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.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Are Israelis Crazy?
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:
Palestinian celebrations reached new heights of barbarism on Monday as reported in The Jerusalem Post:
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:
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.]
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.]
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
War Brings Unity To Israel
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.
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.]
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.]
Monday, July 17, 2006
Jihadists Gone Beserk
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:
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:
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.
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.
The Kidnapping Of Democracy
On Friday Thomas Friedman wrote a New York Times piece titled "The Kidnapping of Democracy" that explains some of the dynamic behind the current conflict between Israel and Hizbullah/Hamas. Here are a couple of excerpts:
While I agree with Mr. Friedman's basic premise and his conclusions I'll quibble with one key point he makes: Hizbullah and Hamas are not tiny and both represent a significant part of the population in their respective areas.
Hamas was elected overwhelmingly by the Palestinian people and all polls show that they still enjoy widespread report. I also don't believe you can divide Hamas into a "tiny militant wing" and something else. One needs only read Hamas' charter to understand that it is an Islamist/jihadist organization dedicated to the destruction of not only Israel but of Jordan and other western-leaning Arab governments as well and their replacement with a pan-Arab Islamist state. There is no moderate, non-terrorist element to Hamas and there does not appear to be a moderate majority among the Palestinians.
Similarly Hizbullah is enjoys widespread support among Lebanon's Shiite Muslims and most polls show it's support level at 30% or so of the Lebanese people as a whole. That is a very significant minority, particularly in a multi-party parliamentary system.
In order for their to ever be peace in the region there has to be a sea change in Arab opinion. There has to be an acceptance, however grudging, of Israel's existence and it's permanent nature. Until that happens the region is doomed to a cycle or warfare. Arab leaders have to do what Israeli leaders like Yitzhak Rabin did: build a consensus for peace.
Can democracy take root in the Arab world? Someday, maybe. Right now I'd settle for stability and sane leadership, something that Jordan, Egypt, and several of the gulf states enjoy. The move towards democracy in the region will have to happen through a natural evolutionary process, not a process of imposition by foreign powers. In that Friedman is absolutely correct.
Thanks to Aharon at Blogs of Zion for the link and for quoting the Friedman article.
What we are seeing in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon is an effort by Islamist parties to use elections to pursue their long-term aim of Islamizing the Arab-Muslim world. This is not a conflict about Palestinian or Lebanese prisoners in Israel. This is a power struggle within Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq over who will call the shots in their newly elected "democratic" governments and whether they will be real democracies.
The tiny militant wing of Hamas today is pulling all the strings of Palestinian politics, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah Shiite Islamic party is doing the same in Lebanon, even though it is a small minority in the cabinet, and so, too, are the Iranian-backed Shiite parties and militias in Iraq. They are not only showing who is boss inside each new democracy, but they are also competing with one another for regional influence.
As a result, the post-9/11 democracy experiment in the Arab-Muslim world is being hijacked. Yes, basically free and fair elections were held in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq. Yes, millions turned out to vote because the people of the Arab-Muslim world really do want to shape their own futures.
But the roots of democracy are so shallow in these places and the moderate majorities so weak and intimidated that we are getting the worst of all worlds. We are getting Islamist parties who are elected to power, but who insist on maintaining their own private militias and refuse to assume all the responsibilities of a sovereign government. They refuse to let their governments have control over all weapons. They refuse to be accountable to international law (the Lebanese-Israeli border was ratified by the U.N.), and they refuse to submit to the principle that one party in the cabinet cannot drag a whole country into war.
[...]
Why don't the silent majorities punish these elected Islamist parties for working against the real interests of their people? Because those who speak against Hamas or Hezbollah are either delegitimized as "American lackeys" or just murdered, like Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister.
The world needs to understand what is going on here: the little flowers of democracy that were planted in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories are being crushed by the boots of Syrian-backed Islamist militias who are desperate to keep real democracy from taking hold in this region and Iranian-backed Islamist militias desperate to keep modernism from taking hold.
It may be the skeptics are right: maybe democracy, while it is the most powerful form of legitimate government, simply can't be implemented everywhere. It certainly is never going to work in the Arab-Muslim world if the U.S. and Britain are alone in pushing it in Iraq, if Europe dithers on the fence, if the moderate Arabs cannot come together and make a fist, and if Islamist parties are allowed to sit in governments and be treated with respect while maintaining private armies.
The whole democracy experiment in the Arab-Muslim world is at stake here, and right now it's going up in smoke.
While I agree with Mr. Friedman's basic premise and his conclusions I'll quibble with one key point he makes: Hizbullah and Hamas are not tiny and both represent a significant part of the population in their respective areas.
Hamas was elected overwhelmingly by the Palestinian people and all polls show that they still enjoy widespread report. I also don't believe you can divide Hamas into a "tiny militant wing" and something else. One needs only read Hamas' charter to understand that it is an Islamist/jihadist organization dedicated to the destruction of not only Israel but of Jordan and other western-leaning Arab governments as well and their replacement with a pan-Arab Islamist state. There is no moderate, non-terrorist element to Hamas and there does not appear to be a moderate majority among the Palestinians.
Similarly Hizbullah is enjoys widespread support among Lebanon's Shiite Muslims and most polls show it's support level at 30% or so of the Lebanese people as a whole. That is a very significant minority, particularly in a multi-party parliamentary system.
In order for their to ever be peace in the region there has to be a sea change in Arab opinion. There has to be an acceptance, however grudging, of Israel's existence and it's permanent nature. Until that happens the region is doomed to a cycle or warfare. Arab leaders have to do what Israeli leaders like Yitzhak Rabin did: build a consensus for peace.
Can democracy take root in the Arab world? Someday, maybe. Right now I'd settle for stability and sane leadership, something that Jordan, Egypt, and several of the gulf states enjoy. The move towards democracy in the region will have to happen through a natural evolutionary process, not a process of imposition by foreign powers. In that Friedman is absolutely correct.
Thanks to Aharon at Blogs of Zion for the link and for quoting the Friedman article.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
News From Family In The North of Israel
I heard from a cousin in Israel after Shabbat. As of then nobody in our family was hurt. My cousin's wife has family in the north. Two of her brothers live on the Lebanese border. A Katyusha landed not far from their moshav. She has two nieces in Mizpe Hila and a third brother in Haifa. One cousin lives with her family in Haifa as well. Since receiving this news nine people were killed in Haifa as Katyusha rockets slammed into the city again. Hizbullah also hit Acre, Kiryat Haim, Naharayim, Kibbutz Sa'ar, Kfar Maimon and Nahariya. An additional 25 people were injured as Hizbullah continues to target Israeli civilian population centers.
My cousin added:
To be honest I am filled with rage, not only at Hizbullah but at the international press and those in the international community who enable these attacks through their support of the terrorists and their demonization of Israel. I hope Prime Minister Olmert does something no Israeli Prime Minister has done since Yitzhak Shamir: resist and ignore international pressure even when there are consequences, both in terms of financial hardship and damaged international relations. Israel shouldn't restrain itself at all in insuring that neither Hizbullah nor Hamas can fire rockets into Israeli cities and towns in the future. The first obligation of any government is to protect its citizens. If France or Russia or anyone else fails to understand that applies to Israel as much as anyone else, well... too bad.
My cousin added:
We hope Zahal will be given the time to do enough work before the so called liberal democratic justice seeking world will interfere. I hope that eventually some sense will come to them and they will know who we are facing and figure when their time will come to face another act of terror on their liberal righteous countries.I couldn't agree more.
To be honest I am filled with rage, not only at Hizbullah but at the international press and those in the international community who enable these attacks through their support of the terrorists and their demonization of Israel. I hope Prime Minister Olmert does something no Israeli Prime Minister has done since Yitzhak Shamir: resist and ignore international pressure even when there are consequences, both in terms of financial hardship and damaged international relations. Israel shouldn't restrain itself at all in insuring that neither Hizbullah nor Hamas can fire rockets into Israeli cities and towns in the future. The first obligation of any government is to protect its citizens. If France or Russia or anyone else fails to understand that applies to Israel as much as anyone else, well... too bad.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
On Israeli Restraint
I read editorial writers in the San Francisco Chronicle and politicians in the European Union decrying Israel's lack of restraint and "disproportionate" use of force in response to the kidnapping of soldiers and the rain of rockets landing on Israeli cities. I wonder what kind of drugs these people are taking. Tell me, if rockets rained down on Chicago, America's third largest city, as they do on Haifa, Israel's third largest city, with over one hundred injured as there are in Israel right now, what would Americans want the government to do? Act with restraint? Be proportional? Nope, they'd want the attacks to stop and want the government to do whatever it took militarily to make them stop.
You know what's really sick? Israel is showing restraint -- too much restraint, in fact, and it works against their own interests. Yael K., a leftist American-born Israeli living in Tel Aviv, wrote this piece in her blog which, in part, describes in detail the Israeli restraint that the Chronicle and CNN and the BBC aren't reporting.. and it's consequences.
Gerald A. Honigman, writing for the right-wing Arutz Sheva, puts it this way:
We all know the answer and all know that the calls for proportionality, while quoting the Geneva Convention, are rooted in hypocrisy and decades of championing the Palestinians as innocent victims and Israel as an aggressive oppressor nation. Facts no longer matter. The political agenda is all that counts.
[NOTE: One more that's crossposted in Blogs of Zion]
You know what's really sick? Israel is showing restraint -- too much restraint, in fact, and it works against their own interests. Yael K., a leftist American-born Israeli living in Tel Aviv, wrote this piece in her blog which, in part, describes in detail the Israeli restraint that the Chronicle and CNN and the BBC aren't reporting.. and it's consequences.
I'm thinking of the leaflets and flyers our forces have been dropping into the populated areas that we plan to attack --since this fiasco began -- warning civilians to please leave the area because an attack will be coming. We do this to try to avoid killing innocent civilians. We do this despite the fact that it alerts many of the terrorists we would like to target so that they also can leave beforehand. We do this despite the fact that it endangers our own troops by giving the militants a clear signal of where we will be striking and where they can thus strike our forces. I cannot think of any other country that has ever ever taken such steps to warn an opposing civilian population. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the five million smaller terrorist groups certainly don't return the favour. No, they actively target our civilians.
I am thinking of what Hamas, led by Meshal, and Hezbollah, led by Nasrallah, and both backed by Syria and Iran have done, what suffering they have caused and are causing to Israelis, yes, but to Palestinians and Lebanese too --in theory to their own people--and I am really beyond words. They do not have the interest of their people in mind. They have power and power of a very personal nature in mind. They should be very glad that we are acting with restraint. They should be very glad that we take more precautions on behalf of "their" people than they would ever deign to.
Gerald A. Honigman, writing for the right-wing Arutz Sheva, puts it this way:
Following the European Union's current demand for "proportion" only perpetuates this conflict. And Israel has been doing just that for far too long.
Again, the recent actions of the enemy are blatant acts of war. And they are committed by those whose openly-stated goal is the utter destruction of their neighbor. No compromise that permits the long-term survival of a Jewish Israel, regardless of size, is acceptable to the Arabs Israel is now confronting.
What would the Brits do with such a neighbor? The French? America? Russia? Who would consent to self-destruction? Would any of these folks agree to a mere wrist-slapping of those aiming to destroy both themselves and their countries, as well?
We all know the answer and all know that the calls for proportionality, while quoting the Geneva Convention, are rooted in hypocrisy and decades of championing the Palestinians as innocent victims and Israel as an aggressive oppressor nation. Facts no longer matter. The political agenda is all that counts.
[NOTE: One more that's crossposted in Blogs of Zion]
Iran Is Deliberately Provoking A Regional War
Today the Bush administration, both the White House and the State Department, blamed Iran and Syria for the latest attacks on Israel, which they termed "unprovoked". Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Danny Ayalon, stated that Iran and Syria are "playing with fire" by escalating the current conflict in the Middle East. I believe both the Bush administration and the Ambassador are correct. However, I also believe that Iran knows precisely what it's doing and a conflagration is exactly what they have in mind. They are deliberately provoking a regional war and perhaps even a world war.
In a piece published today the Middle East Media Research Institute, citing articles in Lebanese, Syrian, and Iranian media, put the Teheran regime squarely behind the latest violence:
Speaking in Joffa on Wednesday Mr. Ahmadinejad added:
Today Mr. Ahmadinejad upped the rhetoric further according to a Reuters report, stating in a phone call with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad:
Just yesterday the Iranian daily newspaper Jomhouri-ye Eslami published comments from 23 May by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah:
Further, I believe the Islamists see the United States as weak. They see resolve in Iraq failing as public opinion turned against the war and remember U.S. withdrawals from Somalia and Beirut. I expect Iran will try to drag the U.S. into the war by meddling in Iran and/or Afghanistan, possibly with Syrian help. That would give them the justification they need to complete their nuclear program. Indeed, they may be close enough to completing the program to believe they can use nuclear weapons to finish the war if necessary.
These are incredibly dangerous times. President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime see jihad as an obligation, one commanded by Allah. Israel has no choice but to defend itself. I think it is in everyone's interest if they do so with a bit less restraint and a bit more haste. Fewer lives will be lost that way.
[NOTE: This piece also appears on Blogs of Zion, where I write under my Hebrew name.]
In a piece published today the Middle East Media Research Institute, citing articles in Lebanese, Syrian, and Iranian media, put the Teheran regime squarely behind the latest violence:
In statements published over the last few weeks, senior Iranian officials advocated an escalation of the violent activity against Israel and against "Zionists" around the world.Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking on Iranian television on Tuesday, stated:
Additionally, in mid-June 2006, Syria and Iran signed a military cooperation agreement. The Syrian defense minister stated on that occasion that the two countries "are establishing a joint front against Israel... [since] Iran regards Syria's security as its own."
[...]
It is possible that the escalation on Israel's borders, set off by elements supported by Iran - Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria - is meant to take the pressure off Iran by triggering a major military clash in the Middle East, which will divert international attention from Iran's nuclear program.
Today, it has been proven that the Zionists are not opposed only to Islam and the Muslims. They are opposed to humanity as a whole. They want to dominate the entire world. They would even sacrifice the Western regimes for their own sake. I have said in Tehran, and I say it again here - I say to the leaders of some Western countries: Stop supporting these corrupt people. Behold, the rage of the Muslim peoples is accumulating. The rage of the Muslim peoples may soon reach the point of explosion. If that day comes, they must know that the waves of this explosion will not be restricted to the boundaries of our region. They will definitely reach the corrupt forces that support this fake regime.I think it's fair to say that Hamas and Hizbullah are expressing what Mr. Ahmadinejad called "the rage of the Muslim peoples" in their latest unprovoked attacks on Israel.
Speaking in Joffa on Wednesday Mr. Ahmadinejad added:
In the near future we will witness the rapid collapse of the Zionist regime. The nations of the region will record the names of states that support the Zionist regime alongside the Zionist's crimesI think it's safe to say that the actions of the past few days are Mr. Ahmadinejad's attempt to begin to make good on that threat.
Today Mr. Ahmadinejad upped the rhetoric further according to a Reuters report, stating in a phone call with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad:
If the Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria, this will be considered like attacking the whole Islamic world and this regime will receive a very fierce response.Can he deliver on a united Islamic response? No, of course not, but he may be able to drag more Arab and Muslim nations into the war. That, I believe, is part of the Iranian plan.
Just yesterday the Iranian daily newspaper Jomhouri-ye Eslami published comments from 23 May by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah:
We can hit Israel's entire northern region with thousands of rockets... All of Israel is now within the range of our missiles. Its seaports, [military] bases, industrial plants and everything else are all within our range... I repeat and say that our stockpile of weapons is significant, both in quantity and in quality... Another advantage that I wish to mention is the geography of Lebanon and Palestine. Most of Israel's vital areas are concentrated in the northern [half] of occupied Palestine, while the south is uninhabited and desolate. More than two million Jews live in the north of occupied Palestine, which contains the recreation centers and [tourist] resorts, the industrial plants, the agricultural [areas] and the important military airports and bases. This is an advantage for us... Our presence in South Lebanon, in proximity to the north of occupied Palestine, is our greatest advantage...I believe the Iranians actually believe that if they can get enough of the Islamic world behind them that they now have the means to destroy Israel even without nuclear weapons. Israel's withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza along with Prime Minister Olmert's realignment plan have been misconstrued as Isreali weakness and a lack of willingness to fight. When people's homes and very lives are threatened they do unite and fight with great determination, and this is where Iran has miscalculated.
Further, I believe the Islamists see the United States as weak. They see resolve in Iraq failing as public opinion turned against the war and remember U.S. withdrawals from Somalia and Beirut. I expect Iran will try to drag the U.S. into the war by meddling in Iran and/or Afghanistan, possibly with Syrian help. That would give them the justification they need to complete their nuclear program. Indeed, they may be close enough to completing the program to believe they can use nuclear weapons to finish the war if necessary.
These are incredibly dangerous times. President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime see jihad as an obligation, one commanded by Allah. Israel has no choice but to defend itself. I think it is in everyone's interest if they do so with a bit less restraint and a bit more haste. Fewer lives will be lost that way.
[NOTE: This piece also appears on Blogs of Zion, where I write under my Hebrew name.]
Friday, June 23, 2006
Ian Anderson To Play In Israel (Aliya Diary, Page Three)
Blogging is dangerous. It can cost you money. At least I would love to find a way for it to cost me lots of money right now, and for me to have the money to spend in the first place...
OK, it happened like this: I listened to Ian Anderson's wonderful CD called Rupi's Dance last night. When I got to "Old Black Cat", a song lamenting the passing of his 12 year old cat, Mauser, I started mentally changing the words to fit Nyssa, my much loved ferret who died last week. The net result was this post in my ferrets' blog in Nyssa's honor with the rearranged words. Of course, in finding the links to use both in that post and now this one I went to the Ian Anderson/Jethro Tull website and did a little browsing. Are you with me so far?
Anyway, Ian Anderson is touring his Orchestral Jethro Tull album right now. There are no concerts anywhere near me. The nearest is in Michigan (lower peninsula) and that isn't going to happen. One confirmed date did stand out: September 16, near Tel Aviv, Israel. Israel? Ian Anderson is playing in Israel!
Why does any of this matter? In my misspent youth I loved Jethro Tull. Between 1973 and 1999 I saw them play eight times. I still really like the softer, folk-influenced albums from the late 70s like Songs From The Wood and especially Heavy Horses. I also like the blues and blues-influenced stuff they did in the late 60s on albums like This Was and Stand Up. More recently Ian Anderson's solo works have been brilliant, particularly the classical meets world music meets folk of Divinities: Twelve Dances With G-d and the folky and only slightly world music flavored Rupi's Dance. I saw Ian Anderson as part of his "Rubbing Elbows..." tour in 2004 in Durham, NC and while some of the things he said were... well... stupid at best, when he isn't offering his opinions and he is just playing his music and singing he is absolutely fantastic. He is the consummate singer and songwriter and multi-instrumentalist musician.
Now, take some of my favorite music, add that Ian Anderson is one of the few who have attained rock star status who don't say stupid or negative things about Israel, add that he is going to Israel for a concert, and add that I am planning to move to Israel and want to spend more time there first, and... well.... Does it make any sense yet? Probably not.
I am planning aliya sometime in 2007 and between that and the whole career change thing I'm penny pinching now in a big way. On the other hand I want to make at least two trips to Israel before moving there. Those trips should be closer to the move, though, so that I can do exciting things like find housing. Visiting family is always good though...
Let's just put it this way. If I could afford it without messing up any of my other life plans I'd be in Israel in September. The sad news is that this September is probably not be meant to be. It just would be an amazing and wonderful convergence of different elements of my life if I went to see Ian Anderson playing near Tel Aviv.
Oh, and yes, this is the first time I've publicly even vaguely talked about when I plan to make aliya a reality in my blog or anywhere else. No, I am NOT going to be more specific... yet.
Mental note to self: time to renew passport (American one) in any case.
OK, it happened like this: I listened to Ian Anderson's wonderful CD called Rupi's Dance last night. When I got to "Old Black Cat", a song lamenting the passing of his 12 year old cat, Mauser, I started mentally changing the words to fit Nyssa, my much loved ferret who died last week. The net result was this post in my ferrets' blog in Nyssa's honor with the rearranged words. Of course, in finding the links to use both in that post and now this one I went to the Ian Anderson/Jethro Tull website and did a little browsing. Are you with me so far?
Anyway, Ian Anderson is touring his Orchestral Jethro Tull album right now. There are no concerts anywhere near me. The nearest is in Michigan (lower peninsula) and that isn't going to happen. One confirmed date did stand out: September 16, near Tel Aviv, Israel. Israel? Ian Anderson is playing in Israel!
Why does any of this matter? In my misspent youth I loved Jethro Tull. Between 1973 and 1999 I saw them play eight times. I still really like the softer, folk-influenced albums from the late 70s like Songs From The Wood and especially Heavy Horses. I also like the blues and blues-influenced stuff they did in the late 60s on albums like This Was and Stand Up. More recently Ian Anderson's solo works have been brilliant, particularly the classical meets world music meets folk of Divinities: Twelve Dances With G-d and the folky and only slightly world music flavored Rupi's Dance. I saw Ian Anderson as part of his "Rubbing Elbows..." tour in 2004 in Durham, NC and while some of the things he said were... well... stupid at best, when he isn't offering his opinions and he is just playing his music and singing he is absolutely fantastic. He is the consummate singer and songwriter and multi-instrumentalist musician.
Now, take some of my favorite music, add that Ian Anderson is one of the few who have attained rock star status who don't say stupid or negative things about Israel, add that he is going to Israel for a concert, and add that I am planning to move to Israel and want to spend more time there first, and... well.... Does it make any sense yet? Probably not.
I am planning aliya sometime in 2007 and between that and the whole career change thing I'm penny pinching now in a big way. On the other hand I want to make at least two trips to Israel before moving there. Those trips should be closer to the move, though, so that I can do exciting things like find housing. Visiting family is always good though...
Let's just put it this way. If I could afford it without messing up any of my other life plans I'd be in Israel in September. The sad news is that this September is probably not be meant to be. It just would be an amazing and wonderful convergence of different elements of my life if I went to see Ian Anderson playing near Tel Aviv.
Oh, and yes, this is the first time I've publicly even vaguely talked about when I plan to make aliya a reality in my blog or anywhere else. No, I am NOT going to be more specific... yet.
Mental note to self: time to renew passport (American one) in any case.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
An Excellent Defense of Unilateral Withdrawal
An editorial in today's Yediot Ahranot by Dr. Yossi Beilin, the leader of the left-wing Meretz party, provides an excellent defense of Prime Minister Olmert's plans to withdraw unilaterally from large parts of Judea and Samaria. I freely admit that my politics moved quite a bit to the right in the wake of the collapse of the peace process in 2000 and the subsequent Palestinian decision to launch a war of terror against Israel. I have rarely agreed with Dr. Beilin or Meretz in general in recent years but he squarely hits the proverbial nail on the head in today's editorial.
While I do recommend reading the piece in its entirety, here are some particularly strong parts:
For those who dismiss realignment or convergence or disengagement or whatever the current nom du jour is as some sort of retreat in the face of Palestinian terrorism I can only quote Prime Minister Olmert's words yesterday before the British parliament:
A withdrawal to borders that make sense for Israel without any Palestinian Arab input is the last thing the Palestinians or their supporters want because it takes the territorial issue and "occupation" off the table. This is why supporters of the Palestinians cry "annexation" so loudly even as Israel makes what amount to unprecedented concessions.
Yossi Beilin is right this time. Israel is following the only practical course open to her.
[NOTE: This piece also appears in Blogs of Zion, where I write under my Hebrew name.]
While I do recommend reading the piece in its entirety, here are some particularly strong parts:
If we stick to the idea of the complete Land of Israel, we will soon be left with no State of Israel, and if we are left with no State of Israel, we will be left with no Land of Israel. In the best case scenario, we will become beholden to the good graces of a Palestinian state that will include the Whole Land of Israel.
That's the whole story. It is also the reason that Ariel Sharon changed his mind, and Ehud Olmert changed his mind, as did Tzipi Livni, Dan Meridor, Tzachi Hanegbi, Michael Eitan and many other "Whole Land of Israel" proponents both in and out of the Knesset.
[...]
Either we will have a Jewish democracy here, with a stable Jewish majority and equal civilian rights for all – or we will have nothing.
[...]
The Land of Israel west of the Jordan River will have a Palestinian majority in another four or five years. If we continue to rule this entire area (directly or indirectly), the Palestinians will come to us with a simple demand: One man, one vote. They will tell us not to worry about taking down settlements, dividing Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian state or anything else.
This, in turn, will create one, large state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, but it will not be the State of Israel.
The Whole Land of Israel – or in other words, Israeli control of the western portion of the Land of Israel – is not an alternative to a Jewish state in part of that territory.
For those who dismiss realignment or convergence or disengagement or whatever the current nom du jour is as some sort of retreat in the face of Palestinian terrorism I can only quote Prime Minister Olmert's words yesterday before the British parliament:
We'll never agree to pull out of all of the territories, because the borders of 1967 are indefensible
A withdrawal to borders that make sense for Israel without any Palestinian Arab input is the last thing the Palestinians or their supporters want because it takes the territorial issue and "occupation" off the table. This is why supporters of the Palestinians cry "annexation" so loudly even as Israel makes what amount to unprecedented concessions.
Yossi Beilin is right this time. Israel is following the only practical course open to her.
[NOTE: This piece also appears in Blogs of Zion, where I write under my Hebrew name.]
Better Late Than Never
For years Palestinian refugees, as in those who fled when the State of Israel was created in 1948, have been une cause célèbre in the world press, at the United Nations, and in the world community in general. We rarely if ever heard about the much larger number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries in the wake of World War II. That is finally changing. On 24 May The New Republic published a piece by Joseph Braude titled The Jewish Refugee Problem: Due Recognition. He says, in part:
This recognition has been a long time coming, and it is better late than never.
Ariel Beery, writing in Blogs of Zion a couple of days later, adds:
This is, indeed, an answer to those who claim Israel was founded strictly by European invaders and those who try to delegitimize Israel. 42% of Israel's population are sephardim, these Jewish refugees and their descendants.
It is also high time that the world starts to recognize that the blame for the ongoing Palestinian refugee problem rests largely with the Palestinians themselves and their Arab brethren. It is they who insist that the refugees remain in camps (actually slums within cities) and forbid them to resettle, own land, or take jobs elsewhere in the territories or the Arab world. The Palestinian and wider Arab leadership perpetuate the suffering of their own people for political reasons, namely to blame Israel and foster sympathy abroad and to have a fertile ground in which to sow hatred and breed terrorists. This needs to change if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.
Later this week, a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen are expected to introduce a resolution that would make the Arab-Israeli conflict a little easier to resolve--by making it a little more complicated to discuss. The resolution urges the president to make sure that, during international discussions on refugees in the Middle East, "any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees is matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees, as a matter of law and equity." Sponsors of the measure include everyone from Rick Santorum on the right to Dick Durbin on the left, and a number of congressmen and senators in between.
The resolution constitutes a long-overdue acknowledgment of a tragedy which, for decades, Arab states have denied and the international community has ignored. Nine hundred thousand Jews have been forced to flee their homes in Arab countries and Iran since the years leading up to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. (Most left in two waves--immediately before or after Israel's independence, and during the years following the Six Day War.) Some were deported outright; others faced widespread campaigns of violence and intimidation so unbearable as to render their ancestral homelands unlivable.
This recognition has been a long time coming, and it is better late than never.
Ariel Beery, writing in Blogs of Zion a couple of days later, adds:
The current identification of those Arabs who lived in the Mandate (Palestinians and Jordanians and other groups who self-identify in diverse ways) as the only victims of the post-World War Two shake-up is ridiculous. It's time we realize that there were many victims of the war of 1948--and both sides deserve to have a State of their own as a way of repairing those wounds over time.
This is, indeed, an answer to those who claim Israel was founded strictly by European invaders and those who try to delegitimize Israel. 42% of Israel's population are sephardim, these Jewish refugees and their descendants.
It is also high time that the world starts to recognize that the blame for the ongoing Palestinian refugee problem rests largely with the Palestinians themselves and their Arab brethren. It is they who insist that the refugees remain in camps (actually slums within cities) and forbid them to resettle, own land, or take jobs elsewhere in the territories or the Arab world. The Palestinian and wider Arab leadership perpetuate the suffering of their own people for political reasons, namely to blame Israel and foster sympathy abroad and to have a fertile ground in which to sow hatred and breed terrorists. This needs to change if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.
British University Boycott of Israel Ends
Less than two weeks after it began the boycott of Israeli professors and universities by the British National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) has been cancelled. A number of former American university Presidents had written in opposition to the boycott in this letter to the editor of the Financial Times on 30 May:
Sadly it wasn't this letter or other similar efforts by British and Israeli academicians that ended the boycott, nor was it any realization by NATFHE that their proposal amounted to no more than anti-Semitic McCarthyesque blacklisting designed to further a misguided political agenda at British universities. Condemnation of the boycott by the British government also had little effect. Rather it was a business necessity. NATFHE wanted to merge into the larger Association of University Teachers (AUT). AUT opposed the boycott. While some are touting the end of the boycott as a victory for academic freedom and fairness it was not a decision based on any sort of principles at all.
This incident serves, more than anything else, as a stark reminder of the blatant anti-Israel bias at major universities in the United States, Canada, and across Europe that I wrote about back in April. At the time I quoted Alan Dershowitz from his 2005 book The Case For Peace and his accusation bears repeating:
The anti-Israel crowd may have suffered a minor setback with the end of the boycott but they continue to teach hatred of Israel to young, impressionable students and stifle any dissenting voices.
[NOTE: This post also appears on Blogs of Zion.]
Proposed boycott of Israeli academics is appalling
Sir,
We are appalled by the possibility that the British National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) may vote to boycott Israeli academics who do not publicly dissociate themselves from their country's alleged "apartheid policies."
The proposed boycott would violate fundamental academic norms, undermine efforts to promote scholarly co-operation between Arabs and Jews, and perpetuate flagrant distortions about the nature of Israeli government and society.
We find it odd that Israel, a democracy with a vigorous exchange of ideas on all topics including policies toward the Palestinians, has been singled out for a boycott, rather than the many authoritarian nations that ruthlessly suppress academic and political discourse. Open exchange, collaboration, co-operation and free debate are the hallmarks of academic life. To isolate and sever ties with a community of scholars based on their national or religious identity, ostensibly as a protest against their government's policies, is a serious breach of academic norms.
Although one might imagine circumstances that justify such action, the threshold needs to be kept high. Notwithstanding all of its geopolitical problems, Israel is a genuine democracy: the Knesset has long included members from various Arab parties, the vice-president of Haifa University is an Arab sociologist, there is a slim gap between the percentages of Jewish and Arab students who qualify for the rigorous high school exit certificate, affirmative action programs have been implemented in various sectors, and the list could go on.
The simple fact is that Israel does not come close to meeting the standard of "apartheid." In the name of academic integrity and common decency we call on our British colleagues to end their efforts to boycott Israeli scholars.
Richard C. Atkinson, President Emeritus, University of California
John Brademas, President Emeritus, New York University
Thomas Ehrlich, President Emeritus, Indiana University
Donald Kennedy, President Emeritus, Stanford University
David Ward, Chancellor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sadly it wasn't this letter or other similar efforts by British and Israeli academicians that ended the boycott, nor was it any realization by NATFHE that their proposal amounted to no more than anti-Semitic McCarthyesque blacklisting designed to further a misguided political agenda at British universities. Condemnation of the boycott by the British government also had little effect. Rather it was a business necessity. NATFHE wanted to merge into the larger Association of University Teachers (AUT). AUT opposed the boycott. While some are touting the end of the boycott as a victory for academic freedom and fairness it was not a decision based on any sort of principles at all.
This incident serves, more than anything else, as a stark reminder of the blatant anti-Israel bias at major universities in the United States, Canada, and across Europe that I wrote about back in April. At the time I quoted Alan Dershowitz from his 2005 book The Case For Peace and his accusation bears repeating:
I will demonstrate that there is an explicit campaign of vilification against Israel ...the goal of this well-coordinated campaign is entirely negative: namely, to produce a generation of future leaders--political, economic, religious, academic--who are virtually programmed to be stridently anti-Israel.
The anti-Israel crowd may have suffered a minor setback with the end of the boycott but they continue to teach hatred of Israel to young, impressionable students and stifle any dissenting voices.
[NOTE: This post also appears on Blogs of Zion.]
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Israel Perfects Time Travel
Unknown to most of the world until today it appears Israeli scientists have perfected a method of time travel. No details have been released nor have any scholarly papers been published but I know it must be true. How do I know this? The Syrians are the ones who revealed this startling breakthrough at the U.N. Security Council meeting today. In the words of Syrian diplomat Ahmed Alhariri:
Israel was created in 1948. World War I started in 1914 and World War II started in 1939. Therefore the only way Israel could have started those wars was by sending it's people back in time. Brilliant! I mean, that has to be it, doesn't it? The Syrians would never engage in historical revisionism in the esteemed halls of the United Nations, would they?
In other developments Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dan Gillerman warmly thanked Syria and Iran for bringing their unparalleled expertise to the Security Council. Ambassador Gillerman expressed his:
Unfortunately their expertise on terrorism is real even if their history is faulty.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike. Aussie Dave at Israellycool wrote about the Zionist Time Machine in a post titled Time Bandits, or at least his future self from 2026 did.
[NOTE: This piece also appears on Blogs of Zion, where I write under my Hebrew name.]
If we examine the matter, we will find that Israel was behind the eruption of both World War I and World War II.
Israel was created in 1948. World War I started in 1914 and World War II started in 1939. Therefore the only way Israel could have started those wars was by sending it's people back in time. Brilliant! I mean, that has to be it, doesn't it? The Syrians would never engage in historical revisionism in the esteemed halls of the United Nations, would they?
In other developments Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dan Gillerman warmly thanked Syria and Iran for bringing their unparalleled expertise to the Security Council. Ambassador Gillerman expressed his:
appreciation, which I hope is shared by members of the Security Council, for the opportunity afforded to all of us to hear lectures about terrorism by two of the world's greatest experts on that subject.
Unfortunately their expertise on terrorism is real even if their history is faulty.
UPDATE: Great minds think alike. Aussie Dave at Israellycool wrote about the Zionist Time Machine in a post titled Time Bandits, or at least his future self from 2026 did.
[NOTE: This piece also appears on Blogs of Zion, where I write under my Hebrew name.]
If Convergence Will Create a Terrorist State, What is the Alternative?
In 1967, when most Israelis were celebrating their victory in the Six Day War, my father saw nothing to celebrate. His words: "Occupation. Bad business." The last 39 years of history make him, in retrospect, seem prophetic.
Last Tuesday (23 May), an opinion piece by James Woolsey, the former Director of Central Intelligence, titled West Bank Terrorist State was published in the Wall Street Journal. He wrote, in part:
I cannot disagree with Mr. Woolsey. I often find myself nodding when reading similar opinions coming from the Israeli right. The one question nobody answers is this: If withdrawal is the wrong answer, what is the right answer? Nobody seems to have one.
Clearly the occupation is not sustainable indefinitely. There is no way Israel can rule over millions of hostile Arabs and remain a majority Jewish state. For all it's failings fewer Jews are dying now in and near Gaza than were before Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan was executed.
I see no reasonable alternative to Prime Minister Olmert's convergence plan. Yes, it should be scaled back. There is no way a nation can share its capital with a hostile enemy and any division of Jerusalem under present circumstances would be a serious mistake. Similarly, I think the security fence should be rerouted in southern Judea to include the settlements in the Hebron hills and the Jewish quarter of Hebron itself. The Tomb of the Patriarchs should not be turned over to anyone who will not respect the religious, historical, and cultural significance of the place to the Jewish people and Jewish worship there must always be allowed.
In addition the Palestinians must be made to understand that attacks and terrorism will be met with overwhelming force. The IDF incursion into Gaza is a good start but it is not enough. The Palestinians must be made to understand that the price for attacking Israel is so very high that they are no longer willing to pay it.
Having said all that I still see no alternative to unilateral separation, or, as then Prime Minister Barak put it, "Us over here, them over there."
Last Tuesday (23 May), an opinion piece by James Woolsey, the former Director of Central Intelligence, titled West Bank Terrorist State was published in the Wall Street Journal. He wrote, in part:
The approach Israel is preparing to take in the West Bank was tried in Gaza and has failed utterly. The Israeli withdrawal of last year has produced the worst set of results imaginable: a heavy presence by al Qaeda, Hezbollah and even some Iranian Revolutionary Guard units; street fighting between Hamas and Fatah, and now Hamas assassination attempts against Fatah's intelligence chief and Jordan's ambassador; rocket and mortar attacks against nearby towns inside Israel; and a perceived vindication for Hamas, which took credit for the withdrawal. This latter almost certainly contributed substantially to Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections.
[...]
Israel is not the only pro-Western country that would be threatened. How does moderate Jordan, with its Palestinian majority, survive if bordered by a West Bank terrorist state? Israeli concessions will also make the U.S. look weak, because it will be inferred that we have urged them, and will suggest that we are reverting to earlier behavior patterns--fleeing Lebanon in 1983, acquiescing in Saddam's destruction of the Kurdish and Shiite rebels in 1991, fleeing Somalia in 1993, etc.
Three major Israeli efforts at accommodation in the last 13 years have not worked. Oslo and the 1993 handshake in the Rose Garden between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat produced only Arafat's rejection in 2000 of Ehud Barak's extremely generous settlement offer and the beginning of the second intifada. The Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 has enhanced Hezbollah's prestige and control there; and the withdrawal from Gaza has unleashed madness. These three accommodations have been based on the premise that only Israeli concessions can displace Palestinian despair. But it seems increasingly clear that the Palestinian cause is fueled by hatred and contempt.
I cannot disagree with Mr. Woolsey. I often find myself nodding when reading similar opinions coming from the Israeli right. The one question nobody answers is this: If withdrawal is the wrong answer, what is the right answer? Nobody seems to have one.
Clearly the occupation is not sustainable indefinitely. There is no way Israel can rule over millions of hostile Arabs and remain a majority Jewish state. For all it's failings fewer Jews are dying now in and near Gaza than were before Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan was executed.
I see no reasonable alternative to Prime Minister Olmert's convergence plan. Yes, it should be scaled back. There is no way a nation can share its capital with a hostile enemy and any division of Jerusalem under present circumstances would be a serious mistake. Similarly, I think the security fence should be rerouted in southern Judea to include the settlements in the Hebron hills and the Jewish quarter of Hebron itself. The Tomb of the Patriarchs should not be turned over to anyone who will not respect the religious, historical, and cultural significance of the place to the Jewish people and Jewish worship there must always be allowed.
In addition the Palestinians must be made to understand that attacks and terrorism will be met with overwhelming force. The IDF incursion into Gaza is a good start but it is not enough. The Palestinians must be made to understand that the price for attacking Israel is so very high that they are no longer willing to pay it.
Having said all that I still see no alternative to unilateral separation, or, as then Prime Minister Barak put it, "Us over here, them over there."
Friday, May 19, 2006
More on the Proposed British University Boycott of Israel
David Hirsh has written a rather long piece responding to one of the advocates of boycotting Israeli universities and academicians. It's well written and worth reading. A couple of excerpts:
Steven Rose recycles a number of libels and half-truths from last year's failed and rejected boycott campaign in the AUT but he is smart enough to leave out the specifics this year. Last year when his campaign accused Haifa University of being a racist institution, this sorry package of libels nearly bankrupted our union; when the boycott campaign falsely accused the Hebrew University of building its new dorm block on occupied land it exposed AUT to an equally serious libel threat. Israeli higher education is not segregated. Both Haifa University and Hebrew University have about 20 per cent Arab students and have significant numbers of Arab faculty members. This is a rate of inclusion of minorities that would shame many elite British institutions.
[...]
The truth is that the universities are spaces in Israel where conflict is persued through words and ideas rather than guns and bombs. They are amongst the most anti-racist spaces in Israel, spaces where ideas for peace are forged, taught and practised. Some academics will indeed be right wing, some may be profoundly reactionary. That is the nature of an open, democratic and free education system. There are some things Hirsh writes which I strongly disagree with and which do not help his cause. He claims the occupation is sustained by systematic Israeli violence. He neglects to point out that the current Israeli government of Ehud Olmert is committed to withdrawing from 93% of the West Bank with or without any concessions or agreement from the Palestinians. He also fails to mention that whatever violent acts Israel may carry out against Palestinian targets is a response to ongoing and daily attempts to commit terrorist attacks on the civilian population of Israel.
Hirsh goes on to blame the failure of Oslo on "Israeli and Palestinian extremists". Former President Bill Clinton, former U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, and even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of Yasser Arafat. Israel didn't decide to abandon the peace process and start a war. The Palestinians did. It was also the Palestinians who elected Hamas, who oppose any agreement with Israel.
It seems to me Mr. Hirsh could have done a much better job and has bought into some of the self same misinformation and propaganda his opponents push. Nonetheless, Mr. Hirsh is definitely on the right side of this issue and his efforts within Engage to stop this boycott need to be supported. A vote on the proposed boycott will come next week.
[...]
The truth is that the universities are spaces in Israel where conflict is persued through words and ideas rather than guns and bombs. They are amongst the most anti-racist spaces in Israel, spaces where ideas for peace are forged, taught and practised. Some academics will indeed be right wing, some may be profoundly reactionary. That is the nature of an open, democratic and free education system.
Hirsh goes on to blame the failure of Oslo on "Israeli and Palestinian extremists". Former President Bill Clinton, former U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, and even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of Yasser Arafat. Israel didn't decide to abandon the peace process and start a war. The Palestinians did. It was also the Palestinians who elected Hamas, who oppose any agreement with Israel.
It seems to me Mr. Hirsh could have done a much better job and has bought into some of the self same misinformation and propaganda his opponents push. Nonetheless, Mr. Hirsh is definitely on the right side of this issue and his efforts within Engage to stop this boycott need to be supported. A vote on the proposed boycott will come next week.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Jimmy Carter Blunders In USA Today
Once again I've received a piece of e-mail from CAMERA that I think is important and that I think a lot of my readers will want to see and act upon. Yes, there is something you can do that's positive with just a few minutes of your time by simply sending an e-mail. Since I can't just link to a web page I'm going to post the whole thing here:
Please also share this with anyone you know who you think would be interested.
JIMMY CARTER'S BLUNDERS IN USA TODAY
When it comes to Arab-Israeli affairs, is former U.S. President Jimmy Carter a) uninformed, b) misinformed, or c) blinded by an anti-Israel animus? His USA Today Op-Ed, "Israel's new plan: A land grab" (May 16 print edition) makes a strong case for "all of the above."
Key Errors
Carter falsely claims that:
1) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to establish Israel's permanent eastern border in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) "would take about half of the Palestinian West Bank ...."
According to the Israeli Supreme Court decision calling for the realignment of the route of the security barrier to lessen impact on Arabs in Judea and Samaria, the barrier will encompass only 7 percent (not "half") of the West Bank. Olmert's "convergence" proposal --- to be enacted if Palestinian Arabs do not negotiate a final agreement in good faith --- would lead to withdrawal from the more isolated Jewish communities to the east of Israel's security barrier. The residents of those settlements would be consolidated in the major settlement blocs west (on the Israeli side) of the barrier.
2) "The barrier is not located on the internationally recognized boundary between Israel and Palestine, but entirely within and deeply penetrating the occupied territories." There is no "internationally recognized boundary between Israel and Palestine." The 1949 - 1967 "green line" separating Israel from the Jordanian-o ccupied West Bank was and remains a temporary armistice line. The Arabs, refusing to recognize Israel, refused to negotiate a permanent border. Given the impermanent nature of the armistice lines, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called for, among other things, negotiations to establish "secure and recognized" boundaries. The authors did not expect Israel to return to the vulnerable pre-'67 armistice lines.
While there may be a sovereign nation of "Palestine" in the future, currently there is no "Palestine." The British Mandate for Palestine terminated in 1948. The West Bank is not "Palestinian" but disputed land and subject to negotiations, as Resolutions 242 and 338, and subsequent diplomatic intitiatives like the "road map" made clear. Jordan and Israel are successor states to "Palestine," and the West Bank and Gaza Strip await final allocation.
3) The only internationally recognized "division of territory between Israel and the Palestinian ... awarded 77 percent of the land to the nation of Israel ...." Land alloted to the original British Mandate included what became Jordan (77.5 percent), the Golan Heights (later transferred to the French Mandate for Syria), what became Israel (17.5 percent), and the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the remaining five percent.
4) "Gaza is now...almost completely isolated from the West Bank, Israel and the outside world."
Carter appears to have forgotten that the Gaza Strip shares a border with Egypt and, through it, the rest of the world. That may have something to do with recently reported al Qaeda infiltration of Gaza, on which the former president is silent. And of course, if the terrorism emanating from Gaza stopped, there would be no need for the security measures that restrict movement between Gaza and Israel.
5) "Deep [Israeli] intrusions would effectively divide [the West Bank] into three portions."
The security barrier's route and an Israeli proposal to connect the suburb-settlement of Ma'ale Adumim to Jerusalem still would leave the West Bank as one contigous area. In fact, at its narrowest the West Bank would be about nine miles wide --- the same as Israel at one of its most constricted points inside the pre-'67 "green line."
6) "This confiscation of land is to be carried out without resorting to peace talks with the Palestinians, and in direct contravention of the 'road map for peace' ...."
Despite constant, material Palestinian Arab violations (including terrorism and anti-Jewish incitement) of the Oslo Accords and related agreement, Israel persisted in negotiations from 1993 to 2001. This effort included the 2000 Israeli-U.S. offer of a state on 95 percent-plus of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and on 97 percent-plus in 2001. In violation of the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians launched the "al-Aqsa intifada" terrorist war in 2000. Attempted terrorism continues at a high level, with occasional deadly attacks. Olmert is still offering negotiations -- provided the Palestinian Arabs put forth a serious partner. But he said Israel will not wait much longer.
7) "Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government rejected the key provisions of the 'road map' by the ... the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia ...."
Sharon and his government accepted the "road map," but included a list of concerns that stressed that Palestinian obligations to halt terrorism and destroy terrorist infrastructure had to be carried out, not just Israeli obligations.
8) The " 'road map' has been endorsed unequivocally by the moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas."
Endorsed, maybe; implemented, rarely. The PA under Abbas and his Fatah movement often promised to curtail anti-Israel terrorism and the PA's pervasive anti-Israeli incitement, but for the most part did not. Now with Hamas leading the PA cabinet and legislature, Abbas wields even less influence.
9) "Although the recently elected Hamas legislators will neither recognize nor negotiate with Israel while Palestinian land is being occupied, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed approval for direct Olmert-Abbas peace talks."
The "Palestinian land" Hamas considers occupied by Israel includes not just the West Bank but all of pre-'67 Israel as well. Hamas' charter and its campaign this January make that clear. A gesture of approval by the Hamas prime minister "for direct Olmert-Abbas peace talks" might help soften international opposition to funding the PA government of terrorists. It costs Haniyeh nothing; meanwhile, Hamas leader Khaled Mesha'al, "urged supporters around the world ... to send it arms, fighters and money to back its fight against arch-foe Israel," Reuters news agency reported recently. Is Palestinian rejectionism, terrorism and realpolitick over Carter's head, or does he not care?
10) Lack of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is "one of the major causes of international terrorism ...."
Nonsense. Fanatical Islamists reject modernism and religious freedom. Any country or government that is not a theocracy practicing their particular extreme interpretation of Islam would be on the Islamist terrorists' enemies' list. Israel is just one of many hated countries and moderate Muslims are also targets. Numerous commentators have pointed out that al Qaeda's terrorism stemmed primarily from Osama bin Laden's desire to oust the "infidel" U.S. presence from Saudi Arabia and overthrow the "sacriligeous" Saudi dynasty; destroying the Jewish state was low on the priority list until bin Laden expanded his targets to include other pro-Western Arab regimes like Jordan and Egypt. Islamic fundamentalism, personified by Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution in Iran, has always seen the United States as "the Great Satan," Israel as only "the Little Satan." Carter's failure to recognize that threat, or to resp ond forcefully during the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, helped drive him from office. He appears to have learned little in the subsequent quarter-century.
Action Item:
Write to editors@usatoday.com; Op-Ed Page Editor Glen Nishimura, gnishimura@usatoday.com; Editor Ken Paulson, kpaulson@usatoday.com; and Publisher Craig Moon at cmoon@usatoday.com.
Please send CAMERA a blind copy: letters@camera.org
Highlight Carter's numerous errors. Stress that these mistakes are basic and --- made by someone in a position to know better --- reveal a deeply distorted view of the subject. Question whether the same commentary, riddled with falsehood as it is, would have been published if submitted by someone without Carter's name recognition. Insist that the ex-president's column ill-served USA Today readers and urge the newspaper to seek a qualified commentator to set the record straight.
With thanks, Eric Rozenman Washington Director CAMERA
Please also share this with anyone you know who you think would be interested.
Tonecluster on Iran
From the blog Tonecluster on Iran, from a post dated 15 May:At the moment Iran is well on the way to the bomb, and will not be stopped by any means short of war. That is not just a curmudgeonly opinion, it is a historical one. Tyrants have never been stopped by words, words only indicate weakness to them. As was the scene in 1938 so it is now. The europeans think and act as if deals can be made and "peace in our time" declared by appeasing.
To return to Churchill then and borrow a few words: the West must choose between war and appeasement; if it chooses appeasement, it will get war. Wise words, yet it sometimes seems our leaders just don't see it. The left certainly does not.
To return to Churchill then and borrow a few words: the West must choose between war and appeasement; if it chooses appeasement, it will get war.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Israeli Bloggers Rally Around Jailed Egyptian
On 7 May 2006 at a peaceful pro-Democracy rally in Cairo 11 Egyptian pro-democracy activists were arrested, part of 49 in total in a two week period. Among them was a well known blogger, Alaa Abd El Fattah, who writes for Manal and Alaa's Bit Bucket. (Manal is Alaa's wife.) Bloggers around the world are rallying in support of Alaa demanding he be freed. A Free Alaa blog has been started for their campaign and an an online interactive petition is also up and running.
Among those rallying around Alaa are a large number of Israeli and Jewish bloggers (updated 16 May) including:
While I am personally not sure about the idea of Google bombing I do happen to think this is a worthwhile cause and we all need to spread the word and make our voices heard.
Yesterday on Blogs of Zion Aharon raised the issue of racism in Israel. The current conflict with the Palestinians has hardened many Israeli attitudes towards Arabs. Watching Israelis and Jews rally to help an Egyptian, a man who, as a blogger, we think of as one of our own somehow, shows that tolerance is alive and well in Israel and that we Jews can find common cause with Muslim Arabs. My one hope from all this is that some Arabs are aware of this and start finding common cause with us. The one thing that can certainly end a conflict is if there would no longer be public support for violence and terrorism.
Among those rallying around Alaa are a large number of Israeli and Jewish bloggers (updated 16 May) including:
- On The Face
- Shalom Israel
- Dry Bones
- Yaeli In Israel
- Moving On Up
- WestBank Blog
- Dutchblog Israel
- Step By Step - Making Aliyah
- Abba Gav
- The Mad Bad Crazee Life of Me
- The Muqata
- Cousin Lucy's Spoon
- Something Something
- Adloyada
- Soccer Dad
- and now my own Israel, Zionism, and Aliya
- and Blogs of Zion, where I am a contributing writer
While I am personally not sure about the idea of Google bombing I do happen to think this is a worthwhile cause and we all need to spread the word and make our voices heard.
Yesterday on Blogs of Zion Aharon raised the issue of racism in Israel. The current conflict with the Palestinians has hardened many Israeli attitudes towards Arabs. Watching Israelis and Jews rally to help an Egyptian, a man who, as a blogger, we think of as one of our own somehow, shows that tolerance is alive and well in Israel and that we Jews can find common cause with Muslim Arabs. My one hope from all this is that some Arabs are aware of this and start finding common cause with us. The one thing that can certainly end a conflict is if there would no longer be public support for violence and terrorism.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Fear of Action vs. the Consequences of Inaction
Yesterday AP reported that traces of highly enriched uranium were found in Iran at a facility linked to the Iranian military. The uranium was enriched to near or above the level needed for nuclear weapons. This further validates the claim made by the Bush administration, some in Europe, and Israel that Iran is indeed actively developing nuclear weapons. This came just two days after Iranian President Ahmadinejad's latest promise of genocide for Israel, in which he said Israel "cannot continue and one day will vanish."
On the same day, on NPR's On Point program, President Bush's record low approval rating was the topic of discussion. One of the guests (I honestly don't know which) expressed the "fear" the President Bush would "precipitate a war with Iran" to boost his sagging polls before the midterm election.
Precipitate a war? It seems to me the Iranians are the ones precipitating a war. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is providing arms to al-Qaeda in Iraq and Iran has offered to share nuclear technology with Sudan, a nation which has been committing genocide in Darfur and previously in southern Sudan. Iran has also been providing Katyusha rockets to Hamas, some of which were seized by the Jordanians. Is there any doubt that Iran would also gladly provide weapons, including radiological or even nuclear weapons, for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups to use against the United States?
Rather than fearing war with Iran all of us in the free world should fear the consequences of inaction. One day we could wake up and find that Cleveland or Miami, Tel Aviv or Birmingham could be a radioactive crater with millions dead or dying courtesy of the Iranian regime. Two thirds of Americans see Iran as a threat according to a recent Zogby poll, with 58% believing Iran will inevitably use nuclear weapons if it obtains them. I have no clue what the other 42% are thinking with all the evidence in front of them.
Yes, war is horrible to contemplate and innocent people will die. Yes, many nations will side with Iran, from Hugo Chavez' government in Venezuela to most of the Muslim world. Oil supplies will undoubtedly be disrupted and their will certainly be economic hardships. Considering the likely alternative: nuclear annihilation for Israel and an eventual nuclear attack on the United States, those hardships seem like a small price to pay and the casualties of a conventional war, as tragic as they would be, are mild by comparison.
On the same day, on NPR's On Point program, President Bush's record low approval rating was the topic of discussion. One of the guests (I honestly don't know which) expressed the "fear" the President Bush would "precipitate a war with Iran" to boost his sagging polls before the midterm election.
Precipitate a war? It seems to me the Iranians are the ones precipitating a war. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is providing arms to al-Qaeda in Iraq and Iran has offered to share nuclear technology with Sudan, a nation which has been committing genocide in Darfur and previously in southern Sudan. Iran has also been providing Katyusha rockets to Hamas, some of which were seized by the Jordanians. Is there any doubt that Iran would also gladly provide weapons, including radiological or even nuclear weapons, for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups to use against the United States?
Rather than fearing war with Iran all of us in the free world should fear the consequences of inaction. One day we could wake up and find that Cleveland or Miami, Tel Aviv or Birmingham could be a radioactive crater with millions dead or dying courtesy of the Iranian regime. Two thirds of Americans see Iran as a threat according to a recent Zogby poll, with 58% believing Iran will inevitably use nuclear weapons if it obtains them. I have no clue what the other 42% are thinking with all the evidence in front of them.
Yes, war is horrible to contemplate and innocent people will die. Yes, many nations will side with Iran, from Hugo Chavez' government in Venezuela to most of the Muslim world. Oil supplies will undoubtedly be disrupted and their will certainly be economic hardships. Considering the likely alternative: nuclear annihilation for Israel and an eventual nuclear attack on the United States, those hardships seem like a small price to pay and the casualties of a conventional war, as tragic as they would be, are mild by comparison.
Friday, May 12, 2006
That Didn't Take Long...
That didn't take long... not long at all. The Bush Administration, following the lead of the European Union and the United Nations, is funding the Hamas government in the territories. Of course this is for "humanitarian aid", aid the Palestinians have a long history of diverting to corrupt officials and to terrorism. It is also for Palestinian Authority salaries. The P.A., of course, is run by Hamas. The aid will flow through the office of President Mahmoud Abbas, as if that would make any difference.
While all this wonderful humanitarianism was going on Hamas reminded the world that it will never recognize Israel and claims all of Israel, not just territories captured in 1967. In the words of Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of Hamas's political bureau:
Hamas also appealed to the world to provide the things it really wants: arms, fighters, and money for it's war against Israel. Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, speaking in Qatar, said:
George Santayana's famous quotation, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.", has never been more true. The Bush administration and the Europeans need to look at what the Palestinians did with their funds up until now. You can never win a war on terrorism by funding the self same terrorists you are fighting.
While all this wonderful humanitarianism was going on Hamas reminded the world that it will never recognize Israel and claims all of Israel, not just territories captured in 1967. In the words of Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of Hamas's political bureau:
One of Hamas's founding principals is that it does not recognize Israel. We [participated in] the elections and the people voted for us based on this platform. Therefore, the question of recognizing Israel is definitely not on the table unless it withdraws from ALL the Palestinian lands, not only to the 1967 borders.
[...]
The resistance is Hamas's agenda, and we will coordinate in the upcoming period with all the factions in order to rally the Palestinian people around the resistance as a strategic option.
Hamas also appealed to the world to provide the things it really wants: arms, fighters, and money for it's war against Israel. Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, speaking in Qatar, said:
We ask all the people in surrounding Arab countries, the Muslim world and everyone who wants to support us to send weapons, money and men
George Santayana's famous quotation, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.", has never been more true. The Bush administration and the Europeans need to look at what the Palestinians did with their funds up until now. You can never win a war on terrorism by funding the self same terrorists you are fighting.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
British University Union Considers Boycott of Israel
Jon Pike of Engage is reporting:
The text of resolution before NATFHE reads, in part:
Mr. Pike goes on to say:
Please read Mr. Pike's complete piece here. A vote on the resolution will be held later this month.
Mona Baker is one of the academics in the U.K. cited by Dr. Alan Dershowitz in his book The Case For Peace as part of a campaign to villify Israel in academia and create a generation of leaders utterly opposed to the Jewish state. I described this in my post Poisoning The Well last month. Here Israeli academia is possibly faced with yet more tangible results of the bias against her in British and American academia.
Oh, and if anyone actually believes Israel somehow practices anything even vaguely resembling apartheid, I refer you to this piece I wrote last year and the excellent New York Times article on the security fence it refers to.
Huges thanks to Yael K. for the link to Mr. Pike's post. I've also posted this on Blogs of Zion as it seems that the mainstream British and American press aren't about to report on this. Perhaps if we get the word out far and wide they will have to take notice.
The union that covers staff in the newer universities is to consider a further resolution on boycotting Israeli universities at its conference in Blackpool later this month.
The text of resolution before NATFHE reads, in part:
Conference notes continuing Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices. It recalls its motion of solidarity last year for the AUT resolution to exercise moral and professional responsibility.
Mr. Pike goes on to say:
198C is inaccurate, dishonest, and in conflict with NATFHE's constitution. Let's take the central point first. 198C seeks NATFHE endorsement for a private or individual boycott of Israeli academia. It doesn't say which universities, so we must presume that it refers to all the universities in Israel. It does so, disingenuously, because it couches the boycott call in terms of individual responsibility, but the foul discriminatory language is there: it asks that people consider their responsibility (in relation to) "contacts with Israeli individuals".
[...]
Let's be stone cold clear about this: what the proposers of this resolution want is union endorsement for actions that are, in effect, anti-Semitic. They aim to endorse the actions of Mona Baker, who sacked members of the editorial board of her journal because they were affiliated to Israeli Universities. We know that Mona Baker's policy is, in effect, anti-Semitic: she doesn't want to have contact with any individuals who are affiliated with Israeli institutions, and those people will largely be Jews. And we know, of course, that Mona Baker thinks these actions are 'appropriate' (and, when criticised, complains bitterly about the Jewish press). We know, too that concerned supporters of Palestinian rights like Prof. Judith Butler clearly distance themselves from Baker. Yet the South East region of Natfhe want their union to endorse Baker-type actions.
Please read Mr. Pike's complete piece here. A vote on the resolution will be held later this month.
Mona Baker is one of the academics in the U.K. cited by Dr. Alan Dershowitz in his book The Case For Peace as part of a campaign to villify Israel in academia and create a generation of leaders utterly opposed to the Jewish state. I described this in my post Poisoning The Well last month. Here Israeli academia is possibly faced with yet more tangible results of the bias against her in British and American academia.
Oh, and if anyone actually believes Israel somehow practices anything even vaguely resembling apartheid, I refer you to this piece I wrote last year and the excellent New York Times article on the security fence it refers to.
Huges thanks to Yael K. for the link to Mr. Pike's post. I've also posted this on Blogs of Zion as it seems that the mainstream British and American press aren't about to report on this. Perhaps if we get the word out far and wide they will have to take notice.
More Media Bias: At Least PBS Corrects Their Website
Did you know that "the state of Palestine" already exists? Did you know its "history in the region stretches back 6,000 years"? No? Neither did I. In all of history there has never been a state of Palestine, not even for six minutes. The name Palestine was first given to the region by the Romans less than 2,000 years ago. Arabs didn't come to what is now Israel and the territories until the Mohammedan conquests in the 7th century. Arab leaders during the British mandatory period from King Feisal or Jordan and Iraq to Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini (the Palestinian Arab leader) referred to the people we now call Palestinians as Syrians. Indeed even today's Hamas leaders want a pan-Arab Islamic state, not an independent Palestine. So when did these 6,000 years come from? Somehow that didn't stop PBS from including that statement in the background web page for the recent Frontline special on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, entitled The Unexpected Candidate.
Don't look for the statement on the PBS website. Thankfully it's gone, replaced with a much more accurate history. On 10 May 2006 CAMERA, The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America , sent an e-mail to it's membership taking credit for this and eight other corrections on the PBS website. Since they haven't been posted to the CAMERA web page yet I thought I'd share:
While I applaud CAMERA's work I have to wonder how much damage the PBS site already did. In light of this and the ongoing and persistent media bias I've previously reported, mainly from mainstream and left-leaning media, is it any wonder that people who trust these news sources often have wildly distorted views of the conflict?
Huge thanks to my mom for sending this along to me. I first published it on Blogs of Zion and cross-posted it here.
Don't look for the statement on the PBS website. Thankfully it's gone, replaced with a much more accurate history. On 10 May 2006 CAMERA, The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America , sent an e-mail to it's membership taking credit for this and eight other corrections on the PBS website. Since they haven't been posted to the CAMERA web page yet I thought I'd share:
ORIGINAL: Civil war erupted, with Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq supporting the Palestinians . Nevertheless the Israelis prevailed and in ensuing years captured more territory west of the Jordan River.
REVISED: Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq joined the Palestinians in attacking and trying to eliminate the nascent state.
ORIGINAL: Waves of Jewish refugees flooded the country, more than doubling the Israeli population.
REVISED: Waves of Jewish refugees flooded the country, many from Europe, but most fleeing Arab countries, and more than doubling the Israeli population.
ORIGINAL: In 1955, a new Egyptian government closed the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal to Israeli ships in response to a perceived spy threat. The following year, Shimon Peres led Israel to invade the Sinai Peninsula, aided secretly by Britain and France...< BR>
REVISED: In 1955, a new Egyptian government closed the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal to Israeli ships in response to a perceived spy threat. The following year, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula, backed by Britain and France....
ORIGINAL: Tension continued, however, and fighting broke out again in 1967. A young Yasser Arafat had stirred up liberation hopes in occupied Palestine, and border skirmishes began to escalate. In May that year...
REVISED: Tension continued, however, and fighting broke out again in 1967. In May that year...
ORIGINAL: In the days that followed, Israeli troops conquered the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian troops defending Sinai.
REVISED: In the days that followed, Israeli troops conquered the Egyptians troops defending Sinai. Israel also defeated assaults by Jordan from the east and Syria from the north.
ORIGINAL: In the late 1980s, fed up with occupation and Jewish settlements in former Palestinian territories, the Arafat-led Fatah party began the first intifada in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
REVISED: In the late 1980s, fed up with occupation and Jewish settlements in former Palestinian territories, local Palestinians began the first intifada in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, later joined by Yasser Arafat's Fatah militants.
ORIGINAL: The emergence of suicide bombers and the increasing instability within the Palestinian leadership further derailed the talks....
REVISED: Palestinian suicide bombers began attacking Israeli civilians, and the increasing instability within Palestinian leadership further derailed the talks...
ORIGINAL: It remains to be seen if Israel and the international community will accept the militant group Hamas in any future peace negotiations, following the group's landslide victory in the January elections.
REVISED: It remains to be seen if Israel and the international community will accept the militant group Hamas in any future peace negotiations, following the group's landslide victory in the January elections. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, and is regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union.
While I applaud CAMERA's work I have to wonder how much damage the PBS site already did. In light of this and the ongoing and persistent media bias I've previously reported, mainly from mainstream and left-leaning media, is it any wonder that people who trust these news sources often have wildly distorted views of the conflict?
Huge thanks to my mom for sending this along to me. I first published it on Blogs of Zion and cross-posted it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)