the entire Arab world did give tacit, though not official, recognition of Israel and the fact that Israel is likely to exist for the foreseeable future. They also endorsed continued negotiation and a final outcome of peace.

Israel has been at war with at least some of it's Arab neighbors for nearly 60 years now. The Jewish people in British controlled Palestine were attacked by and forced to fight the Palestinian Arabs for nearly 30 years before that. Change in the Middle East comes slowly among people with long memories and histories. It took 30 years for Egypt to decide to negotiate with Israel and reach a peace agreement. Another 15 years passed before Jordan made peace with Israel.

Every step, no matter how minute, is cumulative. The Arab nations cannot change the fact that they sat down at the table with Prime Minister Olmert. President Bush, no matter what the eventual outcome, can take credit for helping to make that happen. It may be a small step, a tiny accomplishment. I do not expect a peace agreement next year as called for at Annapolis. Still, the small step taken at the conference in the long run may be seen as very important indeed.

Technorati Tags: israel annapolis annapolis conference peace conference palestine palestinians peace process ehud olmert middle east

A Different Sort of UN Conference

2007-11-17T09:39:00.001-06:00

Tomorrow, Sunday, November 18, 2007, there will be a different sort of U.N. Conference. No, it's not another conference by the U.N., but rather one about the goings on at the United Nations and it's constant discrimination and bias against Israel. I received an e-mail from Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN (excellent website, highly recommended) about tomorrow's conference taking place between 9 AM and 6 PM tomorrow at Millennium UN Plaza Hotel (44th and 1st Ave., New York City).

A couple of relevant quotes:

A first-ever conference on UN discrimination against Israel has been organized across the street from UN Headquarters to coincide with the General Assembly's annual adoption of more than 20 resolutions condemning Israel and not one critical of Sudan and its ongoing campaign of genocide in Darfur.

“The discrimination against Israel at the UN has long been an outrage and must no longer go directly unchallenged," said conference organizer Anne Bayefsky, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and Director of the Touro Human Rights Institute. "Under the banner of a UN Charter that requires the equality of men and women, as well as member states large and small, the Jewish state and Jewish non-governmental organizations are constantly subject to different treatment than all others."

Highlights will include addresses from John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) (Chairman, House Republican Policy Committee); Ambassador Max Kampelman (Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient); and Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN).

Yep, for the U.N. genocide in Sudan is barely worth a mention. Israel is forever condemned for occupation of the Palestinian territories while China never is condemned for human rights violations or it's ongoing occupation and colonization of Tibet. Israel is under daily rocket fire from Gaza but that's just fine with the U.N. I guess human rights don't apply to people in Sderot, do they?

It's about time a conference like this happens, but I fully expect most of the media, especially the left leaning media, to thoroughly ignore this conference. It was just two weeks ago that CNN, for example, decided to rerun of G-d's Jewish Warriors", their two hour attack on Israel and American Jews. They didn't even bother with the other religions (Islam and Christianity) this time. Don't we all know that there is a far greater threat to the world from Jewish extremists than Islamic terrorists? CNN seems to think so. Their bias and the perpetual bias at the U.N. go hand in hand.

So... it's up to us, the bloggers, to spread the word.

Technorati Tags: israel cnn media bias G-ds jewish warriors united nations UN UN bias antisemitism human rights

A Reminder of Why I Want To Make Aliya

2007-11-17T09:21:00.000-06:00

Last weekend I went to the local mall with a good friend. It's that time of year again and non-stop Christmas music was playing. I understand that most Americans are at least nominally Christian and I certainly don't begrudge them their music or their holiday. It's all fine -- just not for me.

I'm Jewish. I was raised Jewish and raised a Zionist. I would like to live in a place where Jewish holidays are the dominant paradigm, where "holiday season" refers to Jewish holidays, where my religion and culture are taken for granted, not the odd exception. There is only one place on the earth where that is the case: Israel.

I know that if I had young children and I wouldn't want them to face pressures to fit into what is essentially a Christian society the pull of aliya would be stronger still. Regardless, 2008 will, barring unforeseen circumstances, should be the year for me.

Technorati Tags: israel aliyah aliya christmas holiday season judaism

Rockets and Electricity

2007-10-26T13:38:00.000-05:00

Yesterday a frustrated Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved a plan to cut electricity to Gaza after each Qassam rocket attack on Israel. Palestinian Spokeseman Saeb Erekat appealed for the international community to intervene. Today Prime Minister Olmert seemed to back away from the plan, promising that Israel would not create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Isn't the constant barrage and the ensuing death and destruction in Sderot and other Israeli cities and towns in the Negev more of a humanitarian crisis than a 15 minute power cut? Why is the international community not concerned with what Hamas is doing in Gaza, both to Palestinian Fatah supporters and to Israelis with their constant rocket attacks?

I also thought that the Palestinians wanted independence from their Israeli "oppressors". Doesn't that include providing for their own energy needs at some point? Why should Israel supply a hostile enemy who is raining death and destruction down on innocent civilians? Yes, some Palestinian civilians may suffer with less electricity. Didn't these citizens elect Hamas, who in turn promised to destroy Israel, in the first place? Don't they bear some responsibility for the actions of the government they support?

I, personally, do not support 15 minute electricity cuts. I support announcing a cut off date, a true independence day for the Palestinians of Gaza. After that day there should be no more supplies of any kind from Israel unless they, like Egypt and Jordan before them, sign a peace treaty with Israel and live up to its terms.

Digg It!

Technorati Tags: israel Palestine saeb erekat palestinians gaza hamas sderot qassam rockets kassam rockets

210 American Jews Make Aliya Today

2007-09-03T10:29:00.000-05:00

As I write this I am live on a conference call organized by Nefesh B'Nefesh. The occasion is an aliya flight: 210 American Jews leaving the United States to make a new life in Israel. Six of the olim (new immigrants to Israel) are on the call. The oldest oleh is 93 years old while the youngest is just 5 weeks old. The olim come from 22 American states and include 96 singles. The olim also come from all across the religious spectrum.

According to a Nefesh B'Nefesh spokesman they hope to have helped a total of 14,000 American Jews make aliya by the end of this year. 20,000 more (including myself) are in the pipeline to make aliya within the next three years. 94% of the NBN olim are employed, which is better than the Israeli national employment average. Over 90% of those who have made aliya with NBN have stayed in Israel and made lives there. Some of the olim on the call expressed thanks to Nefesh b'Nefesh for their assistance in making aliya possible.

When asked about what their motivations for making aliya were one woman spoke of wanting to live in a Jewish state.

At this point former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon joined the call. Ambassador Ayalon informed us that Prime Minister Olmert will be meeting the new olim upon their arrival in Israel. Ambassador Ayalon praised NBN for their work which helps insure the future and security of the State of Israel.

According to Ambassador Ayalon the biggest constraint right now on aliya is budget. The waiting list for American olim waiting to immigrate numbers 20,000. Ambassador Ayalon expects to be able to increase aliya, possibly doubling or tripling the numbers, with a goal of 100,000 American olim making aliya by 2016. Ambassador Ayalon reported that he has talked to leaders in Israeli government about the budget issue including the Prime Minister. He also expressed hope that the Jewish Agency can be brought back on board.

I asked if the issue of budget cuts to oleh benefits raised in the Jerusalem Post last month had been resolved. Ambassador Ayalon assured us that the cuts will not take place. Right now the budget allows for bringing 3,200 olim per year to Israel while there is capacity for up to 10,000 American olim per year to be absorbed. He said that he is working to raise the money to increase the numbers next year.

Ambassador Ayalon, when asked what the biggest challenge facing new olim is, raised the issue of employment. He said it isn't just a matter of finding a job but a matter of finding the right jobs, ones suitable for the olim's skills and experience. He expressed thanks to NBN for their assistance in helping olim place themselves within one year.

Postscript: I found the call quite informative and I will post follow up information and photos from Nefesh b'Nefesh when they become available. I am, of course, looking forward to the day when I will be one of the olim rather than one of the bloggers.

Digg It!

Technorati Tags: israel aliya nefesh b'nefesh aliyah american jews olim zionism

Lebanese Government, Hezbollah Try to Silence Human Rights Watch

2007-08-30T16:06:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Human Rights watch sharply criticized Hezbollah for it's deliberate rain of thousands of missiles on civilian targets in Israel during the war last summer. Many of the missiles were packed with ball bearings designed to kill or maim innocent people. HRW correctly termed this a "war crime". This follows on a Human Rights Watch report last October citing Hezbollah's use of cluster bombs.

Human Rights Watch deserves credit for finally deciding that a war crime is a war crime no matter which side commits the act. Of course both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government reacted with outrage and tried to silence the report.

There was a time I would have accused Human Rights Watch of anti-Israel bias but lately they have been remarkably balanced and fair in their reporting. Perhaps it's time they took a good long look at what the various and sundry Palestinian terrorist groups are doing. As I posted earlier another rocket landed near Sderot today. How many people have died from Qassam rocket fire aimed at the innocent civilians of Sderot? How many have fled their homes? How long has this been going on? Isn't it time Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the various other Palestinian groups who indiscriminately attack Israel civilians be held accountable?

Digg It!

Technorati Tags: israel lebanon human rights watch hizbollah hezbullah sderot palestine palestinians terrorism

A 15 Year Old Suicide Bomber

2007-08-30T14:01:00.001-05:00

IDF troops from the Golani Brigade arrested a 15 year old Palestinian boy in Gaza. The teenager had two large explosive devices strapped to his body. Thankfully soldiers convinced this would-be 15 year old suicide bomber to surrender and nobody died.

In 2005 Amnesty International did take up the issue of the constant use of child soldiers by virtually all of the Palestinian terrorist groups to little or no press coverage. If an Israeli soldier sneezes in the wrong direction it seems there is an international outcry. Why is there no outrage at this clear and repeated violation of international law? Why isn't the sending of Palestinian children to their death une cause célèbre?

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Gaza, Palestinian terrorists launched a Qassam rocket which landed near Sderot.

Digg It!

Technorati Tags: israel gaza suicide bomber child soldiers palestine palestinians terrorism

CNN's Two Hour Attack On Israel

2007-08-23T13:33:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday night CNN had a two hour "Special Investigations" piece called "G-d's Jewish Warriors" hosted by Christiane Amanpour. Rather than being a piece of investigative journalism it was, in fact, a smear campaign attacking Israel, American Jewish supporter of Israel, and Orthodox Judaism in general.

There is no doubt that Jewish extremism exists. It is, however, embraced by very few religious Jews and is unrepresentative of Judaism or Israel. You'd never know it from watching the piece. I would never complain about an objective or accurate report on Jewish extremists within the settler movement in Israel or anywhere else for that matter. There was nothing objective about this report.

Former President Jimmy Carter was trotted out and his now infamous book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" was touted. No mention was made of how many members of the Carter Center's Board of Directors resigned over that book was made. No other former President with different views appeared other than in old film of speeches opposing Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Gaza was rarely mentioned and Israel's unilateral withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon were ignored. The terrorism that followed those withdrawals, the daily rocket fire on Sderot or Hibullah's rain of thousands of missiles on northern Israel last year wasn't mentioned either. Never mind that the fear of such attacks on Israel's main population centers from Judea and Samaria was the reason Prime Minister Olmert's plans to withdraw from the West Bank was scuttled. Watching the report one rather got the impression that all Israeli governments, including the current one, intended to hold onto all of Judea and Samaria forever.

Theodore Meron was trotted out to explain his view that settlements violate international law. Israel's view that the territories are "disputed" rather than "occupied" and that Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions don't apply since no prior Palestinian state ever existed was given exactly one dismissive sentence. The fact that borders have never been agreed by anyone was ignored. For the majority of the piece the idea that Israeli settlements, including any and all construction in east Jerusalem, are illegal was taken as an indisputable fact. It clearly is not. The fact that Kfar Etzion was Jewish before 1948 was mentioned as a reason for reestablishing the community was one of the very few bright spots in this abysmal program.

John Mearsheimer explained his view of how the American Jewish lobby unduly influences American foreign policy at length. No credible opposing view was given and the long list of distinguished academics who denounced the Mearsheimer-Walt report or claimed that it failed to meet any acadamic standards were not mentioned. The fact that Christopher Hitchens, a long time critic of Israel, claims that Mearsheimer and Walt overstated the influence of the pro-Israel lobby certainly wasn't worthy of inclusion. It didn't fit CNN's agenda. American Jewish support of Israel was shown to be support of settlements, and by extension, support of extremism or Kach or terrorism.

Every time someone was shown as an avid supporter of Israel or someone was shown moving into the territories a point was made of telling the viewer that they were Orthodox. The impression the CNN report gave was that Orthodox Jews were unanimous, or at least nearly so, in support of settlement activity. One also got the impression that all settlers are religious, probably fanatically so. No mention was made of the fact that religious Jews cover the entire political spectrum. No mention was made of the fact that many who bought homes in Judea and Samaria did so because housing was inexpensive there. There was certainly no coverage of large communities in Judea and Samaria like Ariel, with it's large Russian immigrant population that is overwhelmingly secular. You certainly would never know that most settlers are absolutely horrified by rare acts of Jewish terrorism just like everyone else from watching this program. Indeed, the report gave the impression that Jewish terrorism by settlers is common, widely supported, and a serious problem. After all, CNN is giving Jewish terrorism and Islamic terrorism equal coverage, aren't they?

In the latter part of the two hour report the attack shifted to "G-d's Christian Warriors" who support Israel. Christian Zionists were painted as extremists supporting other extremists. They too, it seems, have undo influence in Washington. Never mind that evangelical Christians make up somewhere around a quarter of the American population and are a truly huge voting bloc, unlike American Jews. Certainly no mention was made of the fact that a rather large majority of Americans, religious or not, support Israel according to every poll taken on the subject this century.

The program presented those who called President Carter or Dr. Mearsheimer antisemitic in a disparaging way. Yet, with it's broad attacks and generalizations not only about Israeli settlers, but about Israel as a whole, about the American Jewish community, and about Orthodox Judaism I couldn't help but feeling that the report was, indeed, truly antisemitic. This from someone who has never called President Carter or Dr. Mearsheimer antisemites.

I talked about "G-d's Jewish Warriors" with a friend this morning. Her response: "What did you expect?" Regarding Christiane Amanpour she added: "Her views are well known." Indeed. If you want a horribly biased report send a truly biased reporter.

I know the blogosphere, expecially Jewish bloggers, are writing extensively about the CNN attack on Israel. I haven't read any of it yet. I wanted this piece to be based solely on my own impressions of the program. I didn't want to be influenced by anyone else's views before I wrote this.

I guess I have to once again add CNN to the BBC as an organization hopelessly biased against Israel. This report was something I would have expected of Al Jazeera. I had hoped CNN had learned from it's past mistakes and repeated apologies and would have tried to really have given a balanced report. Silly me.

Digg it!

Technorati Tags: israel cnn media bias G-ds jewish warriors judaism christiane amanpour amanpour antisemitism american jews

Letting The Truth Out Into The Arab Media

2007-06-21T18:00:00.000-05:00

What do you do when you are the General Manager of a popular Arabic satellite television channel if you understand the real reasons so many Palestinians live in misery? The station you manage, the popular weekly news magazine you once edited, indeed your entire career as a highly successful and respected journalist in the Arab world has been for organizations who featured blaming Israel for the plight of the Palestinians. Now it's time to tell the world, honestly and truthfully, that what the Arabs have done to their Palestinian brethren is far worse and that Israel's Palestinian-Arab minority actually fares pretty well. How do you do it?

I suppose this was the challenge facing Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, the Dubai-based General Manager of al-Arabiya. On June 9 he wrote an amazing piece in Asharq Al-Awsat, the news magazine where he was once Editor-in-Chief. The first paragraph is doctrinaire: praising the fairness of the Palestinian cause and condemning occupation. The rest of it, though, is a revelation considering the source and is very much part of the sea change in Arab thinking I have been blogging about. Here are some excerpts:What is happening in Lebanon's Nahr al Bared camp today is just one such example where battles have raised an overwhelming number of questions: who are these people? How long have they lived in the camp and how? What are their rights?

[...]

Some Arab countries “hosting” refugees ban them from leaving [camps], from occupying a large number of positions and deny them any other legal rights. Some of them have to jump over walls and sneak out to complete their chores or to breathe and experience the outside world. One can imagine these randomly and poorly built houses during the winter chill and sweltering heat of the summer among the sewage and insufficient services. It is a shame.

[...]

Our insistence to lock the Palestinians in camps and treat them like animals in the name of preserving the issue is far worse a crime than Israel stealing land and causing the displacement of people. The 60 year-old camps only signify our inhumanity and double standards. Israel can claim that it treats the Palestinians better than their Arab brothers do. It gives citizenship to the Palestinians of 1948 as well as the right to work and the right to lead a somewhat normal lifeOK, the bit about Israel "stealing land" is traditional Arab rhetoric without historical basis, but the rest, a stinging indictment of the Arab treatment of Palestinian refugees and the 60 year perpetuation of their refugee status for political reasons is right on the mark. It's something I would expect from an Israeli writer. It is tremendously powerful coming from Mr. Al-Rashed.

Digg it!

Technorati Tags: israel Palestine nahr el-bared palestinians refugees refugee camps lebanon al-arabiya sea change

A Lebanese-American Professor On The Plight of the Palestinians

2007-06-20T18:14:00.000-05:00

Here are excerpts from an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times written by Dr. Fouad Ajami, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies:The Palestinian ruin was a long time in coming. No other national movement has had the indulgence granted the Palestinians over the last half-century, and the results can be seen in the bravado and the senseless violence, in the inability of a people to come to terms with their condition and their needs.

The life of a Palestinian is one of squalor and misery, yet his leaders play the international game as though they were powers. An accommodation with Israel is imperative — if only out of economic self-interest and political necessity...

...it was too much to ask of Mr. Arafat to return to his people with a decent and generous compromise, to bid farewell to the legend that the Palestinians could have it all “from the river to the sea.” It was safer for him to stay with the political myths of his people than to settle down for the more difficult work of statehood and political rescue.

For their part, the Arab states have only compounded the Palestinian misery. The Arab cavalry was always on the way, the Arab treasure was always a day away, and there was thus no need for the Palestinians to pay tribute to necessity. In recent years, the choice was starkly posed: it was either statehood or a starring role on Al Jazeera, and the young “boys of the stones” and their leaders opted for the latter.

[...]

For decades, Arab society granted the Palestinians everything and nothing at the same time. The Arab states built worlds of their own, had their own priorities, dreaded and loathed the Palestinians as outsiders and agitators, but left them to the illusion that Palestine was an all-consuming Arab concern.

Now the Palestinians should know better. The center of Arab politics has shifted from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, a great political windfall has come to the lands of the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, vast new wealth due to the recent rises in oil prices, while misery overwhelms the Palestinians. No Arabs wait for Palestine anymore; they have left the Palestinians to the ruin of their own history.

The rise of Hamas in Gaza should concentrate the minds of the custodians of power in the Arab world. Palestine, their old alibi, the cause with which they diverted the attention of their populations from troubles at home, has become a nightmare in its own right. An Arab debt is owed the Palestinians — the gift of truth and candor as well as material help.

Arab poets used to write reverential verse in praise of the boys of the stones and the suicide bombers. Now the poetry has subsided, replaced by a silent recognition of the malady that afflicts the Palestinians. Except among the most bigoted and willful of Arabs, there is growing acknowledgment of the depth of the Palestinian crisis. And aside from a handful of the most romantic of Israelis, there is a recognition in that society, as well, of the malignancy of the national movement a stone’s throw away.

The mainstream in Israel had made its way to a broad acceptance of Palestinian statehood...Dr. Ajami is nothing if not pessimistic. The U.S. and Prime Minister Olmert pin their hopes on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whom Dr. Ajami calls "a decent man". Still, he sees far too little difference between Hamas and Fatah and sees Abbas as having far too little power to see any salvation for the Palestinian people.

I fear Dr. Ajami is right. However, as I said in my previous post quoting Saeb Erekat, I am seeing more and more Arab voices who are seeing the situation for what it really is. The only hope is for a change not only in Palestinian thinking but across the wider Arab world.

Digg It!

Technorati Tags: israel Palestine fouad+ajami palestinians gaza hamas middle east

Palestinian Suffering: Putting the Blame Where It Belongs

2007-06-20T17:35:00.000-05:00

Has anyone else noticed this? There is a real sea change in the discussion of Palestinian suffering in the wake of recent events in Lebanon and Gaza. Yes, I know the expression 'sea change' is grossly overused, but I do mean it in the way Shakespeare first used it: a truly profound change.

For years various Israeli and pro-Israel writers, myself included, have pointed out that the Palestinians could have had a prosperous, independent state years ago. We have pointed out that entirely for political reasons the Palestinian people have endured suffering and oppression not so much at Israel's hands but rather at the hands of their fellow Arabs and their own leadership. When Israeli actions have harmed the Palestinian populace they were almost always as a result of the need to protect Israeli citizens from Palestinian terrorist attacks.

What is truly new is the significant number of Arab and even Palestinian writers and commentators who are suddenly seeing Palestinian suffering in the same way or perhaps are finally publicly willing to admit that it really isn't all Israel's fault. I will be making quite a number of postings featuring Arab and Palestinian voices on the subject of the exploitation of the Palestinian people in coming days.

Let me begin with someone who is well known to most people who have followed the conflict in the region in recent years. Saeb Erekat was the Palestinian negotiator during past peace talks and is a prominent Fatah member. Here is part of an interview he gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition on June 17:I will tell you something, Wolf. I think -- there is a saying in my mind that this region has never missed an opportunity to exploit Palestinians without exploiting them. I really believe that we are being exploited. I really believe that is what happening in Nahr el-Bared in northern Lebanon, it is part of what is happening in Gaza, what is happening in the bigger picture in this region.

Now, Wolf, do I have evidence to refer to this country or to this group or that? No, I don't. But I know when I see the streets of Gaza, when I see these gunmen, when I see these hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when President Abbas could not pay salaries for our police forces, when our police forces did not have bullets or guns to maintain the rule of law and public order, where did these hundreds of millions of dollars, where did these guns and arms and state-of-art machine guns and heavy equipment come from?

I don't have any evidence, and without evidence, I will not name anybody. But all I can tell you, Gaza is very -- the poorest area on Earth. Gaza doesn't have the means for these hundreds of millions of dollars and these weapons and equipment.

And I believe what is happening in this region is being now played in the streets of Gaza and the streets of Nahr el-Bared in my name, in the name of the Palestinians. We are being exploited again.I'll say what Mr. Erekat was unwilling to say: Iran and Syria, plus radical jihadists and Islamists, both home grown and foreign. That's who is exploiting and oppressing the Palestinians this time. Others in the Arab world have done the same when it was convenient for them with the Palestinians as the perpetual victims for nearly 60 years.

It is easy for Israel's detractors to dismiss me as a Zionist, as the daughter of an Israeli, as a biased voice. How do you dismiss Saeb Erekat, an ardent Palestinian nationalist who has argued the Palestinian cause for years, and others like him? I don't think you can.

The question that remains is whether or not this sort of change of Arab perspective will last. If not then we're back at square one. If so then this is a true sea change in Arab thinking . It offers the real possibility of Arabs and Israelis, specifically Palestinians and Israelis, finding common ground to stand together against a common enemy that threatens us both.

Am I dreaming? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Only time will tell.

Technorati Tags: israel Palestine saeb erekat palestinians gaza hamas lebanon nahr el-bared sea change

A Permanent Indictment

2007-06-18T17:51:00.000-05:00

The U.N. is issuing a permanent indictment for human rights violations. Is this about genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan? Nope, genocide in Sudan is no big deal Child slavery in China? Nope, that's fine too. All the bloodshed in Somalia? Surely you jest. Nope, the one country being singled out is Israel according to U.N. Watch.

Reform at the U.N.? Absolutely! The U.N. will no longer say bad things about third world dictators. Cuba and Belarus will no longer be considered to be violating human rights at all. Soon such fine upstanding nations as Sudan, Congo, and Haiti will be exempt from criticism. The UN Watch article continues:At the same time, the proposal eliminates the experts charged with reporting on violations by Cuba and Belarus, despite the latest reports of massive violations by both regimes. As for the experts on other countries -- on Burundi, Cambodia, North Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Burma, Somalia and Sudan -- all of these may soon be eliminated, as threatened by the Council majority comprised of dictatorships and other Third World countries, under a gradual "review" process. Pending their fate, all experts will be subjected to a new "Code of Conduct," submitted by Algeria in the name of the African group, designed to intimidate and restrict the independence of the human rights experts.Now that the U.N. is getting rid of those pesky human rights experts they can concentrate on villification of Israel full time. What reform! What progress!

Yael K., writing in her Step-by-Step blog describes the latest U.N. outrage as:...the latest biased and crazy and, to be quite honest, criminal behavior of the U.N. They are not condemning Darfur for genocide, they are removing Cuba and Belarus from censure despite their continued violations, and they are placing Israel under permanent indictment under a Special Agenda item. They have a special agenda, let me tell you.Why does anyone take the U.N. seriously? It is time to disband the organization and replace it with one limited to democratic nations that respect human rights. Israel would qualify easily. Most of the current members of the U.N. Human Rights Council would not.

Technorati Tags: israel UN united nations human rights human rights violations darfur sudan cuba belarus bias

Katyusha Rockets Land In Kiryat Shmona... Again

2007-06-17T13:27:00.001-05:00

In an eerie reminder of last summer's Second Lebanon War katyusha rockets landed on a factory and on a car in Kiryat Shmona in northern Israel today. Most recent reports indicate three rockets were fired and a fourth, later found by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), failed to fire. A factory was lightly damaged and a car was more seriously damaged but thankfully nobody was hurt.

Unlike last summer when Hizbullah seemed to be proud of starting a war and firing over 4,000 rockets into Israel, today they were quick to deny any involvement. It could be that they are telling the truth. Both Israelis and Lebanese seem to be ready to blame some Palestinian terrorist group or another, either with ties to Hamas or al-Qaeda. On the other hand it could just be that Hizbullah isn't quite ready for another war just yet. One thing is clear: southern Lebanon, from which Israel withdrew unilaterally, is once again being used as a base for attacks on Israel and both UNIFIL (the U.N. peacekeeping force) and the LAF are either unwilling or unable to stop it.

Speaking of UNIFIL, they they called the attack a 'serious breach' of the cease-fire which ended last summer's war. I'm certain the usual prompt, decisive U.N. action will follow. You know, a little hand wringing and a few mealy mouthed words designed not to offend. Heck, there may even be an emergency Security Council meeting to find some way to blame Israel for being attacked.

UNIFIL also asked for all parties to show restraint. They were perfectly safe in doing this because an unnamed spokesman for Prime Minister Olmert had already promised Israeli restraint. The terrorists from some unnamed Palestinian group can't be expected to be restrained, can they? Since we don't know who they are they also can't be held to account either for today's attacks or any future lack of restraint, at least for now. As usual the only party that can be held accountable by the U.N. is Israel and I am sure that was calculated into their choice of words for the statement.

Despite my obvious cynicism I actually do think restraint is the right move, at least for the moment. Israel is correctly giving the LAF and UNIFIL a chance to act. The Winograd Commission interim report blamed Prime Minister Olmert and outgoing Defense Minister Peretz for rushing into Lebanon last summer without a plan. We all know how well that went. At least the Prime Minister isn't repeating his mistakes. The best thing to do for now is to watch, wait, see if the Lebanese government finds the will and ability to act, and allow Defense Minister Barak a chance to develop a plan of action in case there are further attacks. At least this time Prime Minister Olmert has a seasoned military man running the Defense Ministry.

I fear Israel is soon going to be forced fight another war against Iran, Syria, and/or their proxies in Lebanon and the territories. Israel needs to be ready for this eventuality but it doesn't need to precipitate full scale hostilities... at least not yet.

Technorati Tags: israel lebanon katyusha rockets middle east kiryat shmona palestinians terrorism UN UNIFIL LAF

Help Keep IBA News On The Air

2007-06-15T17:49:00.000-05:00

IBA News in English on both radio and TV is about to disappear. IBA is in financial trouble after years of budget cuts. According to The Jerusalem Post the Israeli state broadcaster may all but disappear. Only one Hebrew radio service, the profitable Reshet Bet, will remain, plus possibly an Arabic language newscast. The Jerusalem Post is asking that supporters of IBA News comment in the talkback section of their article as a form of online petition.

IBA News in English does far more than serve Israeli's small English but non-Hebrew speaking community. Kol Israel Radio's REKA network is also available on the web and their shortwave broadcasts are heard worldwide. NPR and community FM radio stations around the United States rebroadcast Kol Israel news in English. IBA News television broadcasts are offered by satellite and cable channels in the United States as well as on the web.

Link TV is a particularly interesting case in point. Their program Mosaic: World News From The Middle East was originally a collection of excerpts from Arab and Iranian news programs. Arabic and Farsi broadcasts are dubbed in English. Some time back the Jerusalem-born producer of the program, Jamal Dajani, to his great credit, added several minutes of IBA News in English to most programs. Here is a Palestinian journalist who decided to include an Israeli viewpoint into what previously was a broadcast exclusively of Arab/Muslim news with all the anti-Israel material that implies. I may not agree with what Mr. Dajani has to say on many of his Mosaic Intelligence Report commentaries, but I appreciate his efforts to be fair minded and to promote peace and stability in the Middle East. By adding IBA News to Mosaic Mr. Dajani insured that program viewers, many of whom are undoubtedly not sympathetic to Israel, get an opposing viewpoint.

If IBA News in English goes off the air what will replace it? The sad fact is that there isn't anything else that presents a genuine Israeli viewpoint in English. NPR will still broadcast the BBC with it's often strident anti-Israel bias but Israeli news will simply disappear from their stations. Will Jamal Dajani be able to find the resources to bring in a translator for Israeli Hebrew language broadcasts? Will he even have access to Israeli news for his program? I honestly don't know but I fear the answer may be "no". If I'm right about that Mosaic viewers will get all the Arab anti-Israel rhetoric and propaganda with the balancing Israeli viewpoint removed. That won't be Mr. Dajani's fault, will it?

IBA News is vital in that it is the only broadcaster bringing a genuine Israeli perspective to people all over the world. I urge everyone who reads this to click this link and sign the petition. As I write this we have probably no more than 30 hours to make a difference and less than 500 people have signed the petition so far. Please also share this with anyone who you think might be interested.

Technorati Tags: israel iba news kol israel radio reka network israeli media jerusalem post link tv mosaic jamal dajani media bias

The BBC (British Bias Corp.) Strikes Again

2007-06-15T11:58:00.000-05:00

The BBC has apologized for referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and has promised it won't do it again. Never mind that Jerusalem has been Israel's official capital since 1951. The Beeb can't let little things like facts get in the way of their usual anti-Israel bias, particularly if some Arabs are offended by those facts. Heck, news reporting doesn't really have to be factual, does it? How old fashioned of me to think that it does.

This apology was a response to complaints about a reference to Jerusalem as Israel's capital on, of all things, a BBC sports program back in March. Who complained? According to the BBC it was a joint complaint from Arab Media Watch, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Friends of Al-Aksa and the Institute of Islamic Political Thought. According to the Jerusalem Post article:The Institute of Islamic Political Thought is run by Azzam Tamimi, a Hamas supporter and a member of the Muslim Association of Britain, part of the Muslim Brotherhood.So, Hamas and other violent, rejectionist, terrorist Palestinian groups get to decide BBC policy. Very nice. For those of you who have slept through the last few days Hamas just took over Gaza in a violent coup killing dozens of Palestinians in the process with nary a word of protest from the Arab or Muslim world.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev's comments hit the nail on the head:Jerusalem is Israel's capital. It is the right of every sovereign state to determine which city will be its capital. If this is not accepted by everyone today, I am confident it will be in the future.This is hardly the first time I've written about anti-Israeli bias at the BBC and sadly I'm sure it won't be the last. I guess this is par for the course in a nation that won't even teach the Holocaust in schools for fear of offending Holocaust deniers in general and anti-Semitic Arabs and Muslims in particular.

Technorati Tags: jerusalem bbc media+bias palestine israel hamas palestinians uk

Palestinian Mythology: "Arab East Jerusalem"

2007-05-15T15:54:00.001-05:00

With Jerusalem Day tomorrow I thought it was time to debunk the most commonly repeated bit of Palestinian mythology. The idea the eastern Jerusalem is an Arab city, or that Jerusalem as a whole was ever truly an Arab city, is a lie that has been repeated so many times that most of the world seems to believe it. Straight faced reporters on major networks all over the world will speak of "Arab East Jerusalem" as if it is an undisputed fact of history and of present circumstances. It isn't.

During Ottoman rule, from the late 15th through the early 20th century, Jerusalem had either a Jewish plurality or an outright Jewish majority. In 1854 Karl Marx was a reporter for the New York Daily Tribune. His article of 15 April 1854 reported the population as follows:...the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans [Muslims] and 8,000 Jews.At the time Jerusalem was little more than the old, walled city. Jewish settlement outside the walls wasn't permitted by the Ottoman rulers until 1865. The entire Jewish population was in the old city. If we judge east and west from the 1949 armistice line (pre-1967 borders) then the entire Jewish population was in what is now referred to as "Arab East Jerusalem".

What made east Jerusalem Arab? 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation ending in 1967. In 1948 when Jordan captured the old, walled city they destroyed 58 synagogues. 58! I somehow don't think Arabs were worshiping in those synagogues. Yep, in 1948 there were still lots of Jews in "Arab East Jerusalem".

Here is a description of how Jerusalem was divided until the Six Day War written by former Israeli President Chaim Herzog in his 1982 book The Arab-Israeli Wars:...Jerusalem had been divided between two warring elements: barbed wire in profusion, fortifications, trenches and battlements cut through the city...

Mount Scopus [was] an Israeli enclave on the site of Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital; it had been completely surrounded in 1948, but held out against all Arab attacks. The second enclave was Government House, which had been the residence of the British High Commissioner of Palestine...So... there were Israeli and U.N. enclaves surrounded by Jordanian held territory in "Arab East Jerusalem" rather than a clean east-west, Jewish-Arab devision. Does this sound like workable, defensible borders as envisioned in UN Resolution 242? Not to me, it doesn't.

Yes, the majority of the eastern part of the city today is Arab. That's true, in part, because Jerusalem has grown and swallowed up several Arab villages and, in part, through natural population growth in the Arab community. There are also a number of Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city.

It may be possible, someday, after a period of peace, to separate Arab areas that aren't part of the historical city and place them under Arab rule. Right now, though, I don't see this is practical. I do not support dividing the city again and I do not accept the idea that any part of Jerusalem is intrinsically Arab and must be ceded.

If you, like I, support keeping Jerusalem united you may wish to visit OneJerusalem.org. Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. To me, that is something to celebrate and cherish.

Technorati Tags: jerusalem east jerusalem jerusalem day palestine israel yom yerushaliyim palestinians palestinian mythology

Hamas and the Daleks

2007-05-15T15:13:00.000-05:00

Exterminate! Exterminate! Annihilate! Has anyone else noticed that Hamas sounds an awful lot like the Daleks lately? For those not familiar with the British science fiction television series Doctor Who, the Daleks are supposed to be the most evil creatures in the universe. They were introduced in the series' first season in 1963 and have appeared in almost every season since, including the 2006 season. The Daleks scream "Exterminate!" and on rare occasions "Annihilate!". The most frequently heard Dalek utterance: "You will be exterminated!" That's the same promise Hamas made to the Jewish people last month. The Dalek's goal: to commit genocide, killing everyone and everything that isn't a Dalek. Sounds a lot like Hamas, doesn't it?

Hamas does have it over the fictional Daleks in one way: the Daleks never promised to drink their enemies' blood the way Hamas promised to drink Jewish blood. Maybe Hamas members are really the most evil creatures in the universe.

Technorati Tags: antisemitism hamas genocide palestine israel exterminate palestinians hatred daleks doctor who

We Will Annihilate the Jews!

2007-05-11T15:40:00.000-05:00

Last month Hamas called for the extermination of the Jewish people worldwide on their website. Now CNN has spent a great deal of time over the last two or three days discussing a children's program on Al-Aqsa Television which, of course, is run by Hamas and broadcasts to Palestinians in Gaza. It seems they have a big mouse named Farfur. He looks almost exactly like Mickey Mouse. His message, though, would horrify the people at Disney. Farfur tells young children "We will annihilate the Jews!" and adds "I will commit martyrdom." Al-Aqsa Television children's programming also shows very young children with machine guns and other weapons. The New York Daily News also expressed it's disgust.

Where is the international outcry at preaching hatred and genocide? Israelis, Jews, and American bloggers have been all over this but most of the rest of the world has been silent. Where is the condemnation of trying to convince very young children to become combatants in Hamas' terror war against Israel? Why are human rights groups almost always mute to Palestinian abuses?

When children are taught to hate and kill and taught that genocide is something to strive for what hope is there that there will ever be peace? In my view there is no such hope and that is the real tragedy of our times.

Technorati Tags: antisemitism hamas genocide palestine israel middle east palestinians hatred arab media al-aqsa television

Disturbing Increase In Anti-Semitism

2007-05-05T15:51:00.000-05:00

Monday, April 16, was Yom HaShoah or Holocaust Remembrance Day. Germany's Deutsche Welle TV news program Journal had excellent coverage of the events of the day, ranging from observances in Israel to footage of the March of the Living at Auschwitz. They also had a truly disturbing report on the worldwide increase in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide. These incidents include not only desecrations and destruction of property but also a shocking increase of violence directed at Jewish people.

Where was the biggest increase? Not surprisingly it was in the U.K. where a recent report detailed that the Holocaust is no longer even being taught in many schools for fear of offending Holocaust deniers. Holocaust denial is particularly popular in the Britain's Muslim minority. Other countries which had large increases in anti-Semitic attacks according to the DW TV report include Australia, France, and Canada. German Jews were quoted as feeling they couldn't live normal lives due to the security measures now needed at schools, community centers, and synagogues.

Why is there such a rise in anti-Semitism? DW TV blamed it on the Arab-Israeli conflict and pointed out that the majority of such incidents are carried out by Arab immigrants to these countries. I guess it really is terrible that we Jews have the chutzpah to insist our country not be wiped out by hostile Arabs or Iranians. If we just let them kill all the Jews in Israel, my family included, there would be no problem, right? Pardon my dripping sarcasm but I am frustrated and fed up with all of it. Arab and leftist media continue to equate Jewish self-defense with Nazism. Funny, we Jews don't want to commit genocide. It's the very people making the accusation who do.

I keep reading over and over again that anti-Semitism is now at levels not seen since the years leading up to World War II and the Holocaust. If "Never again" is to mean anything then world Jewry needs a safe haven. This is why I am such an ardent Zionist and why having a strong Israel is so very important.

Technorati Tags: antisemitism hamas uk britain israel middle east holocaust shoah yom hashoah

What's Happening In Iraq Is All Israel's Fault

2007-05-02T17:22:00.000-05:00

What's happening in Iraq, all the violence and the killing, is all Israel's fault. Really, it is. After all Lebanon's Future TV news wouldn't tell anything but the absolute truth, would they?

Future TV ran a news report a few weeks ago which was most enlightening. Do you remember the South Lebanon Army? They were a Lebanese Christian militia allied to Israel. When Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon 2500 members of the SLA found sanctuary in Israel as well. With Hizbullah firmly in control of southern Lebanon it was that or be killed. Anyway, Future TV reminded us of this militia and reminded us that their leader was sentenced to death in absentia.

Anyway, according to Future TV those 2500 SLA fighters are now in northern Iraq along with agents of the Mossad. They are working for the interests of Israel and the United States, of course. Best of all, it turns out that the SLA and Mossad are responsible for most of the violence in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq? Nah, not mentioned. The Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr? Those must be the good guys. The Badr Brigades? Baathists? Nope, it's all those evil Israelis and expatriate Lebanese Christians causing all the trouble.

In the west very few people believe any of this. OK, Cindy Sheehan claimed that her son died fighting for Israel in Iraq. I guess some on the far left do believe it. So does much of the Arab and wider Muslim world. Conspiracy theories are all the rage there, aren't they? Where will it all end? More anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and conflict that won't be resolved anytime soon.

Technorati Tags: media bias terrorism iraq lebanon israel middle east south lebanon army future tv arab media sla

Perpetuating The Conflict

2007-04-12T17:31:00.000-05:00

Satellite television and the Internet are wonderful things. They can give you a window on the world previously unavailable. They can also demonstrate clearly how telling half a story insures the continuation of conflict in the Middle East and makes, at best, a distant dream.

Last Wednesday during Passover al-Arabiya ran a story on how the closure of the territories caused needless hardship for the Palestinians. They interviewed Palestinian Arabs who were having difficulty visiting relatives due to the necessity of passing through Israeli checkpoints. The closure, they reported, was done on the "pretext" of a terror threat, a "pretext" Israel is charged with using at every holiday and occasion. They also showed footage of Palestinians crossing Israel's security fence or "separation wall" and reported that these poor, oppressed people are just trying to make a decent life for themselves with no thought for politics or time to even consider the conditions placed upon them by the international Quartet.

The part of the story al-Arabiya deliberately left out was told on IBA News. The IDF, operating near Qalqilya, recovered two bombs that day which were safely detonated under controlled conditions, thankfully without injury. Right wing website Arutz Sheva reported that the General Security Service averted a major Hamas terrorist attack in Tel Aviv over the Passover holiday, an attack also originating from Qalqilya. What al-Arabiya called a pretext was a real threat and Israel recovered at least some of the weapons intended to murder innocent Israelis during Passover.

I have no doubt that the hardship that Palestinians endure as portrayed by al-Arabiya is very real. I also have no doubt that if there was no real threat of a terror attack there would have been no need for a closure of the territories. If there was no terror there would be no checkpoints, no need for a fence or wall, and all this hardship could be avoided. The conditions which al-Arabiya briefly mentioned are no more than Yasser Arafat agreed to at Oslo: recognition that Israel has a right to exist and a renunciation of violence. All the international community has asked is that the Palestinians agree to live up to the agreements they have already signed.

So long as Palestinians promise to kill Israelis at every opportunity and to continue to do so until Israel is destroyed what is Israel to do? At least the fence and the closure are non-lethal methods of stopping terrorism. At least innocent people on both sides didn't die that day.

The perpetual blaming of Israel for all the woes of the Arab world including all that the Palestinians endure must stop if there is ever to be peace. Sadly left-leaning media in the west tells the story as al-Arabiya does over and over again. Until the Palestinian leadership takes responsibility for the consequences of their own actions there is no hope for anything but more of the same. Until the mainstream media starts telling both sides of the story there is little hope that people will understand the reality of the conflict. All the media, both Arab and international, are doing with their propaganda disguised as news is perpetuating hatred which, in turn, perpetuates the conflict.

Technorati Tags: media bias terrorism hamas palestine israel middle east palestinians al-arabiya arab media west bank

Britain No Longer Teaching About the Holocaust in Schools

2007-04-02T13:52:00.000-05:00

Yael K., writing in her Aliyah Step-by-Step blog reports that the U.K. will no longer be teaching about the Holocaust in history classes:The Holocaust is out of schools because it might offend holocaust-deniers? Sorry, I find this simply shocking. Well, take a look at what is happening in schools in the UK according to a report by the British government.She quotes the report which says, in part:Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

[...]

The report said teachers feared confronting ‘anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils’.I don't know if this is anti-Semitism among the teachers and school administrators as well or just political correctness gone mad. I suspect it's some of both. Personally, like Yael, I find this shocking. It is absolutely inexcusable. Shouldn't history be taught honestly with a full presentation of facts?

There have been numerous reports of anti-Semetic attacks in Britain as well. One on CNN some weeks back interviewd a teenage girl who was riding a public bus. She was asked if she is Jewish or English as if you can't be both. Then she was severely beaten and landed in hospital. Nobody raised a finger to help her.

Yael suggests it's time British Jewry leave en masse and make aliya. I hate to say it but I do think she is right.

Technorati Tags: uk holocaust antisemitism british schools israel middle east

Iran Is Immune To Diplomacy

2007-03-31T15:40:00.000-05:00

We are now over a week into the British hostage crisis in Iran. Iran's government, both in official press releases and in statements by President Ahmadenijad, is calling the entire world community "arrogant" and is threatening to put the captured "British occupier forces" on trial. I guess he can't get enough out of propaganda statements made by his hostages under duress.

An Associated Press article quotes Iranian opposition groups claiming that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the capture of the British sailors as retaliation for U.N. sanctions. This seems entirely credible to me. It makes sense. In fact, in a way, it's brilliant. Let me explain.

The UN sanctions are in response to Iran's nuclear program. The five permanent members of the Security Council have agreed on further sanctions which are now under discussion at the U.N. Suddenly dealing with Iran's nuclear program is on the back burner as the hostage crisis takes center stage. At the same time Iran's enemies, the United States, Britain, and the European Union, suffer through a period of much higher oil prices. Finally, the oft reported planning for a supposed U.S. strike on Iran is undoubtedly on hold (if it exists at all) so as not to endanger the forces of America's most staunch and loyal ally. At least for the moment Iran benefits in every possible way. Meanwhile they buy time and continue their work to build nuclear weapons with the oft stated purpose of destroying first Israel and then the United States.

Think I'm crazy? I'm not the only one who sees it this way. I just found an article by Mario Loyola published yesterday in the admittedly right-wing National Review that says essentially the same thinge.

It is time the western world in general and the United States in particular stops worrying about being politically correct and starts recognizing that the regime in Teheran as an enemy and, unlike Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq, a truly dangerous enemy with an internationally verified nuclear program.

15 months ago I called for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States. It needs to happen sooner rather than later. Yes, for the moment we should let the British take the lead and exhaust illusory diplomatic options. In reality there are no such options.

Soon President Bush needs to start explaining why an air strike on Iran is nothing like the invasion of Iraq. Then he needs to act. An American surgical strike is far less likely to set the entire Middle East aflame than an Israeli strike. Make no mistake, Israel will not sit around waiting to be nuked and, failing a real diplomatic option, it's either the U.S. or Israel that will act. I prefer the U.S. Less chance of a wider war. Less loss of innocent life. If neither nation acts quickly Israel will be destroyed and the United States will be facing nuclear blackmail.

Technorati Tags: hostage crisis nuclear threat mahmoud ahmadenijad ahmadenijad israel middle east iran british sailors ali khamenei khamenei

All The News That's (un)Fit To Print

2006-08-17T13:21:00.000-05:00

While I haven't had time to keep up on blogging this find by Ariel over on Blogs of Zion is a gem. The sad truth is that it's probably pretty close to accurate.

Lots more on the media war against Israel coming soon.

Technorati Tags: new york times media bias israel

Iranian Malware Update

2006-08-15T23:55:00.000-05:00

Despite The Register publishing an article claiming that Iranian President Ahmadenijad's does not spread malware, it turns out I have been able to confirm this. Actually, the Register article headline claims it's false but the actual text of the article says no such thing:

"The most likely explanation is that there is some scripting on the site that, although not malicious, triggers an alert from Symantec's firewall software," said Carole Theriault, senior security consultant at UK-based net security firm Sophos.

"It is possible that malicious content has once been on the site, but has since been removed. It is also theoretically possible, though very unlikely in our opinion, that the malicious content targeted visitors from an Israeli address," she added.

So, it could have been there and been removed from the site or else hidden in code she can't find from the U.K. Not a convincing argument that it's all a hoax, is it?

I have lots of family and friends in Israel, including one information security expert, so I did check it out. Yep, the code was there. Is it still there? Nope. Was this real? Yep. Was it removed once this story spread across the blogosphere? Yep. FWIW, I doubt the madman of Iran is computer savvy enough to have done it for himself.

FWIW, I am writing this from a computer running Ehad Linux and the Hebrew version of Firefox 1.5.0.6.

Technorati Tags: mahmoud ahmadenijad ahmadenijad israel middle east iran cyberattack ehad linux linux

Ahmadenijad Blog Contains A Little Surprise For Israeli Readers Using Windows and Internet Explorer

2006-08-14T18:52:00.000-05:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad now has his very own blog. That's fine. The content is entirely what you might expect with one notable exception. Several Israeli bloggers, including Yael K.'s Step By Step, which I read regularly, report that if you access the Ahmadenijad blog from an Israeli IP address the site sends you a little gift, a cyberattack in the form of a virus or trojan (reports vary) designed to exploit an Internet Explorer vulnerability.

To quote Yael:

Does Iran now use the Internet to harass Israeli citizens? To take advantage of the increasing Iranian-Israeli dialog online?

In a word: yep. The attack is smart enough to mostly ignore IP addresses from anywhere other than Israel, though it has been reported to have been triggered from Spain as well.

My one little piece of advice for friends and readers in Israel: Ehad Linux, an Israeli Linux distribution based on Mandriva 2006, is really quite easy to install and use. (Yes, I plan to write a review.) Those of us who run Linux have been blissfully immune to all the security nonsense which routinely plagues Windows users.

No, installing Linux is not a security panacea. You still need to patch regularly and become educated about keeping your system secure. It is, however, a very good start.

[NOTE: This piece is a first. It appears not only in Blogs of Zion, but in the O'reilly Linux Dev Center blog as well.]

Technorati Tags: mahmoud ahmadenijad ahmadenijad israel middle east iran cyberattack ehad linux linux

Wise Words

2006-08-14T17:21:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, there will be another round [in this war] because the government's just demands weren't met. The [kidnapped] soldiers weren't returned home, the Hizbullah was not disarmed. Right now, we are in an interim period between wars, and there is no one who will prevent our enemies from rearmed and preparing for the next round.

We were a responsible opposition. We aided in every way, including in the media war. Our public duty is to tell the truth, because unfortunately there will be another round.

We were living in a coma, and received an alarm warning telling us to return to reality as it is, and to return to ourselves and to those values that will secure our existence in the future.

These words are excerpted from former Prime Minister and opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu's speech to the Knesset plenum (in translation) as reported by The Jerusalem Post. Sadly, he is absolutely correct. Without the return of Israel's kidnapped soldiers, as called for in UN Resolution 1701, and without the disarming or Hizbullah, the acceptance of the resolution and the cease fire it called for were a major mistake. The United Nations has never, ever been trustworthy and has always sided with Israel's enemies. Why should anyone think this has changed?

[NOTE: This piece also appears in Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: cease fire lebanon israel middle east binyamin netanyahu hizbullah hezbollah un united nations

The Latest Israeli Attack On Beirut?

2006-08-09T10:30:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of the blog Esser Agoroth, here is a photo of the latest brutal Israeli attack on Beirut:

Hey, it's every bit as real as the stuff Reuters publishes which ends up in your local newspaper. Heck, if anything this piece of fauxtography is more creative than what Reuters used and every bit as believable.

OK, it's a fake. As other blogs have pointed out there is no Star of David on the Enterprise so it can't be real.

Technorati Tags: star trek lebanon israel middle east media bias fauxtographs reuters bias

Photos Of the Destruction In Haifa

2006-08-09T00:31:00.000-05:00

Photographer Lenny Maschkowski has been taking pictures all over the Haifa area right after every rocket attack, sending them out in PowerPoint presentations which circulate among Israelis all over the world. I've been receiving them from one of my cousins in Israel.

Now Bert at Dutchblog Israel has posted some of the photos of the destruction for all the world to see. To quote him:

Just to give you an idea of the devastation caused by the various rocket that have landed in and around Haifa, and of their deadly load. These are the kind of things that Israel should leave unanswered, if we are to believe many European leaders and officials.

I think not, and I think this illustrates perfectly well why Hizbullah must never be allowed to rearm and redeploy along the border no matter what anyone in the so-called world community or the media might say.

Meanwhile the Israeli daily Yediot Ahranot reports that Israeli casualties and losses often go unreported, especially in the British media. Their report is especially critical of The Guardian and the BBC. I guess those two were too busy fabricating stories about Israel massacring Lebanese civilians. No wonder so many people in the U.K. have such an incredibly distorted view of the Middle East.

Technorati Tags: haifa lebanon israel middle east media bias hizbullah hezbollah bbc the guardian rocket attacks bias

The Media and the Massacre That Wasn't

2006-08-08T18:31:00.000-05:00

Yesterday it was widely reported that Israel deliberately massacred 40 innocent Lebanese civilians. Reuters, the BBC, and others falsely reported that the IAF hat targeted a funeral procession. Then it was 40 Lebanese killed in air strikes. The only place you'll still find that reported is in The Guardian. No other even vaguely reputable western media outlet still carries the story. Why? The total number of people actually killed in Lebanon by these attacks: just one. Even the BBC eventually corrected their story, with a small note at the bottom noting the previous error. Reuters published an apology. That won't undo the damage done but at least they don't maintain a blatant lie on their website the way The Guardian does.

Yael K., commenting on the BBC coverage, wrote in her blog:

And how about those 40 people killed in a deliberate Israeli massacre yesterday, hmmm? Oh, ooops, you mean it was really only 1? And amazingly, from my own observation of the BBC yesterday to see how this would be handled since they had a screaming headline about the massacre of 40 civilians --it took them several hours after the ticker on Ha'Aretz was showing that the number had been revised to just one person for them to change it. And no, of course they didn't make it a headline: the 40 massacred headline got changed to Israel bombs...and in the text description beneath there was a little note that it was one person and not 40 as previously reported. Of course.

The BBC is notorious for anti-Israel bias, but The Guardian wins today's "to hell with the truth" award, beating out CNN and The Washington Post for having the least regard for facts.

Technorati Tags: massacre lebanon israel middle east media bias hizbullah hezbollah bbc the guardian reuters bias

The Latest Wild, Unsubstantiated Charge Against Israel (CNN, Washington Post)

2006-08-08T12:38:00.000-05:00

When charges were made that Hizbullah was deliberately using civilian casualties for PR purposes at Qana the charge came from Lebanese sources and even from members of the Lebanese armed forces. That charge was backed up with lots and lots of evidence. Do mainstream media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post investigate these charges? Heck, no! They are too busy vilifying Israel to be bothered with something as petty and trivial as the truth.

Their response: make the same charge about Israel with no evidence whatsoever. First a CNN anchor claimed Israel could shoot down all of the 150-200 Katyusha rockets fired by Hizubullah each day. Now Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks, appearing on CNN, claimed Israel is deliberately leaving Hizbullah rocket launchers intact to kill Israeli civilians for PR purposes. Video is available in this article, which is definitely recommended reading.

CAMERA's outrage is something I very much share:

One wonders who these "military analysts" are and why they have apparently not gone on the record. And why has Ricks so far not written the story in the Post? Can it be that his claims are too much even for the Washington Post to publish?

Whatever the reason, the fact is that a reporter who thinks that Israel would intentionally allow Hezbollah's Katyushas to rain down on Israeli civilians would believe anything about Israel, no matter how monstrous or unfounded. And any reporter who believes that reserve Israeli soldiers would follow orders to not attack rockets that are aimed at their children and wives, and that these soldiers would not immediately go to the Israeli media with the story, is an idiot. Furthermore, Israel encouraged its civilians to leave the danger zones, which is why thousands of Hezbollah rockets have killed relatively few civilians. If Israel cynically wants its civilians to die, why would Israel do all it could to get its civilians out of harm's way?

How can anyone believe that CNN is a reputable news sources? It seems to me that their bias is now so extreme that they do little if anything to hide it. If Mr. Ricks remains a reporter with The Washington Post that would speak volumes about their regard, or lack thereof, for the truth.

[NOTE: I've also posted this piece on Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: qana lebanon israel middle east media bias hizbullah hezbollah cnn washington post bias civilians

An Excellent Analysis By Binyamin Netanyahu

2006-08-08T00:52:00.000-05:00

Vide of an excellent analysis of the current situation by former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sky News can be found here courtesy of Aharon on Blogs fo Zion. Well worth watching...

Technorati Tags: qana lebanon israel middle east binyamin netanyahu hizbullah hezbollah lebanon syria iran

Counting Civilian Casualties

2006-08-07T18:57:00.000-05:00

If you read, watch, or listen to news reports about casualties in Lebanon you always learn about innocent civilians killed. They are poor farmers or villagers. All the victims in the war seem to be civilians even though Israel only targets Hizbullah strongholds and sites were rocket fire originates.

Tell me this: how can you tell that all these people are civilians? Hizbullah fighters don't wear uniforms, do they? Of course they don't. They're not a regular army. So... some, possibly many of these "civilians", at least among the Shiite Muslims killed or injured, are actually Hizbullah.

Think about this: Where do these civilian casualty numbers come from? Local leaders, witnesses, or the Lebanese government are the sources. In other words, Hizbullah, at least in part, helps with the counting. Might the numbers of civilian casualties be rather inflated? Here is some evidence to indicate just that:

Human Rights Watch, which routinely accuses Israel of war crimes while holding Hizbullah blameless, now puts the death toll at Qana at 28, not the 56 still being claimed by the Lebanese and Arab press. Some media outlets have reduced their casualty counts but most simply moved on. It seems that reporting that the original number killed was inflated is not newsworthy.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), hardly a friend of Israel, has agreed to look into claims that Qana was staged by Hizbullah.

Reuters has admitted using doctored photographs, both from Beirut and Qana.

The German newspaper Bild Zeitung has also published an an article on staged photos and propaganda by Hizbullah at Qana. (Tip of the hat to Yael K. and her excellent blog for this one.)

Bottom line: lots of media bias, lots of inflated casualty numbers, and many of those dead civilians in Lebanon aren't civilians at all.

[NOTE: This piece is also posted at Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: qana lebanon israel middle east qana massacre hizbullah hezbollah casualtiess media bias bias civilians

War Crimes Committed At Qana

2006-08-05T18:26:00.000-05:00

In today's Wall Street Journal, Orde F. Kittrie, professor of international law at Arizona State University, wrote an excellent article titled War Crime At Qana? [subscription required]. His argument is that, indeed, war crimes were committed. Here are some relevant excerpts:

The Qana tragedy has intensified accusation that Israel's actions in Lebanon violate international law. . . . but there is no evidence Israel has committed any war crimes. In contrast, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have clearly violated international law . . .

International law has three major prohibitions . . . one forbids deliberate attacks on civilians. Another prohibits hiding forces in civilian areas . . . A third prohibition, the proportionality
restriction . . . involves a complicated and controversial balancing test . . . governed by 'customary international law', it [hinges] on the intent of the combatant.

At Qana, . . . the aircraft did not deliberately target civilians; but Hezbollah rockets are targeted at civilians, a clear war crime. . . . If Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians in Qana as human shields, the Hezbollah not Israel, is legally responsible for their deaths. . . . Hezbollah and Iran--which provides this terrorist group with arms, direction and over $100 million a year--are in continual violation of international law. Their calls for Israel's destruction violate the international genocide treaty's prohibition of 'direct and public incitement to commit genocide.' . . .

Israel is acting in self-defense . . . the track record of many Israel's most powerful accusers--including China, Russia and the European Union--is not nearly as good at balancing civilian risk against military goals. . . . Compared with how China, Russia and the EU have dealt with non-existential threats . . .Israel's responses to the threats of its existence have been remarkably restrained rather than disproportionately violent.

It seems that there are two standards of international law among Israel's accusers at the U.N. and elsewhere: one for Israel and one for everyone else.

[NOTE: This piece also appears in Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: qana lebanon israel middle east qana massacre hizbullah hezbollah war crimes international law civilians

Members of the Lebanese Forces Speak Out On Qana and Hizbullah (Part 2)

2006-08-02T16:04:00.000-05:00

The first piece on The Ouwet Front (the Lebanese Forces blog) attacking Hizubullah was the strongest, a rant truly from the heart titled "The sad truth about Hezbollah tactics…" Here are some powerful excerpts:

For the last two weeks, we have been screaming that HA are hiding amongst civilians to attack Israel…we posted on boards, we mass mailed, some wrote to news papers and major news channels…

[...]

Today, the proof is with you, in front of you and yet some of you refuse to see…you refuse to see that HUMAN BEINGS are being used as SHIELDS…yes HUMAN BEINGS…kids, women, infants…

[...]

You vowed Jihad on the Israelis…but the whole country has not…you vowed their destruction and care less if in the process you loose your life…but the whole country has not…

Lebanon and the Lebanese Mr. Nasrallah are people that want to live…we want peace…we do not want to be torn to pieces or suffocated by imploding bombs…

When those people stayed in Qana despite the warnings issued by the Israelis to evacuate, they did so because they had put their faith in the men of the resistance…they believed that those men would protect them, would keep them safe from the Israeli enemy…

Alas…they discovered, and it was too late when they did, they discovered that those men who were supposed to protect them, were in fact hiding behind them.

They discovered that those men were taunting the Israeli by firing at him from behind inhabited buildings, daring him to reply…your men, Mr. Nasrallah, were playing Russian roulette but with the gun aimed at the heads of the innocent victims instead of theirs…

[...]

Pray tell me, were you counting on the public outcry to force the Israelis into a cease fire and thus claim your victory??? Like what happened in April 1996??? Is this what you were aiming at when you fired rockets from the vicinity of the UN post not three days ago, causing a retaliation that killed four UN soldiers???

The outcry wasn’t strong enough…lets do a Qana II…it will have an impact for sure…it never fails…people are so gullible…we get the cease fire and come out as heroes…and in the way we cause Israel to suffer humiliation…

Some victory for Lebanon Mr. Nasrallah…

The thing is that it didn't work for Hizbullah. Not at all. There is no cease fire and now the truth is coming out. This also strongly reinforces Alan Dershowitz' claim that Hizbullah actually wants massive Lebanese casualties for propaganda purposes.

Huge thanks to Yael K. who made me aware of this.

[NOTE: This piece also appears on Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: qana lebanon israel middle east qana massacre hizbullah hezbollah lebanese forces human shields civilians

Members of the Lebanese Forces Speak Out On Qana and Hizbullah (Part 1)

2006-08-02T14:45:00.000-05:00

The Ouwet Front is a blog which describes itself as "Personal Views and Opinions of Lebanese Forces Members". They've had lots to say about Qana, and none of it is at all kind to Hizbullah. They, in fact, blame Hizbullah for the deaths at Qana rather directly.

In one post they echo the Israeli claim that Hizbullah was firing missiles from Qana, even linking Israeli military video showing the missiles being launched. In another post titled "How Hezbollah hides in civilian buildings" they add:

May Hezbollah and Nasrallah rot in hell for what they are doing. If Israelis were war criminals, Hezbollah are ruthless killers.

They once again provide a link to video proving their point.

These Lebanese servicemen also make an appeal:

Anyone who has substancial info, eye witness accounts, pictures or any kind of proof of Hizbullah using and abusing civilians please mail them at :
freethesouth@gmail.com

We strongly condemn the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, we strongly condemn any invasion against our country or interference in our internal affairs BUT we cannot tolerate a LEBANESE party using innocent Lebanese civilians as human shields for purposes that only serve terrorist countries like Iran and Syria.

May the truth prevail.

I don't feel Israel has any choice when it comes to attacking Israel. I will be posting photographic evidence of why very shortly. In any case if Hizbullah had not attacked Israel in the first place and if they did not persist in these attacks right up until the present there wouldn't any need for Israeli military action in Lebanon.

[NOTE: This post also appears in Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: qana lebanon israel middle east qana massacre hezbollah hizbullah lebanese forces human shields civilians

Who Is Really Responsible For the Carnage At Qana?

2006-08-02T14:13:00.000-05:00

The Lebanese website Libanoscopie, which is anti-Syrian in its viewpoint, directly accuses Hizbullah of deliberately planning the Qana massacre, and of even deliberately bringing disabled children to the side to be killed, all for the benefit of the propaganda machine. The article, which is in French, says, in part:

Mais pourquoi une bavure pareille, une erreur ? Un massacre prémédité ? Une source généralement bien informée nous raconte sa version :

« Le Hezbollah, coincé par les 7 points proposés par le premier ministre Fouad Siniora, qui mettait un plan de déploiement de l’armée libanaise sur tout le territoire et essentiellement au Sud Liban, et donc le désarmement de la milice du parti de Dieu, a voulu faire échouer ces négociations. Il a mis en pace un plan machiavélique en créant un événement qui lui permettrait d’annuler ce projet. Sachant très bien qu’Israël n’aura pas d’état d’âme pour bombarder des cibles civiles, des militants du Hezbollah ont installé une base de lancement de roquettes sur le toit d’un immeuble à Cana et y ont entassé des enfants infirmes dans la ferme intention de voir une réplique de la part de l’aviation israélienne et créer une nouvelle situation, utilisant le massacre de ces innocents pour reprendre l’initiative des négociations. »
Ajoutant : « ils ont utilise Cana qui a déjà été un symbole d’un massacre d’innocents, ils ont fomenté un Cana 2 ».

For those who don't speak French, here is a translation courtesy of the Israeli daily Yediot Ahranot:

"We have it from a credible source that Hizbullah, alarmed by Siniora's plan, has concocted an incident that would help thwart the negotiations. Knowing full well that Israel will not hesitate to bombard civilian targets, Hizbullah gunmen placed a rocket launcher on the roof in Qana and brought disabled children inside, in a bid to provoke a response by the Israeli Air Force. In this way, they were planning to take advantage of the death of innocents and curtail the negotiation initiative," the site stated.

The site's editors also claimed that not only did Hizbullah stage the event, but that it also chose Qana for a specific reason: "They used Qana because the village had already turned into a symbol for massacring innocent civilians, and so they set up 'Qana 2'." Notably, the incident has indeed been dubbed "The second Qana massacre" by the Arab media.

Ariel Beery's comments in Blogs of Zion pretty much sum up my thoughts:

Shocking? Shouldn't be. Any one who is willing to strap bomb-vests upon their children and send them to their deaths is a true believer. And Qana was simply Martyrdom by other means.

Technorati Tags: qana lebanon israel middle east qana massacre hizbullah hezbollah propaganda civilians

Hizbullah, Hamas Take Advantage of the Media & "Human Rights" Groups

2006-07-31T10:24:00.000-05:00

In an excellent op-ed piece published in The Jerusalem Post on 22 July Alan Dershowitz, as usual, hits the nail squarely on the head in describing how "The Predictable Condemners" of Israel in the media and among human rights groups are used to further the aims of Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist groups currently waging war on Israel with the aid of Iran and Syria. As I see more and more condemnations of Israel in the media it seems like an appropriate time, to me, to note Dr. Dershowitz' words:

The Hizbullah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies.

By hiding behind their own civilians the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians.

[...]

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media and the so called "human rights" organizations could stop falling for this terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda.

[...]

IT SHOULD BE obvious by now that Hizbullah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians; why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian "shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities.

They regard these human shields as shahids - martyrs - even if they did not volunteer for this lethal job. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of the shields, even if the bullet that kills them came from the gun of a policeman.

[...]

The very idea that terrorists who use women and children as suicide bombers against other women and children shed crocodile tears over the deaths of civilians they deliberately put in harm's way gives new meaning to the word "hypocrisy." We all know that hypocrisy is a tactic of the terrorists, but it is shocking that others fall for it and become complicit with the terrorists.

[NOTE: This piece also appears on Blogs of Zion]

Technorati Tags: media bias terrorists israel middle east palestine hizbullah hamas gaza lebanon human rights groups civilians

Qassam Rocket Strikes Kindergarten Near Ashkelon

2006-07-29T19:06:00.000-05:00

Yesterday a Qassam rocket fired from Gaza struck a kindergarten just south of Ashkelon injuring several children. Yael K., writing in her Step By Step: Making Aliyah blog comments:

We should be surprised? They only fire their qassams at civilian targets, never at the military installations. This was bound to happen sooner or later. After all, they've already managed to hit a college, two high schools, and a middle school over the past couple of months.

CNN had no comment. They were too busy reporting on Lebanese children who were injured or killed to have time to recognize that this is a two front war and that children on both sides of the borders are victims. They also gave barely a mention to Hizbullah rockets striking a hospital in Nahariya. To their credit PBS, on The News Hour With Jim Lehrer, not only covered the story but showed video of the damage and also showed how the hospital continued to operate in an underground bunker, treating the victims of the Hizbullah attacks.

CNN, like the BBC and the Guardian in the U.K., only mourns the casualties on one side of the war. Reporting on injured or dead Israelis doesn't fit into their agenda of vilification of Israel.

[Note: This piece also appears in Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: media bias bias israel middle east palestine hizbullah hamas gaza lebanon ashkelon nahariya cnn pbs

Comments You Will Never Read

2006-07-28T19:18:00.000-05:00

Since the new Lebanon war started I have received lots of comments. One particularly vile comment, promising to introduce me to the gas chambers, caused me to turn on comment moderation in addition to deleting the anti-Semitic vitriol.

I have also received four very long diatribes from a Palestinian man full of the usual Palestinian propaganda. His comments were longer than my last four posts put together. He accused me of getting all my news from that "fair and balanced" network. He also told me I had no clue what is going on in the region. Clearly he hadn't read most of my blog. I rarely look at Fox News, which I do agree is biased, and almost never link them. He clearly didn't realize that I have spent time in the region or that I am an Israeli-American woman. Please, there are plenty of Palestinian propaganda sites. Don't expect me, an ardent Zionist preparing to join most of my family in Israel, to publish such nonsense. There are plenty of "mainstream" media outlets that tout the Palestinian line. My job here is to debunk them, not to get into endless debates. The best I can do for you is to try an be factual and to link my posts to lots of really good sources.

Well-meaning liberals who want to tell me that it's horrible that Jews don't want to intermarry, and that ethnocentrism is evil need not apply to post pages of long diatribes either. Clearly I value my Jewish heritage and I am not about to abandon my basic beliefs for yours.

Finally, anti-Zionists cannot redefine the meaning of Zionism. We who are part of the Zionist movement are the only ones who can tell you what Zionism means. Huge clue: it isn't about dispossession or oppression. It was, is, and always will be about Jews, who have been persecuted for centuries in the Muslim and Christian worlds alike, returning to the land we were dispossessed from and rejoining the Jewish community that had remained in what is now Israel throughout the centuries. Zionism is Jewish nationalism, period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Zionism is not at all incompatible with sharing the land with the Palestinian Arabs provided they are willing to live in peace with us as good neighbors. Most Israelis support a two state solution--the only possible just solution to the conflict. The rejection of Prime Minister Barak's offers at Camp David and Taba without so much as a counter proposal, the abandoning of the peace process in favor of the intifada, the election of Hamas, the unceasing rocket fire out of Gaza even after Israel withdrew, and the current war and support of Hizbullah makes it clear the Palestinians are the ones who have no interest in peace.

You want me to have sympathy for Palestinians suffering? Fine, stop the wars. Stop trying to kill me and mine and offer to return to negotiation. Otherwise I have little sympathy for self-inflicted injury.

Will I ever accept comments from those who disagree with me? Sure, always. Just not pages of diatribe, anti-Semitic hate, or long winded propaganda. This isn't a debate page. It's a Zionist blog.

Technorati Tags: comments israel middle east palestine zionism palestinians gaza

Are Israelis Crazy?

2006-07-19T01:01:00.000-05:00

FAIR WARNING: There is a rather graphic description of a truly disgusting event carried out by Palestinians. Part of this post is not recommended for those who do not have a strong stomach.

The Muqata has been giving almost a minute-by-minute account of what has been happening in the war. On last Thursday night there was this little tidbit:

All of the West Bank is alight tonight with fireworks from the Palestinian villages (along with scattered automatic gunfire), as our neighbors celebrate...the shelling of Haifa.

Palestinian celebrations reached new heights of barbarism on Monday as reported in The Jerusalem Post:

A body part belonging to the dead soldier was left at the scene [...] Earlier, hundreds of Palestinians had gathered at the scene of the explosion to view parts of the soldier's leg, and many of them reacted with celebratory chants, witnesses said.

Yael K., commenting on Palestinian and wider Arab celebrations at the deaths of Israel civilians both during this war and after prior acts of terrorism, asked if Israelis are crazy:

The majority of Israelis simply want to live in peace, to engage in trade with our neighbors or simply to live completely separately.

When news comes that civilians have been killed by an IDF attack against terrorists in Gaza, or now in Lebanon, people sigh, they shake their heads, their expressions are pained. They feel pain and sadness. There are calls for more care to be taken so that civilians are not harmed when attacks are made on the terrorists.

When our citizens are killed by suicide bombers there are celebrations on the streets of Gaza. [...] They celebrate the deaths of our children and yet we regret and feel sorrow over the deaths of theirs. You will see no celebrations of death, ours or theirs, here.

[...]

And yet, despite finding ourselves under constant attack by rockets, by suicide bombings that are successful and the many more that are stopped --such as the one in Jerusalem today-- despite the fact that the majority of even the liberals on their side wish to see us destroyed, despite all this many Israelis continue to work for peace, to build bridges, to call for moderation of response when no moderation is shown to us. The rest do not call for blood nor celebration when innocents are killed.

Given their responses versus ours, I must conclude that we are crazy. But I would rather be crazy than to allow myself to become blinded by hate, to give in to the grief, pain and fear that we suffer and become callous to the sufferings of 'the other.'

Yael later decided that Israelis aren't crazy after all but "neither are they". I must disagree. The Palestinian culture of death that celebrates suicide bombings and the murder of civilians is indeed insane in my eyes. I would also argue that the compassion that Israelis show and the lack of compassion among Israel's enemies is why Israel enjoys such strong support in the United States.

[NOTE: This is another piece I've crossposted to Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: insanity israel middle east palestine haifa palestinians west bank

War Brings Unity To Israel

2006-07-18T23:54:00.000-05:00

Naomi Ragen has written a new column describing how war has united Israel's society which, until recently, has been fractious and divided. I received it by e-mail and it isn't on her website yet so I'm going to post some significant excerpts here. The original piece is called "Unity At Last" and hopefully it will show up online soon. While I often disagree with Ms. Ragen this piece is truly excellent and reveals a small silver lining to the tragedy currently forced on the Israeli, Lebanese, and Palestinian people by Hamas and Hizbullah and their patrons in Iran and Syria.

Many have asked me: How does it feel to be in Israel right now? My answer has to be this: fearful, amazing, heartbreaking and full of love and pride for our country and our people.

Gone are the petty, sectarian fights. There is no religious-secular divide. There is no right-left divide. Except for a bunch of loonies who demonstrated in Tel Aviv demanding Israel negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah, the government and the people of all political stripes have banded together in almost total unity. This is a war we didn't want. This is a war we have to win, hands down, whatever it takes. Except for a die-hard leftist here and there, like Amnon Levi, who wrote a really pathetic plea for immediate negotiations, no serious voice has been raised. And Mr. Levi got close to 500 responses of outraged citizens calling him every name in the book.

In the meantime, all over the country, people are reaching out to each other. Every death, is a death in the family. Every soldier is our son. The television has a running text with people's names and phone numbers who are willing to host families from the war zone. Kibbutzim in the south have made room for the members of kibbutzim in the north, inviting parents and children to enjoy a little vacation, pool side. The immigrant absorption center in Safad, crowded with new Ethiopian immigrants who spent days squashed together in a bomb shelter that didn't even have room to move, have been picked up by Jewish Agency buses and taken to youth centers for a vacation. The television broadcasting authorities are making an effort to put on quality children's programming and good movies.

There is a sense of all of us being one family, all the bitter divisions of the past years disappearing like smoke as we band together to support each other and our soldiers in a life and death struggle to reclaim our sovereignty and security. And the government, which has so far and to our great pride and satisfaction, stood fast in its decision not to stop this war before victory, has unprecedented support from its citizens.

Our critics, used to immediate capitulation, are finding a new wind blowing. The International Federation of Journalists, which issued an appalling statement condemning Israel for bombing the Hezbollah television station, got the following response from Israel: Withdraw the statement, or Israel is quitting the organization for its overt support of terror. I guess all of us who have been wondering why press reports on terrorism are so screwed up now have official proof who journalists back in the war on terror.

[...]

I thanked God for the miracles that keep our hearts strong, our minds determined, and our nation, finally, amazingly, united at last. I feel privileged to be here.

My mother, who has no desire to live in a war zone, commented when the war started that she wished she could do something. Even just going to Israel at this time would be good. Of course, it would do no good for Israel so she goes on with her life. I understand how she feels and now, even though a war rages on, I am looking seriously at moving up my planned aliya from next year to later this year. There is no better place than Israel for a Jew to be and there is strength in numbers.

[NOTE: This piece also appears in Blogs of Zion.]

Technorati Tags: naomi ragen israel middle east palestine unity war aliyah aliya

Jihadists Gone Beserk

2006-07-17T17:47:00.000-05:00

David Brooks wrote an excellent op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times titled As Israel Goes for Withdrawal, Its Enemies Go Berserk. Here is an excerpt:

Israel's main enemies in this crisis are not normal parties and governments that act on behalf of their people. They are jihadist organizations that happen to have gained control of territory for bases of operations. Hamas and Hezbollah knew their kidnappings and missile launches would set off retaliation that would hurt Gazans and Lebanese, but they attacked anyway for the sake of jihad. They answer to a higher authority and dream of genocide in his name.

What's happened over the past few years, in short, is that public opinion in Israel has moved to the center at the same time that decision-making power on the other side has moved to the extreme.

Now there is a debate over how Israel should respond to this situation. Some say Israel should temper its response so Arab moderates can corral the extremists, which would be great advice if the moderates had any record of ever doing that or any capacity to do so in the near future. Others say Israel simply must degrade the capabilities of its fanatical opponents.

But this is a secondary issue. The core issue is that just as Israel has been trying to pull back to more sensible borders, its enemies have gone completely berserk. Through some combination of fecklessness and passivity, the Arab world has ceded control of this vital flashpoint to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad. It has ceded its own destiny to people who do not believe in freedom, democracy, tolerance or any of the values civilized people hold dear.

And what's the world's response? Israel is overreacting.

President Bush, speaking candidly at the G8 Summit without realizing his microphone was on, said it best. I'll join NPR is warning that there is what some might consider strong language in what he said:

See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbullah to stop doing this shit and it's over.

The President gets it. Those who complain about Israeli actions against Hizbullah and Hamas do not. The only way Israel can protect it's population and end the threat of massive casualties and damage is to take away the terrorists' toys and reestablish deterrence. Weakness is the last thing Israel needs to show. As I've argued before, Israeli military action in this war has been, if anything, too restrained. The best thing the world community can do now is shut up and keep from interfering since they lack the courage or stomach needed to enforce the six year old U.N. resolution calling for Hizbullah to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

Technorati Tags: david brooks israel middle east palestine hizbullah hezbullah hamas lebanon palestinians jihadists