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.
Friday, June 23, 2006
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.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Linked and Quoted By Iranians
One thing I certainly never expected was to see my Zionist blog quoted and linked from an Iranian news site or Iranian news blog. Today that happened...
The title of the article is "Jews Must Go Back To Europe". The link is in the third paragraph, as is the quotation. What's next, my very own fatwa?
It really is great that my political writing is being recognized and quoted all over the place. Some recognition, though, I might be better off without.
The title of the article is "Jews Must Go Back To Europe". The link is in the third paragraph, as is the quotation. What's next, my very own fatwa?
It really is great that my political writing is being recognized and quoted all over the place. Some recognition, though, I might be better off without.
It Seems I'm Not The Only One...
It seems I am not the only one blogging about the new coalition agreement. In a tongue-in-cheek piece in his blog The Sunken Synagogue titled You Could Be A Minister Too Sabzi Aash writes:Many people seem bothered by this, but I say, the more the merrier. There's plenty of important work to be done in this country, and why should any elected official be left feeling inconsequential? I would suggest increasing the number of ministers as much as possible. There's no reason why every member of the Knesset can't have his very own post and volvo to go with it. Some of his suggested new portfolios include:
- Minister of Deception and Policy Reversal
- Minister of Miseducation
- Minister of Unaesthetics, Unfunctionality, and Homogenization
- Minister of Societal Breakdown
- Minister of Party Proliferation
- Minister of Media Bias
- Minister of the Euthanization of the Dead Sea
- Minister of Corruption
Like A Bunch of Spoiled Children
According to the Jerusalem Post there have been further meetings between Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Designate Peretz to revise the coalition agreement the two men signed. It seems there was public outcry over the record size of the proposed new Israeli government. This is as it should be. 27 ministers and two new ministries plus a bunch of new deputy ministers was incredibly wasteful. Anyone who has spent any time in Israel and has dealt with government red tape knows the last thing Israel needs is a bigger bureaucracy.
Now, with both Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Designate Peretz seeing a little light they realized that they had to cut down the bloated government. Good! They woke up and smelled the coffee. A bunch of Labour MKs (plus Uriel Reichmann, formerly of Shinui and recently of Kadima) get upset because they can't get some extra little bit of power for themselves or their chosen ministry they wanted to run. Boo hoo! It's sad to see politicians who want to lead the country acting like a bunch of spoiled children. By The Jerusalem Post's count Prime Minister Olmert would still have a 64 seat center-religious-right coalition without Labour. Perhaps Peretz, as his party's leader, needs to remind his rebellious MKs of that. No one party is essential; not even Labour.
Israel's leaders need to put political squabbles behind them and deal with the real challenges posed by Iran and ongoing Palestinian terrorism.
{NOTE: This is another piece I wrote for Blogs of Zion.]
Now, with both Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Designate Peretz seeing a little light they realized that they had to cut down the bloated government. Good! They woke up and smelled the coffee. A bunch of Labour MKs (plus Uriel Reichmann, formerly of Shinui and recently of Kadima) get upset because they can't get some extra little bit of power for themselves or their chosen ministry they wanted to run. Boo hoo! It's sad to see politicians who want to lead the country acting like a bunch of spoiled children. By The Jerusalem Post's count Prime Minister Olmert would still have a 64 seat center-religious-right coalition without Labour. Perhaps Peretz, as his party's leader, needs to remind his rebellious MKs of that. No one party is essential; not even Labour.
Israel's leaders need to put political squabbles behind them and deal with the real challenges posed by Iran and ongoing Palestinian terrorism.
{NOTE: This is another piece I wrote for Blogs of Zion.]
On Holocaust Remembrance Day: Calls For A New Holocaust
The enemies of Israel and the Jewish people picked Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom HaShoah) to call for a new Holocaust, one that would destroy Israel.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahemdinejad, renewing his calls for Israel to be destroyed, said:We say that this fake regime cannot not logically continue to live and addedOpen the doors [of Europe] and let the Jews go back to their own countries conveniently ignoring the fact that a majority of Israel's Jewish population didn't come from Europe and has no ties to that continent. He also threatened to pull out of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty:What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us? Working in the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the agency is our concrete policy, (but) if we see that they are violating our rights, or they don't want to accept (our rights), well, we will reconsider. Meanwhile, in New York City, protesting Islamists promised a new nuclear Holocaust for Israel, chanting in Arabic:Zionists, Zionists You will pay!
The Wrath of Allah is on its way!
Israeli Zionists You shall pay!
The Wrath of Allah is on its way!
The mushroom cloud is on its way!
The real Holocaust is on its way!
Israel won't last long
Indeed, Allah will repeat the Holocaust right on the soil of Israel
Another mushroom cloud, right in the midst of Israel! Any guess who they think might deliver this Holocaust?
Outgoing Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned:
Of all the threats we face, Iran is the biggest. The world must not wait. It must do everything necessary on a diplomatic level in order to stop its nuclear activity. Since Hitler we have not faced such a threat. He is, of course, quite correct, but I fear too many in the world still don't care about Jews or Israel and are, in any case, ready to repeat the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain. Prime Minister Olmert summed up my feelings very well in his Yom HaShoah speech:
appeasement, concessions and weakness amount to a recipe for holocaust. Anti-Semitism, tyranny, lust for murder and terrorism have not passed forever. Even today, they hang over the head of the free world like a sword of Damocles... Only a determined and firm moral stand, only willingness to fight for and protect liberty will guarantee the future of humanity. Brave words, Mr. Prime Minister. Do you have the courage to act on them? I fear the rest of the world, including the United States, is poised to disappoint you and I and all others who care about Israel's future.
[NOTE: This post also appears on Blogs of Zion, where I publish under my Hebrew name.]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahemdinejad, renewing his calls for Israel to be destroyed, said:
The Wrath of Allah is on its way!
Israeli Zionists You shall pay!
The Wrath of Allah is on its way!
The mushroom cloud is on its way!
The real Holocaust is on its way!
Israel won't last long
Indeed, Allah will repeat the Holocaust right on the soil of Israel
Another mushroom cloud, right in the midst of Israel!
Outgoing Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned:
[NOTE: This post also appears on Blogs of Zion, where I publish under my Hebrew name.]
Saturday, April 22, 2006
My Response To An Anti-Israel, Anti-American Rant
On a closed mailing list I participate in a young American woman posted a long diatribe claiming the United States and its allies are about to invade and or nuke Iran. It went on to describe the United States and Israel as the two most dangerous nations on Earth and as terrorists and to defend the right of other nations (i.e.: Iran) to develop nuclear weapons to stand against American and Israeli imperialism. This young woman went on to assert that the United States, in invading or nuking Iran would start World War IV and that financing terrorism is no justification for nuking anyone. She also claimed the U.S. and Israel and their nuclear weapons are a threat to life on earth itself!
My first instinct was to ignore such a posting but I realize that she actually believes what she wrote. Thanks to bias on university campuses across the United States and Europe added to media bias she is hardly alone in her wildly distorted views. While I certainly did not respond to all her rhetoric I did respond to her main points as follows:
------------------
Is that a sure thing? I don't think so. Sadly I do believe military action against Iran is not only justified, but necessary. First, if any preemptive military action happens at all (and it is hardly clear that it will) it won't be an invasion. No U.S. boots, or those of any other foreign nation, are likely to set foot on Iranian soil. What is likely is a series of surgical strikes carried out from the air to remove Iran's nuclear and ICBM programs.
Why do I feel it is justified to attack Iran? The Iranian situation is unique. Not only are the Iranian nuclear and ICBM programs internationally verified (in stark contrast to Iraq before the invasion of that country) but the President of Iran and a number of its other leaders have called openly for a nuclear attack on a neighboring state, Israel, which has never been in conflict with or at war with Iran or Persia in three millennia of history. Indeed, prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979 the Jewish and Persian people had 25 centuries of friendship and frequent alliances behind them.
President Ahmadenijad has admitted that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at Israel. Iran's Arab neighbors are also concerned about the nuclear program. Iran stands in defiance of a new U.N. Security Council resolution which passed unanimously. Nations that have called for Iran to end it's envrichment program include Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, Russia, Great Britain, indeed most of the western democracies. To claim concern about Iran is purely an American or American/Israeli issue is simply not true.
Albert Einstein was a pacifist prior to World War II. However, after learning what the Nazis were doing he came to the conclusion that some evils need to be fought. He was right.
Nobody in power in any government I am aware of is suggesting that nuclear weapons be used on Iran or anyone else. Indeed, financing terrorists is not the justification in Iran although Iran certainly does finance terrorists. The justification for an attack on Iran is are active nuclear and ICBM programs and oft repeated threats against Israel, Britain, the United States, and the West in general. Iran already has Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Israel and Shahab-4 missiles capable of striking European targets. It is actively developing, in cooperation with North Korea, longer range missiles that could eventually be used to attack the United Kingdom or United States. There is also no question about Iran's nuclear program. Even IAEA chief Mohammed el-Baradei, an Egyptian and a Muslim, has described the Security Council action so far as "ineffective".
Israel has had nuclear capabilities since the early 1960s. Twice since then Israel's very existence has been threatened in war: during the first two days of the 1967 Six Day War, and more seriously during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Indeed, without U.S. aid Israel would have been destroyed by an unprovoked Arab attack in 1973. Despite this it did NOT resort to nuclear weapons it clearly had.
Shimon Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his role at Oslo, former Prime Minister of Israel, and number two in the current ruling Kadima (Forward) party, is also the father of Dimona, the prime mover in Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. He has repeatedly stated that Israel's nuclear deterrent is his greatest accomplishment, an accomplishment that "was not so that there could be another Hiroshima, but so that there could be Oslo". His point, which is well taken, is that without Israel's nuclear capability the Arabs would have had little incentive to consider peace. Indeed, without that deterrent Israel's hostile neighbors could destroy Israel today and likely would.
When has Israel threatened even one of their neighbors? Israel has fought strictly defensive wars. Israel is surrounded by mostly hostile neighbors, some of which openly call for genocide of the Jewish people in terms not heard since World War II. I, for one, am not willing to have my family slaughtered. Israel has a right to self-defense.
-----------------
She went on to call Israeli and American leadership "psychopaths".
-----------------
Israel's leaders are psychopaths? The current leader [Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] was elected on a platform of unilateral withdrawal from territory with nothing in return and the handing over of that territory to Hamas, an organization with a charter that reads like Mein Kampf. Perhaps that is psychopathic, but not in the sense you describe.
Prime Minister Sharon also handed over Gaza without condition and now missiles rain down on nearby Israeli towns -- missiles launched from Gaza. These aren't just home made Qassam rockets anymore. Last week the first Katyusha fired from Gaza landed in Israel proper. Every Israeli Prime Minister since Rabin has been committed to peace and the creation of a Palestinian state.
-----------------
My response to her claim that both the United States and Israel were founded as a result of genocide commited against the indigenous peoples of those lands:
-----------------
I assume you mean the United States here. Holding present day Americans responsible for acts committed in the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries is a bit insane, don't you think? Nobody living today committed genocide against Native Americans.
In the case of Israel I assume you are unaware that 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were first generation in 1948, the same percentage as the Palestinian Jewish population. Most had come to work in British Palestine due to the opportunities created by Jewish immigrants.
Prior to 1948 the term Palestinian most often meant a Jewish resident. The Arabs considered themselves Syrian and their leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini (Yasser Arafat's uncle, BTW) opposed the creation of a new Arab state and instead wanted Palestine returned to Syria.
The term "Jew" is a shortened form of Judean. Jews are from Judea, which is Israel. We predate any Arab immigration into what is now Israel. The Jewish presence in what is now Israel does date back to biblical times. The Arab presence dates back only to the seventh century and most Palestinians, like their modern Israeli counterparts, are 20th century arrivals.
So.. if you mean Israel which "indigenous" peoples are you talking about? Jews come closest. The Palestinians are not descended from the original Canaanite inhabitants. The closest thing to surviving Canaanites would be the Chaldean and Assyrian minorities in Syria and Iraq.
------------------
She went on to assert that Israel and the United States violate all norms of international law and all international treaties. She further stated that no nation has the right to demand international cooperation.
------------------
No nation is bound by a treaty they do not sign. Not Iran, not Israel, and not the United States. A treaty, by definition, is an agreement.
International law, if such a thing really exists, again can only be defined by international treaty and adjudicated by a universally accepted international court. No such court exists. The ICJ, for example, is not recognized by the United States.
I could go into a long dissertation about the incredible bias and anti-Semitism at the United Nations, but what would be the point?
No, of course not. In the case of the United States, that cooperation is freely given by many nations. In the case of Iran, it is presenting a clear existential threat to one of its neighbors. That neighbor (Israel) has a right to protect it's citizens. The United States, as an ally of Israel *by choice*, with the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans, has a right to assist.
If the U.S. or Israel were destroyed by Islamists I doubt you would like the world that would follow. Are you prepared, as a woman, to give up all your rights and be treated as property under Sharia law? That is the likely result of what you advocate.
------------------
She goes on to define terrorism as support for the United States, Israel, and their "imperial agenda".
------------------
Israel has never been imperialistic in any sense of the word. It defines terrorism as an unprovoked attack on its citizens. Perhaps you approve of blowing up a teen disco, a pizza parlor filled with families, an Israeli Arab owned family restaurant in Haifa, a bus full of commuters, a holiday celebration dinner, a gas station called the "Peace Stop" owned by supporters of the peace process when schoolchildren were waiting for their bus there, a nightclub, etc.... These have all been the targets of terrorism as most sane people would define it. Is this what you are supporting?
------------------
Did she respond to my response? Yes, and her subsequent posts devolved into anti-Semitism: denying Israel's right to exist and minimizing the Holocaust. That, and the reaction of the organization who sponsored the list, will be the subject of some additional articles in the coming week.
[NOTE: This piece appeared in five parts in somewhat different form on Blogs of Zion starting on 4 April.]
My first instinct was to ignore such a posting but I realize that she actually believes what she wrote. Thanks to bias on university campuses across the United States and Europe added to media bias she is hardly alone in her wildly distorted views. While I certainly did not respond to all her rhetoric I did respond to her main points as follows:
------------------
Is that a sure thing? I don't think so. Sadly I do believe military action against Iran is not only justified, but necessary. First, if any preemptive military action happens at all (and it is hardly clear that it will) it won't be an invasion. No U.S. boots, or those of any other foreign nation, are likely to set foot on Iranian soil. What is likely is a series of surgical strikes carried out from the air to remove Iran's nuclear and ICBM programs.
Why do I feel it is justified to attack Iran? The Iranian situation is unique. Not only are the Iranian nuclear and ICBM programs internationally verified (in stark contrast to Iraq before the invasion of that country) but the President of Iran and a number of its other leaders have called openly for a nuclear attack on a neighboring state, Israel, which has never been in conflict with or at war with Iran or Persia in three millennia of history. Indeed, prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979 the Jewish and Persian people had 25 centuries of friendship and frequent alliances behind them.
President Ahmadenijad has admitted that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at Israel. Iran's Arab neighbors are also concerned about the nuclear program. Iran stands in defiance of a new U.N. Security Council resolution which passed unanimously. Nations that have called for Iran to end it's envrichment program include Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, Russia, Great Britain, indeed most of the western democracies. To claim concern about Iran is purely an American or American/Israeli issue is simply not true.
Albert Einstein was a pacifist prior to World War II. However, after learning what the Nazis were doing he came to the conclusion that some evils need to be fought. He was right.
Nobody in power in any government I am aware of is suggesting that nuclear weapons be used on Iran or anyone else. Indeed, financing terrorists is not the justification in Iran although Iran certainly does finance terrorists. The justification for an attack on Iran is are active nuclear and ICBM programs and oft repeated threats against Israel, Britain, the United States, and the West in general. Iran already has Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Israel and Shahab-4 missiles capable of striking European targets. It is actively developing, in cooperation with North Korea, longer range missiles that could eventually be used to attack the United Kingdom or United States. There is also no question about Iran's nuclear program. Even IAEA chief Mohammed el-Baradei, an Egyptian and a Muslim, has described the Security Council action so far as "ineffective".
Israel has had nuclear capabilities since the early 1960s. Twice since then Israel's very existence has been threatened in war: during the first two days of the 1967 Six Day War, and more seriously during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Indeed, without U.S. aid Israel would have been destroyed by an unprovoked Arab attack in 1973. Despite this it did NOT resort to nuclear weapons it clearly had.
Shimon Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his role at Oslo, former Prime Minister of Israel, and number two in the current ruling Kadima (Forward) party, is also the father of Dimona, the prime mover in Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. He has repeatedly stated that Israel's nuclear deterrent is his greatest accomplishment, an accomplishment that "was not so that there could be another Hiroshima, but so that there could be Oslo". His point, which is well taken, is that without Israel's nuclear capability the Arabs would have had little incentive to consider peace. Indeed, without that deterrent Israel's hostile neighbors could destroy Israel today and likely would.
When has Israel threatened even one of their neighbors? Israel has fought strictly defensive wars. Israel is surrounded by mostly hostile neighbors, some of which openly call for genocide of the Jewish people in terms not heard since World War II. I, for one, am not willing to have my family slaughtered. Israel has a right to self-defense.
-----------------
She went on to call Israeli and American leadership "psychopaths".
-----------------
Israel's leaders are psychopaths? The current leader [Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] was elected on a platform of unilateral withdrawal from territory with nothing in return and the handing over of that territory to Hamas, an organization with a charter that reads like Mein Kampf. Perhaps that is psychopathic, but not in the sense you describe.
Prime Minister Sharon also handed over Gaza without condition and now missiles rain down on nearby Israeli towns -- missiles launched from Gaza. These aren't just home made Qassam rockets anymore. Last week the first Katyusha fired from Gaza landed in Israel proper. Every Israeli Prime Minister since Rabin has been committed to peace and the creation of a Palestinian state.
-----------------
My response to her claim that both the United States and Israel were founded as a result of genocide commited against the indigenous peoples of those lands:
-----------------
I assume you mean the United States here. Holding present day Americans responsible for acts committed in the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries is a bit insane, don't you think? Nobody living today committed genocide against Native Americans.
In the case of Israel I assume you are unaware that 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were first generation in 1948, the same percentage as the Palestinian Jewish population. Most had come to work in British Palestine due to the opportunities created by Jewish immigrants.
Prior to 1948 the term Palestinian most often meant a Jewish resident. The Arabs considered themselves Syrian and their leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini (Yasser Arafat's uncle, BTW) opposed the creation of a new Arab state and instead wanted Palestine returned to Syria.
The term "Jew" is a shortened form of Judean. Jews are from Judea, which is Israel. We predate any Arab immigration into what is now Israel. The Jewish presence in what is now Israel does date back to biblical times. The Arab presence dates back only to the seventh century and most Palestinians, like their modern Israeli counterparts, are 20th century arrivals.
So.. if you mean Israel which "indigenous" peoples are you talking about? Jews come closest. The Palestinians are not descended from the original Canaanite inhabitants. The closest thing to surviving Canaanites would be the Chaldean and Assyrian minorities in Syria and Iraq.
------------------
She went on to assert that Israel and the United States violate all norms of international law and all international treaties. She further stated that no nation has the right to demand international cooperation.
------------------
No nation is bound by a treaty they do not sign. Not Iran, not Israel, and not the United States. A treaty, by definition, is an agreement.
International law, if such a thing really exists, again can only be defined by international treaty and adjudicated by a universally accepted international court. No such court exists. The ICJ, for example, is not recognized by the United States.
I could go into a long dissertation about the incredible bias and anti-Semitism at the United Nations, but what would be the point?
No, of course not. In the case of the United States, that cooperation is freely given by many nations. In the case of Iran, it is presenting a clear existential threat to one of its neighbors. That neighbor (Israel) has a right to protect it's citizens. The United States, as an ally of Israel *by choice*, with the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans, has a right to assist.
If the U.S. or Israel were destroyed by Islamists I doubt you would like the world that would follow. Are you prepared, as a woman, to give up all your rights and be treated as property under Sharia law? That is the likely result of what you advocate.
------------------
She goes on to define terrorism as support for the United States, Israel, and their "imperial agenda".
------------------
Israel has never been imperialistic in any sense of the word. It defines terrorism as an unprovoked attack on its citizens. Perhaps you approve of blowing up a teen disco, a pizza parlor filled with families, an Israeli Arab owned family restaurant in Haifa, a bus full of commuters, a holiday celebration dinner, a gas station called the "Peace Stop" owned by supporters of the peace process when schoolchildren were waiting for their bus there, a nightclub, etc.... These have all been the targets of terrorism as most sane people would define it. Is this what you are supporting?
------------------
Did she respond to my response? Yes, and her subsequent posts devolved into anti-Semitism: denying Israel's right to exist and minimizing the Holocaust. That, and the reaction of the organization who sponsored the list, will be the subject of some additional articles in the coming week.
[NOTE: This piece appeared in five parts in somewhat different form on Blogs of Zion starting on 4 April.]
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The Insanity of the United Nations
The United Nations has finally responded to the Iranian nuclear threat. Believe it or not elected Iran has been elected to be Vice Chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Iranian Ambassador Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi used his ascension to claim that Israel's nuclear stockpile is among "the major sources of concern with regard to global peace and security." Arutz Sheva quotes Danesh-Yazdi's statement: "The continued existence of thousands of nuclear warheads in the stockpiles of the nuclear-weapon States, which could destroy the entire globe many times over, and the increasing resort to the threat of their possible use, are the major sources of concern with regard to global peace and security," Danesh-Yazdi said, adding that Israel was required to place all of its "clandestine nuclear facilities" under UN nuclear watchdog supervision. Arutz Sheva's piece points out that the election of Iran to the Vice Chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission was immediately followed by yet more threats to destroy Israel by Iran's President Ahmadenijad.
Needless to say U.S. and Israeli reaction was less than warm. The Jerusalem Post goes on to report:Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who heads the House subcommittee on the Middle East issued a statement in which she compared the decision to "appointing a serial killer to serve as a juror in a murder trial." This follows a United Nations Security Council debate on Monday, the very day a suicide bomber killed nine innocent people in Tel Aviv and wounded close to 70 others at a falafel stand, to consider condemning Israel for its anti-terrorism activities in Gaza and the West Bank. Voice of America reports:The U.N. Security Council opened a debate on Israeli military operations in the occupied territories, hours after Monday's suicide attack in Tel Aviv.
Arab countries asked for the open Council debate after the United States blocked adoption of a statement last week that would have called on Israel to refrain from excessive use of force that endangers Palestinian civilians.
More than a dozen countries had lined up to criticize Israeli military actions, including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Cuba and Venezuela. Those nations lining up to criticize Israel are among the worst offenders of human rights in the world. (Thanks to Ariel for the links.)
The United Nations continues to be the mouthpiece for despots and dictators to relentlessly spew against the United States and Israel yet both nations continue to participate in and promote the failed world body. I fail to understand why both nations remain members or why the United States continues to act as host for the U.N. The U.N. needs to join the League of Nations in being relegated to the dustbin of history. It needs to be replaced with a League of Free Nations, open only to those who support human rights and democracy.
Needless to say U.S. and Israeli reaction was less than warm. The Jerusalem Post goes on to report:
Arab countries asked for the open Council debate after the United States blocked adoption of a statement last week that would have called on Israel to refrain from excessive use of force that endangers Palestinian civilians.
More than a dozen countries had lined up to criticize Israeli military actions, including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Cuba and Venezuela.
The United Nations continues to be the mouthpiece for despots and dictators to relentlessly spew against the United States and Israel yet both nations continue to participate in and promote the failed world body. I fail to understand why both nations remain members or why the United States continues to act as host for the U.N. The U.N. needs to join the League of Nations in being relegated to the dustbin of history. It needs to be replaced with a League of Free Nations, open only to those who support human rights and democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)