There are 3 topics that I want to cover in this post, each of them with 2 or 3 articles relating to it.
The first topic might well be called "The Liberal Case for Israel". Indeed, that is actually the title of a book written by the author of our first article. Of course, if you want his full argument, you'll have to buy his book (I don't have it, either, sorry), but the article gives you some of the main point. If you consider yourself liberal (as I do, too, despite what you may think!), you should definitely take the time to read this piece.
The second article is a first-person account of how Israel and the IDF (the Israeli military) were actually helping Gaza during the recent war and actively facilitating the transfer of civilian goods to the Strip. This article was written by an American-Israeli soldier who was actually part of that particular operation, and her story is a compelling one, another must-read!
Our second topic has to do with the history, beliefs, and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and their daughter organization, Hamas, in Gaza.
The first article on this topic is an important read because it give some of the history of the Brotherhood. What most people probably don't know is that it was funded at its beginnings by Nazi Germany! And much of its strength early on came from its campaigns to get the Jews out of both Egypt and Palestine. All of this, of course, was LONG before there was any Jewish state. This is a really important antidote for those who are constantly starting history when Israel fires back in self-defense.
The next article on this topic talks about the Brotherhood's recent power grab in Egypt, but the important thing is to look to the future, in this case. The West is desperate to view the new regime in Egypt as somehow moderate and representing democratic ideals. But this is FAR from the reality. It's true that Morsi's edicts have elicited a lot of protest in Egypt, but it is not at all clear that this will seriously deter him, especially since the U.S. is continuing to send him PLENTY of aid! So, make no mistake about it, folks, the Muslim Brotherhood WILL be fighting against nearly everything that we mean by democracy, sooner or later. They know that they have no hope of destroying Israel in the near future, and, for now, the peace treaty is very much to their advantage. But their long-term goal of destroying the Jewish people and their State has not changed and is highly unlikely to change.
Our last article on this topic is fresh from today. Hamas held a big 25th anniversary celebration in Gaza and once again proclaimed their determination to completely eliminate Israel. Just another reminder (they come nearly every day these days!) that Hamas is NOT becoming "moderate" in any way!
Now we turn to our last topic. After all that we have learned about Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood parent (not to mention its radical Iranian supporters!), you might think that all of this would be viewed with great alarm in the liberal, democratic countries, and that a whole range of efforts would be made to curb and defeat them. But no! Instead, it seems that the greatest threat to peace is building houses, or even just PLANNING to build them!
The first article on this topic is humorous as well as dead accurate: The Deadly Israeli House! Read it, and weep at how completely confused the world's priorities have become.
Our last article talks directly about the "E1" area. This is the area where the government has just announced approval for the construction of many new homes. It's currently completely empty (except for a police station) and has been since time immemorial, and it's located between Jerusalem (the capital of Israel) and Maalei Adumim, a beautiful Israeli city located a little further east. All reasonable proposals for final boundaries between Israeli and an "Palestinian" state that might be established have assumed that this area would be in Israel, even though it was illegally occupied by the Kingdom of Transjordan from 1948 (when they seized it, along with the rest of Judea and Samaria and the Old City of Jerusalem, in a war of aggression) until 1967 (when it was liberated by Israel in a war of self-defense).
Perhaps the one topic that unites ALL of these is that the conflict between the Arabs and Israel is definitely NOT about boundaries. Instead, it's a conflict between forces that have repeatedly sworn to completely eliminate the Jewish State (and kill the Jews, too, it must be noted!) and the attempts of Israel to defend itself. Nothing has fundamentally changed during all these decades except that Israel now has the power to prevent its own elimination.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Week ending November 24, 2012
Not so surprisingly, the articles I want to talk about in this post all relate to the recent war between Israel and Hamas. The first two were written while it was still going, and the third was written shortly after the ceasefire took hold.
The first article was quite personal for me. I grew up with an attitude much like the author's son. But there was a very important difference -- the bullies didn't pick on me. This was mostly because such violence was so much NOT tolerated at my school. It was also because I was always big for my age. Therefore, I did not learn what this woman's son learned until much later in life and, thankfully, NOT from personal experience. There is STILL apart of me that wants to believe that love and nonviolence will conquer all. But now I know that this is mostly wishful thinking. I was basically almost a pacifist when I was young. I have now learned from much observation and study of history that there are times when war is necessary and just. The Second World War is one example, and the recent battle with Hamas is another, albeit on a MUCH smaller scale.
The second article is a letter from an Israeli guy to an imaginary counterpart in Gaza. In it, he manages to highlight the difference between the two sides and to help all of us understand what is really happening. It was originally written in Hebrew, but the English translation is very good, except for the title, where "from" should have been "in".
Our last article is an important reminder, just in case anyone STILL needs it, NOT to believe the pictures you see of wounded or frightened children (or adults, for that matter), especially if they purport to be from Gaza. It gives some specific examples, including pictures of children in Syria, a picture of a girl actually killed by a stray HAMAS rocket, a fake of an injured man (who later in the video is seen walking around perfectly normally!), and (worst of all) pictures of Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks, all purporting to be pictures of victims in Gaza! I must add one more thing here: even genuine pictures of wounded or killed people in Gaza actually prove NOTHING (remember our second article above). The important fact is that, while Hamas's GOAL is to kill, injure, and frighten civilians, Israeli takes extraordinary measures to AVOID civilian harm, even to its own detriment.
The first article was quite personal for me. I grew up with an attitude much like the author's son. But there was a very important difference -- the bullies didn't pick on me. This was mostly because such violence was so much NOT tolerated at my school. It was also because I was always big for my age. Therefore, I did not learn what this woman's son learned until much later in life and, thankfully, NOT from personal experience. There is STILL apart of me that wants to believe that love and nonviolence will conquer all. But now I know that this is mostly wishful thinking. I was basically almost a pacifist when I was young. I have now learned from much observation and study of history that there are times when war is necessary and just. The Second World War is one example, and the recent battle with Hamas is another, albeit on a MUCH smaller scale.
The second article is a letter from an Israeli guy to an imaginary counterpart in Gaza. In it, he manages to highlight the difference between the two sides and to help all of us understand what is really happening. It was originally written in Hebrew, but the English translation is very good, except for the title, where "from" should have been "in".
Our last article is an important reminder, just in case anyone STILL needs it, NOT to believe the pictures you see of wounded or frightened children (or adults, for that matter), especially if they purport to be from Gaza. It gives some specific examples, including pictures of children in Syria, a picture of a girl actually killed by a stray HAMAS rocket, a fake of an injured man (who later in the video is seen walking around perfectly normally!), and (worst of all) pictures of Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks, all purporting to be pictures of victims in Gaza! I must add one more thing here: even genuine pictures of wounded or killed people in Gaza actually prove NOTHING (remember our second article above). The important fact is that, while Hamas's GOAL is to kill, injure, and frighten civilians, Israeli takes extraordinary measures to AVOID civilian harm, even to its own detriment.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
November 3, 2012
I'll have to admit that I've been a bit negligent in writing here. So, now I must get back to it!
The first article I'd like to write about actually is a rebuttal to another article. But I'm highlighting it because it explains so clearly the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim lands, an issue that needs to be emphasized much more than it has been. This article is well worth a read, especially if you aren't very familiar with this topic.
The second article I want to talk about deals with an issue that continues to bother me. Why has the liberal left been so reluctant to support Israel and often even eager, instead, to back some of our worst enemies? Even though Israel is certainly not PERFECT (and neither is ANY country!), its human rights record absolutely TOWERS above that of ANY other country in the entire region. Even after the overthrow of many dictators in the neighborhood, there is not any other country or even entity (read "Palestinian Authority") that has anything even CLOSE to the vibrant democracy that flourishes here. What I like about this article is that it challenges those Liberals (and there are plenty out there) who DO care about Israel to do MUCH more to promote support of and understanding of the world's only Jewish state among their friends and colleagues on the Left. It's a point well taken.
Our third article is a short one, but it nicely highlights the utter HYPOCRISY of Muslims, of all people, in calling for laws and rules against defaming a religion. Read the article for more details!
The next article brings to our attention once again the connection between holocaust denial and the enemies of Israel. It's particularly disturbing that these teachers who are refusing to teach children about the holocaust are in Jordan, a country that is supposed to have made peace with Israel.
The fifth article I'd like to bring to your attention today has to do with the terribly imbalanced news coverage of Israel. Although we are disproportionately in the world news, the media, as they nearly always have been, are still paying virtually NO attention to stories about attacks on Israel. Then, when Israel responds to these attacks and tries to defend itself, there are suddenly stories everywhere about how brutal Israel is, and what war-mongers we are, etc., etc.
I'm sure you're getting tired of it by now, but I must point out yet another article describing the actual policies of the current U.S. administration toward Israel, Iran, and terrorism. Unfortunately, this is necessary because, with the election looming very close now, Obama has been pulling out all the stops, calling in all his chips, and getting as many people as he can to write about what a great friend of Israel he is and even has been. But look at the record, folks, look at the record!
My last article for today is interesting and worth reading in itself. It's talking about Jews praying (yes, PRAYING! not rioting, not even demonstrating!) on the Temple Mount (and not IN any of the structures there!) But its last paragraph, a quote from a Muslim official in the organization that manages the Temple Mount, and referring to that place, really gets to the root of many things:
"'This is a Muslim site,' the official said. 'If the police don't stop this, the people will. For Muslims, this is a red line.'"
First of all, this was a JEWISH site LONG before there even WERE any Muslims at ALL in the entire WORLD! I won't argue that it's NOT Muslim now, but it is certainly also JEWISH!
Second, notice the veiled threat. If the Jews don't stop praying, the Muslims will riot.
Third, note how easily and comfortably they are willing to draw red lines. This contrasts rather starkly with the West's vacillation, hesitation, and general confusion when dealing with Islamic terrorism.
The first article I'd like to write about actually is a rebuttal to another article. But I'm highlighting it because it explains so clearly the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim lands, an issue that needs to be emphasized much more than it has been. This article is well worth a read, especially if you aren't very familiar with this topic.
The second article I want to talk about deals with an issue that continues to bother me. Why has the liberal left been so reluctant to support Israel and often even eager, instead, to back some of our worst enemies? Even though Israel is certainly not PERFECT (and neither is ANY country!), its human rights record absolutely TOWERS above that of ANY other country in the entire region. Even after the overthrow of many dictators in the neighborhood, there is not any other country or even entity (read "Palestinian Authority") that has anything even CLOSE to the vibrant democracy that flourishes here. What I like about this article is that it challenges those Liberals (and there are plenty out there) who DO care about Israel to do MUCH more to promote support of and understanding of the world's only Jewish state among their friends and colleagues on the Left. It's a point well taken.
Our third article is a short one, but it nicely highlights the utter HYPOCRISY of Muslims, of all people, in calling for laws and rules against defaming a religion. Read the article for more details!
The next article brings to our attention once again the connection between holocaust denial and the enemies of Israel. It's particularly disturbing that these teachers who are refusing to teach children about the holocaust are in Jordan, a country that is supposed to have made peace with Israel.
The fifth article I'd like to bring to your attention today has to do with the terribly imbalanced news coverage of Israel. Although we are disproportionately in the world news, the media, as they nearly always have been, are still paying virtually NO attention to stories about attacks on Israel. Then, when Israel responds to these attacks and tries to defend itself, there are suddenly stories everywhere about how brutal Israel is, and what war-mongers we are, etc., etc.
I'm sure you're getting tired of it by now, but I must point out yet another article describing the actual policies of the current U.S. administration toward Israel, Iran, and terrorism. Unfortunately, this is necessary because, with the election looming very close now, Obama has been pulling out all the stops, calling in all his chips, and getting as many people as he can to write about what a great friend of Israel he is and even has been. But look at the record, folks, look at the record!
My last article for today is interesting and worth reading in itself. It's talking about Jews praying (yes, PRAYING! not rioting, not even demonstrating!) on the Temple Mount (and not IN any of the structures there!) But its last paragraph, a quote from a Muslim official in the organization that manages the Temple Mount, and referring to that place, really gets to the root of many things:
"'This is a Muslim site,' the official said. 'If the police don't stop this, the people will. For Muslims, this is a red line.'"
First of all, this was a JEWISH site LONG before there even WERE any Muslims at ALL in the entire WORLD! I won't argue that it's NOT Muslim now, but it is certainly also JEWISH!
Second, notice the veiled threat. If the Jews don't stop praying, the Muslims will riot.
Third, note how easily and comfortably they are willing to draw red lines. This contrasts rather starkly with the West's vacillation, hesitation, and general confusion when dealing with Islamic terrorism.
Monday, October 8, 2012
October 8, 2012
There are three articles on three different issues that I'd like us to look at this time around.
Our first article touches on a topic that is becoming increasingly important in the world: should speech criticizing a religion, specifically Islam, be prohibited? This is significant because, under Islamic law, the punishment for speaking anything against Mohammed is death! This is also the penalty for leaving Islam, whether for another religion or simply to become unreligious. In typical Islamic fashion, Muslim leaders and governments of Islamic countries now push for "international laws" (a tricky concept in itself!) against speaking against a religion (by which they really mean Islam, since they themselves are CONSTANTLY publishing the most vicious defamatory materials against Jews and Judaism, for example). They do this under a "freedom of religion" rubric because it's a very appealing concept in the West. But what it REALLY means is a SERIOUS limit on freedom of speech.
Now, freedom of speech, like any other freedom, is NOT absolute. The classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comes to mind. But the essence of freedom of speech is the ability and right to speak out against ANY philosophy, religion, or political position. This is the very BASIS of democratic civilization as we know it. And this is exactly why the Islamists are so virulently opposed to it.
Our second article is important because once again outlines, in a clear fashion, the cost of NOT stopping Iran BEFORE it gets nuclear weapons. The new significant point here, though, is that the West, especially the United States, will eventually have to stop Iran somewhere at some point, and that the cost in lives and money would be FAR greater later on. Think of how much LESS loss of lives there would have been if the U.S., Britain, and France had stopped the Nazis earlier on. The holocaust would probably have been mostly, if not completely, prevented! And millions of OTHER civilian lives would also have been saved.
Our third article describes a phenomenon that is hardly surprising. But, first, a little background. The main inhabitants of the sparsely populated Golan Heights are Druze. Unlike the Druze in the rest of Israel, these people have generally NOT accepted Israeli citizenship (although it has been available to them for decades) and have preferred, instead, to maintain Syrian citizenship. This has actually been rather prudent on their part, since they have to face the danger that Israel might, at some point, give the Golan back to Syria, in which case they would then once again be in Syria, where Israeli citizenship would certainly NOT be an advantage! Also, they have many relatives in Syria, and the Alawite-controlled Syrian regime has favored various minorities (Alawites, Christians, and Druze) against the Muslim majority.
Now, however, as the article says, some of the Golan Druze, especially the younger ones who have spent their entire lives in Israel, are finding it hard to support the Assad regime in Syria and are beginning to realize how much better things are for EVERYBODY here in Israel. So they are beginning to apply for Israeli citizenship. This is a trend that we can only hope will continue and expand!
Our first article touches on a topic that is becoming increasingly important in the world: should speech criticizing a religion, specifically Islam, be prohibited? This is significant because, under Islamic law, the punishment for speaking anything against Mohammed is death! This is also the penalty for leaving Islam, whether for another religion or simply to become unreligious. In typical Islamic fashion, Muslim leaders and governments of Islamic countries now push for "international laws" (a tricky concept in itself!) against speaking against a religion (by which they really mean Islam, since they themselves are CONSTANTLY publishing the most vicious defamatory materials against Jews and Judaism, for example). They do this under a "freedom of religion" rubric because it's a very appealing concept in the West. But what it REALLY means is a SERIOUS limit on freedom of speech.
Now, freedom of speech, like any other freedom, is NOT absolute. The classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comes to mind. But the essence of freedom of speech is the ability and right to speak out against ANY philosophy, religion, or political position. This is the very BASIS of democratic civilization as we know it. And this is exactly why the Islamists are so virulently opposed to it.
Our second article is important because once again outlines, in a clear fashion, the cost of NOT stopping Iran BEFORE it gets nuclear weapons. The new significant point here, though, is that the West, especially the United States, will eventually have to stop Iran somewhere at some point, and that the cost in lives and money would be FAR greater later on. Think of how much LESS loss of lives there would have been if the U.S., Britain, and France had stopped the Nazis earlier on. The holocaust would probably have been mostly, if not completely, prevented! And millions of OTHER civilian lives would also have been saved.
Our third article describes a phenomenon that is hardly surprising. But, first, a little background. The main inhabitants of the sparsely populated Golan Heights are Druze. Unlike the Druze in the rest of Israel, these people have generally NOT accepted Israeli citizenship (although it has been available to them for decades) and have preferred, instead, to maintain Syrian citizenship. This has actually been rather prudent on their part, since they have to face the danger that Israel might, at some point, give the Golan back to Syria, in which case they would then once again be in Syria, where Israeli citizenship would certainly NOT be an advantage! Also, they have many relatives in Syria, and the Alawite-controlled Syrian regime has favored various minorities (Alawites, Christians, and Druze) against the Muslim majority.
Now, however, as the article says, some of the Golan Druze, especially the younger ones who have spent their entire lives in Israel, are finding it hard to support the Assad regime in Syria and are beginning to realize how much better things are for EVERYBODY here in Israel. So they are beginning to apply for Israeli citizenship. This is a trend that we can only hope will continue and expand!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Week ending September 22, 2012
This week, I have 2 articles that I'd like to call your attention to, and I also want to make some comments of my own.
The first article presents the clear evidence of Iran's incitement to genocide, according to the Genocide Convention, of which Iran is a signatory. Most importantly, this article outlines clearly the steps that can and most certainly SHOULD be taken against Iran, all under international law. Yet, NONE of these have been done. It's easy enough to understand why people are reluctant to go to WAR with Iran, but there are NO excuses whatsoever for failing to bring Iran and its genocidal leaders before international tribunals with charges of incitement to genocide. This shows that the world, unfortunately including the U.S., does not really mean "never again". It's nothing but empty words! They're only concerned about genocides AFTER they happen. It's so much easier just to wring one's hands after the fact!
Our second article delineates how clearly the Obama administration has NOT supported Israel, and how much they have followed the Arab line in this conflict. Note that this is about ACTIONS taken or not taken, NOT about what they CLAIM to have done or plan to do for Israel.
This brings me to the point I want to talk about this week. The election season is in full swing in the U.S., and anybody old enough to vote should realize that the politicians, especially the candidates for President of the United States (including the incumbent) will say ANYTHING at all that they think will win them votes, particularly in the swing states. By the same token, they will try to AVOID saying anything that might lose them votes. In other words, it's the season of pandering.
The best thing to do is to close your eyes and ears to EVERYTHING that they say at this time, whether it's things you LIKE to hear or things you DON'T like to hear. It really doesn't matter, folks!
So, how SHOULD you decide whom to vote for? I have two suggestions. First, look at the candidate's actual actions in the past (and even now!). When he had a real opportunity to make a decision regarding an issue that you consider important, what did he do? You'll find that this is often quite at odds with whatever things they're saying right now. Obama is supporting gay marriage now? That's wonderful, but where was he when he could really have made a difference? Still "evolving"! Republicans are speaking loudly against health care for all now? Unfortunate, but what actually happened in Massachusetts when Romney was governor there?
My second suggestion is to follow the money. Political campaigns, especially presidential ones, are incredibly expensive these days (thanks, in part, to the Supreme Court's action to prevent limits on campaign contributions). This means that ANY candidate must spend a LOT of time raising money. How can they convince people and corporations to give up their hard-earned (or not-so-hard-earned) cash? In one word, ACCESS! Of course, they can NOT promise any particular vote or action on any particular issue, since that would make the money a bribe! But they can and do offer ACCESS to the person or company that has donated generously to their campaign.
Now, here's the difficult part. You need to try to find out WHO has donated, and you need to try to determine WHY this person or company might want access. What is their interest? What will make life easier or more profitable for them? If this will also improve YOUR life, then perhaps your interests are actually aligned with them. If not (which is FAR more likely unless you're very rich!), then their interests are probably at ODDS with yours. Of course, one big problem here is that many corporations actually donate to BOTH candidates and BOTH parties because they're basically hedging their bets and because they want to be sure to have influence and access no matter WHO wins.
So remember: ignore words now, look at past actions, and try to follow the money.
That's it for this week!
The first article presents the clear evidence of Iran's incitement to genocide, according to the Genocide Convention, of which Iran is a signatory. Most importantly, this article outlines clearly the steps that can and most certainly SHOULD be taken against Iran, all under international law. Yet, NONE of these have been done. It's easy enough to understand why people are reluctant to go to WAR with Iran, but there are NO excuses whatsoever for failing to bring Iran and its genocidal leaders before international tribunals with charges of incitement to genocide. This shows that the world, unfortunately including the U.S., does not really mean "never again". It's nothing but empty words! They're only concerned about genocides AFTER they happen. It's so much easier just to wring one's hands after the fact!
Our second article delineates how clearly the Obama administration has NOT supported Israel, and how much they have followed the Arab line in this conflict. Note that this is about ACTIONS taken or not taken, NOT about what they CLAIM to have done or plan to do for Israel.
This brings me to the point I want to talk about this week. The election season is in full swing in the U.S., and anybody old enough to vote should realize that the politicians, especially the candidates for President of the United States (including the incumbent) will say ANYTHING at all that they think will win them votes, particularly in the swing states. By the same token, they will try to AVOID saying anything that might lose them votes. In other words, it's the season of pandering.
The best thing to do is to close your eyes and ears to EVERYTHING that they say at this time, whether it's things you LIKE to hear or things you DON'T like to hear. It really doesn't matter, folks!
So, how SHOULD you decide whom to vote for? I have two suggestions. First, look at the candidate's actual actions in the past (and even now!). When he had a real opportunity to make a decision regarding an issue that you consider important, what did he do? You'll find that this is often quite at odds with whatever things they're saying right now. Obama is supporting gay marriage now? That's wonderful, but where was he when he could really have made a difference? Still "evolving"! Republicans are speaking loudly against health care for all now? Unfortunate, but what actually happened in Massachusetts when Romney was governor there?
My second suggestion is to follow the money. Political campaigns, especially presidential ones, are incredibly expensive these days (thanks, in part, to the Supreme Court's action to prevent limits on campaign contributions). This means that ANY candidate must spend a LOT of time raising money. How can they convince people and corporations to give up their hard-earned (or not-so-hard-earned) cash? In one word, ACCESS! Of course, they can NOT promise any particular vote or action on any particular issue, since that would make the money a bribe! But they can and do offer ACCESS to the person or company that has donated generously to their campaign.
Now, here's the difficult part. You need to try to find out WHO has donated, and you need to try to determine WHY this person or company might want access. What is their interest? What will make life easier or more profitable for them? If this will also improve YOUR life, then perhaps your interests are actually aligned with them. If not (which is FAR more likely unless you're very rich!), then their interests are probably at ODDS with yours. Of course, one big problem here is that many corporations actually donate to BOTH candidates and BOTH parties because they're basically hedging their bets and because they want to be sure to have influence and access no matter WHO wins.
So remember: ignore words now, look at past actions, and try to follow the money.
That's it for this week!
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Week ending September 8, 2012
Since I have posted for about 3 weeks, there's quite a bit to talk about today. So let's get right to it!
Our first article is a reminder of Iran's steadfast and unchanging demand, using the most graphic and offensive images, that Israel be destroyed. The last time we heard this kind of thing was in Hitler's rants in the 1930s about destroying the Jews. Now, as then, people mostly tend to take it merely as deplorable rhetoric, rather than realizing that it is a serious threat and will be carried out unless those who issue it are stopped. Neville Chamberlain (who claimed to have achieved "peace in our time") would feel right at home with today's "no war with Iran no matter what" attitude.
Our next article, though a little long, is a very important read, because it's about attitudes in the Arab and Muslim world towards the premeditated murder of Jews, especially children. EVERY possible group you can imagine has its "crazies". Often they are mostly ignored, and frequently they are condemned by a broad centrist consensus. In this case, though, the murderer, who proudly accepts that she did it, is glorified, honored, and highly praised as a role model, and there are NO condemnations whatsoever. This is the horrifying reality that Israel is up against, plain and simple.
Our third article is about the dismissal of a wrongful death suit against Israel brought by the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was tragically killed by an Israeli armored bulldozer some years ago. This courageous judge looked carefully and in detail at all the evidence and concluded that she was basically responsible for her own death. She was in a closed military area where dangers abounded on all sides, and she failed to take even minimal precautions against them. Of course, the organization that sent her also bears responsibility for taking advantage of an idealistic young woman who really didn't understand (or maybe refused to understand) that she was being sent out, not as a "peace" activist, but as cannon fodder in a war.
The next article is about pay for terrorists. This is NOT pay from Hamas (who openly support terrorism and proudly proclaim that their only goal is the complete destruction of Israel). No, this is from the allegedly "moderate" Palestinian Authority. Several things are worth noting here, as well. Despite the fact that the PA is experiencing a serious budget crunch, they actually managed to RAISE the "salaries" of terrorists in Israeli jails (who actually need NO money at all -- they're prisoners!). And where does the PA get most of its money from? From the international community, including the U.S., that's where. Your tax dollars at work!
The next two articles are about political organizations in the U.S. who CLAIM to be "pro-Israel". The first is about J Street and a letter they sent to rabbis in North America. The letter SOUNDS like it is very supportive of Israel on the surface, but a more careful analysis reveals that it is dangerously ANTI-Israel and advocates policies that, if carried out, would almost certainly lead to the DESTRUCTION of Israel. The second is about the recent debacle at the Democratic National Convention regarding whether Jerusalem should or should not be mentioned as the capital of Israel. Now we know that the platforms of major political parties these days in the U.S. are mostly meaningless. The INTERESTING thing here was the amount of vocal opposition by the rank-and-file delegates on the floor to acknowledging the reality that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. True, they didn't win, but the scary thing is that there were LOTS of them there! With friends like these ...
Our last article for this time is the second in a series of articles that carefully and thoughtfully argue that the 2-state solution is unrealistic, unattainable, and even bad for all involved. Obviously, a position like this requires some rather careful analysis because the 2-state solution has been the only one seriously considered for so long now. I encourage you to read these articles, especially if you think you'll disagree with his conclusion.
Our first article is a reminder of Iran's steadfast and unchanging demand, using the most graphic and offensive images, that Israel be destroyed. The last time we heard this kind of thing was in Hitler's rants in the 1930s about destroying the Jews. Now, as then, people mostly tend to take it merely as deplorable rhetoric, rather than realizing that it is a serious threat and will be carried out unless those who issue it are stopped. Neville Chamberlain (who claimed to have achieved "peace in our time") would feel right at home with today's "no war with Iran no matter what" attitude.
Our next article, though a little long, is a very important read, because it's about attitudes in the Arab and Muslim world towards the premeditated murder of Jews, especially children. EVERY possible group you can imagine has its "crazies". Often they are mostly ignored, and frequently they are condemned by a broad centrist consensus. In this case, though, the murderer, who proudly accepts that she did it, is glorified, honored, and highly praised as a role model, and there are NO condemnations whatsoever. This is the horrifying reality that Israel is up against, plain and simple.
Our third article is about the dismissal of a wrongful death suit against Israel brought by the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was tragically killed by an Israeli armored bulldozer some years ago. This courageous judge looked carefully and in detail at all the evidence and concluded that she was basically responsible for her own death. She was in a closed military area where dangers abounded on all sides, and she failed to take even minimal precautions against them. Of course, the organization that sent her also bears responsibility for taking advantage of an idealistic young woman who really didn't understand (or maybe refused to understand) that she was being sent out, not as a "peace" activist, but as cannon fodder in a war.
The next article is about pay for terrorists. This is NOT pay from Hamas (who openly support terrorism and proudly proclaim that their only goal is the complete destruction of Israel). No, this is from the allegedly "moderate" Palestinian Authority. Several things are worth noting here, as well. Despite the fact that the PA is experiencing a serious budget crunch, they actually managed to RAISE the "salaries" of terrorists in Israeli jails (who actually need NO money at all -- they're prisoners!). And where does the PA get most of its money from? From the international community, including the U.S., that's where. Your tax dollars at work!
The next two articles are about political organizations in the U.S. who CLAIM to be "pro-Israel". The first is about J Street and a letter they sent to rabbis in North America. The letter SOUNDS like it is very supportive of Israel on the surface, but a more careful analysis reveals that it is dangerously ANTI-Israel and advocates policies that, if carried out, would almost certainly lead to the DESTRUCTION of Israel. The second is about the recent debacle at the Democratic National Convention regarding whether Jerusalem should or should not be mentioned as the capital of Israel. Now we know that the platforms of major political parties these days in the U.S. are mostly meaningless. The INTERESTING thing here was the amount of vocal opposition by the rank-and-file delegates on the floor to acknowledging the reality that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. True, they didn't win, but the scary thing is that there were LOTS of them there! With friends like these ...
Our last article for this time is the second in a series of articles that carefully and thoughtfully argue that the 2-state solution is unrealistic, unattainable, and even bad for all involved. Obviously, a position like this requires some rather careful analysis because the 2-state solution has been the only one seriously considered for so long now. I encourage you to read these articles, especially if you think you'll disagree with his conclusion.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Week ending August 18, 2012
I want to start this week by talking about "Palestine". I put it in quotes because there are a number of different definitions of this term, and, as we shall see, it's important to be clear about what one means when using it.
The term was originally invented by the Romans after they had thoroughly put down the Jewish rebellion against their rule and had utterly destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, which had been the center of Jewish life for at least a millenium by that time. They created a province called Palestina, naming it deliberately after the Philistines, ancient enemies of the Jews and a people who had already disappeared hundreds of years before that time. So, the term was born of ancient anti-Jewish animus.
The term continued to be used in the increasingly Christian and anti-semitic West. But, during the hundreds of years of Muslim rule, it was NEVER used by them to designate any kind of administrative area or province.
The next emergence of "Palestine" as a legal or political designation came with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the subsequent establishment, by the League of Nations, of the "Palestine Mandate". This area included virtually all of the area currently under Israeli control (except parts of the Golan), Gaza, and the current Kingdom of Jordan. The area was to be administered by the British in preparation for eventual self-rule. Also, it was specifically recognized as the homeland of the Jewish people, who were to be encouraged to settle throughout it.
Almost immediately, though, the British began backing away from the idea of Jewish settlement in "Palestine" (in this case, the Palestine Mandate), mostly as a result of fierce Arab opposition and violence against the Jews.
Already by the early 1920s, the British stripped away what is now the Kingdom of Jordan (well over half of the territory of the Palestine Mandate) and gave it to the Hashemite family (the current monarchy of that kingdom), who were actually originally from further south and had been the traditional guardians of the holy Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina (which were given, instead, to the Saudi family, as they remain to this day).
In the remaining part of "Palestine" (the part west of the Jordan River), the British also began limiting Jewish immigration more and more, again as the result of Arab violence. This was particularly reprehensible during the 1930s and 1940s, when there was an URGENT need for a place where European Jews could flee from the Nazis. Hundreds of thousands of Jews could have escaped the Holocaust if the British had opened the gates of "Palestine" as they were actually obligated to do. Instead, some Jews managed to make it, either legally or illegally, but many perished. Meanwhile, the Jews who WERE in Palestine were busy building the economy, and that attracted many Arabs who could easily migrate from nearby Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan (now Jordan), and Egypt. These Arabs resisted being called "Palestinians", and, in fact, the term was used almost exclusively at that time to designate JEWS living in the territory! Indeed, a majority of the Arabs now living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River (who now claim to be proud "Palestinians") are descended from these Arab immigrants (and are thus no more "indigenous" than the Jews).
Because of Arab intransigence, the British, and later the UN, decided that the remaining territory should be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. Neither side was very happy with this idea (which is one sign of a good compromise), but the Jews reluctantly accepted it while the Arabs vehemently and violently rejected it. The UN plan was supposed to be implemented when the British withdrew in 1948 despite the Arabs' complete lack of acceptance of it.
What actually happened instead in 1948 is that the British withdrew, the Jews proclaimed the State of Israel, and, the very next day, ALL of the surrounding nations (including some that didn't even BORDER on "Palestine") attacked the new state in a war which they loudly proclaimed would "push the Jews into the Sea". Of course, no such thing happened. The Jews, who were, after all, fighting for their very lives, managed to hold onto a significant part of the territory when a cease-fire (but NO peace treaty) was finally arranged. Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, and the Kingdom of Transjordan occupied Judea and Samaria (which they dubbed the "West Bank"), including part of Jerusalem and ALL of its holy places. Jews were killed or ethnically cleansed from ALL of these occupied territories. Most notably, NOBODY even considered establishing a state of "Palestine".
In the early 1960s, the "Palestine Liberation Organization" was established. Their definition of "Palestine" was quite explicit: it was ALL of Israel and NONE of the "West Bank", which they specifically recognized as belonging to the Kingdom of Jordan (renamed by that time because it was no longer only east of the Jordan River).
Only AFTER the Israeli capture (in another defensive war of survival) of the Gaza Strip and the so-called "West Bank" did these area begin to be referred to as "Palestine". Even now, though, this definition is only for Western consumption. In fact, the whole notion of a "Palestinian people" is mostly for Western consumption. For LOCAL consumption, "Palestine" is definitely ALL of the Palestine Mandate that was left after Transjordan was stripped off. And the "Palestinian" national identity is only a step to their REAL identity: Arabs. This brings us to our first article, which shows that the real definition of "Palestine" is essentially this: any area currently controlled by Jews. In other words, you really can NOT be "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" at the same time. How can you make any kind of compromise or durable peace with a people whose very definition of their country is exactly YOUR country?
Our second article this week takes all of this crazy double-talk and crystallizes it somewhat humorously but with deadly accuracy in a lexicon of "Palestinese". It may seem a little long, but it's well worth reading.
Meanwhile, as our third article details, Israel continues to provide medical help to those from Gaza who need more than is available there. This includes even the brother-in-law of the chief Hamas guy, even though that organization continues to call for nothing short of the violent and complete elimination of Israel!
Our last article for this week is humorous but dead on. Read the whole article, which is quite short, but here's a short quote to whet your apetite: "This time around, instead of having to travel thousands of kilometers by train to some God-awful place, instant death will be delivered to us in sleek, shiny missiles — and without the need to leave the country. Yes, you too can be annihilated in the comfort of your own home, and at no cost to boot!"
The term was originally invented by the Romans after they had thoroughly put down the Jewish rebellion against their rule and had utterly destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, which had been the center of Jewish life for at least a millenium by that time. They created a province called Palestina, naming it deliberately after the Philistines, ancient enemies of the Jews and a people who had already disappeared hundreds of years before that time. So, the term was born of ancient anti-Jewish animus.
The term continued to be used in the increasingly Christian and anti-semitic West. But, during the hundreds of years of Muslim rule, it was NEVER used by them to designate any kind of administrative area or province.
The next emergence of "Palestine" as a legal or political designation came with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the subsequent establishment, by the League of Nations, of the "Palestine Mandate". This area included virtually all of the area currently under Israeli control (except parts of the Golan), Gaza, and the current Kingdom of Jordan. The area was to be administered by the British in preparation for eventual self-rule. Also, it was specifically recognized as the homeland of the Jewish people, who were to be encouraged to settle throughout it.
Almost immediately, though, the British began backing away from the idea of Jewish settlement in "Palestine" (in this case, the Palestine Mandate), mostly as a result of fierce Arab opposition and violence against the Jews.
Already by the early 1920s, the British stripped away what is now the Kingdom of Jordan (well over half of the territory of the Palestine Mandate) and gave it to the Hashemite family (the current monarchy of that kingdom), who were actually originally from further south and had been the traditional guardians of the holy Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina (which were given, instead, to the Saudi family, as they remain to this day).
In the remaining part of "Palestine" (the part west of the Jordan River), the British also began limiting Jewish immigration more and more, again as the result of Arab violence. This was particularly reprehensible during the 1930s and 1940s, when there was an URGENT need for a place where European Jews could flee from the Nazis. Hundreds of thousands of Jews could have escaped the Holocaust if the British had opened the gates of "Palestine" as they were actually obligated to do. Instead, some Jews managed to make it, either legally or illegally, but many perished. Meanwhile, the Jews who WERE in Palestine were busy building the economy, and that attracted many Arabs who could easily migrate from nearby Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan (now Jordan), and Egypt. These Arabs resisted being called "Palestinians", and, in fact, the term was used almost exclusively at that time to designate JEWS living in the territory! Indeed, a majority of the Arabs now living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River (who now claim to be proud "Palestinians") are descended from these Arab immigrants (and are thus no more "indigenous" than the Jews).
Because of Arab intransigence, the British, and later the UN, decided that the remaining territory should be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. Neither side was very happy with this idea (which is one sign of a good compromise), but the Jews reluctantly accepted it while the Arabs vehemently and violently rejected it. The UN plan was supposed to be implemented when the British withdrew in 1948 despite the Arabs' complete lack of acceptance of it.
What actually happened instead in 1948 is that the British withdrew, the Jews proclaimed the State of Israel, and, the very next day, ALL of the surrounding nations (including some that didn't even BORDER on "Palestine") attacked the new state in a war which they loudly proclaimed would "push the Jews into the Sea". Of course, no such thing happened. The Jews, who were, after all, fighting for their very lives, managed to hold onto a significant part of the territory when a cease-fire (but NO peace treaty) was finally arranged. Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, and the Kingdom of Transjordan occupied Judea and Samaria (which they dubbed the "West Bank"), including part of Jerusalem and ALL of its holy places. Jews were killed or ethnically cleansed from ALL of these occupied territories. Most notably, NOBODY even considered establishing a state of "Palestine".
In the early 1960s, the "Palestine Liberation Organization" was established. Their definition of "Palestine" was quite explicit: it was ALL of Israel and NONE of the "West Bank", which they specifically recognized as belonging to the Kingdom of Jordan (renamed by that time because it was no longer only east of the Jordan River).
Only AFTER the Israeli capture (in another defensive war of survival) of the Gaza Strip and the so-called "West Bank" did these area begin to be referred to as "Palestine". Even now, though, this definition is only for Western consumption. In fact, the whole notion of a "Palestinian people" is mostly for Western consumption. For LOCAL consumption, "Palestine" is definitely ALL of the Palestine Mandate that was left after Transjordan was stripped off. And the "Palestinian" national identity is only a step to their REAL identity: Arabs. This brings us to our first article, which shows that the real definition of "Palestine" is essentially this: any area currently controlled by Jews. In other words, you really can NOT be "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" at the same time. How can you make any kind of compromise or durable peace with a people whose very definition of their country is exactly YOUR country?
Our second article this week takes all of this crazy double-talk and crystallizes it somewhat humorously but with deadly accuracy in a lexicon of "Palestinese". It may seem a little long, but it's well worth reading.
Meanwhile, as our third article details, Israel continues to provide medical help to those from Gaza who need more than is available there. This includes even the brother-in-law of the chief Hamas guy, even though that organization continues to call for nothing short of the violent and complete elimination of Israel!
Our last article for this week is humorous but dead on. Read the whole article, which is quite short, but here's a short quote to whet your apetite: "This time around, instead of having to travel thousands of kilometers by train to some God-awful place, instant death will be delivered to us in sleek, shiny missiles — and without the need to leave the country. Yes, you too can be annihilated in the comfort of your own home, and at no cost to boot!"
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Israel "apartheid"? Not even close!
My beloved, David, was in the hospital for the past week, first here in Eilat and then in Be'er Sheva. As a result, I haven't had much time for reading. The drive to Be'er Sheva takes nearly 3 hours each way, and I was going there every day. He's out now, for which we're very thankful.
This is not the first time he has been hospitalized. In fact, he has now been in at least 5 different hospitals here in Israel. This has given me a close-up view of the medical system here, and so this week's political commentary will be mine and will be very personal.
EVERY hospital in Israel is COMPLETELY integrated -- patients, doctors, nurses, and all the other staff come from EVERY ethnic and religious group in the country. Arabs, Druze, Christians, Orthodox Jews, secular Jews are put in the same room together without any regard for their label. There are MANY Arab doctors and nurses who work right alongside each other and the Jewish staff. For example, the doctor on duty in the unit when David was admitted in Be'er Sheva was a young Arab, and all 3 of his roommates for the first few days also were Arabs (or perhaps Bedouins -- I only really know that they were speaking Arabic). Some of the other doctors were Jewish. The nurses were also from various groups. At the time David was released, one roommate was Arab (with a very devoted wife who came and spent a lot of time there every day), one was an Israeli soldier, and I think the fourth one was Jewish.
Contrast this with the situation under apartheid in South Africa. They had separate hospitals (not just separate rooms!) and even separate ambulances for Blacks and Whites. THAT is REAL apartheid. The situation in Israel does not even REMOTELY resemble that, and the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" is nothing short of an evil libel against the Jewish people. It simply is NOT true, and it is being used maliciously to slander an entire nation.
There ARE some nations nearby with practices that do resemble apartheid at least somewhat. For example, "Palestinians" who are descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 face serious discrimination in most countries, including Syria and, especially, Lebanon. Their possible occupations are legally limited, and they cannot own property in some cases. They certainly are NOT allowed to become citizens of the countries where they live, even those that were BORN there. Another example: in Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not even allowed to ENTER the city of Mecca, and no religious symbols, books, prayers, or services of ANY other religion are permitted anywhere in the entire country.
This is not the first time he has been hospitalized. In fact, he has now been in at least 5 different hospitals here in Israel. This has given me a close-up view of the medical system here, and so this week's political commentary will be mine and will be very personal.
EVERY hospital in Israel is COMPLETELY integrated -- patients, doctors, nurses, and all the other staff come from EVERY ethnic and religious group in the country. Arabs, Druze, Christians, Orthodox Jews, secular Jews are put in the same room together without any regard for their label. There are MANY Arab doctors and nurses who work right alongside each other and the Jewish staff. For example, the doctor on duty in the unit when David was admitted in Be'er Sheva was a young Arab, and all 3 of his roommates for the first few days also were Arabs (or perhaps Bedouins -- I only really know that they were speaking Arabic). Some of the other doctors were Jewish. The nurses were also from various groups. At the time David was released, one roommate was Arab (with a very devoted wife who came and spent a lot of time there every day), one was an Israeli soldier, and I think the fourth one was Jewish.
Contrast this with the situation under apartheid in South Africa. They had separate hospitals (not just separate rooms!) and even separate ambulances for Blacks and Whites. THAT is REAL apartheid. The situation in Israel does not even REMOTELY resemble that, and the use of the term "Israeli Apartheid" is nothing short of an evil libel against the Jewish people. It simply is NOT true, and it is being used maliciously to slander an entire nation.
There ARE some nations nearby with practices that do resemble apartheid at least somewhat. For example, "Palestinians" who are descendants of Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 face serious discrimination in most countries, including Syria and, especially, Lebanon. Their possible occupations are legally limited, and they cannot own property in some cases. They certainly are NOT allowed to become citizens of the countries where they live, even those that were BORN there. Another example: in Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not even allowed to ENTER the city of Mecca, and no religious symbols, books, prayers, or services of ANY other religion are permitted anywhere in the entire country.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Week ending July 28, 2012
I'm only going to point to 4 articles this week.
The first article is an interesting analysis of the what may happen in Lebanon following the demise of Assad in Syria. The situation is, of course, complex. On the one hand, Hizbollah owes most of its strength to the arms it had received and continue to receive from Syria. Of course, most of them really are from Iran, but Syria is the key link in the supply chain. On the other hand, Hizbollah is now the most powerful and best armed group in Lebanon, and the Shiite community that they are associated with constitute probably about half the current population of the country. Of course, as usual, NONE of the outcomes are particularly positive for Israel.
Another big item in the news this week was the refusal of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to accept a minute of silence in memory of the Israeli athletes brutally murdered by a terrorist attack at the Munich olympics, 40 years ago. The craziness around this has been absolutely astounding! They claimed that they refused this because it would "politicize" the Olympics. What b***s***! They had no problem with remembering the victims of 9/11, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Olympics. THIS massacre, however, happened specifically AT the Olympic Village, and Olympic players and their coaches were explicitly targeted! This, in reality, was an attack on the very spirit of the Olympic Movement itself.
This brings us to our next article. The president of the Palestinian Olympic Committee sent a letter congratulating the IOC on their decision, saying that a moment of silence remembering these athletes would be "racist"! Huh?!? One could certainly argue that the attack ITSELF was racist, since it targeted Israeli athletes. But then a moment of silence would actually be blow AGAINST racism!
Of course, as our article point out, the REAL reason that the "Palestinians" are opposed to any kind of memorial is that they do not consider the attack terrorist or even bad. In fact, to them, it was a "glorious operation", something which they continue to glorify. Peace, peace, who wants peace? Certainly not THEM!
The last 2 articles are both on the topic of Judea and Samaria (the territories misleadingly named "The West Bank" by the Kingdom of Jordan during their illegal occupation of the area from 1948 to 1967).
The first article of these two points out that, while far from ideal, the status quo (i.e. the current situation there) is better liked by nearly anyone who is directly affected by it than any "2-state solution" that could conceivably replace it. This, of course, is very disturbing to people for whom such a solution is the only possibility, but these people generally are not really aware of the actualities of the territories. If you happen to be one of these people (and most people outside the immediate area are), you should read this article carefully and become more enlightened.
The last article is about Sheikh Farid Khadar Al Jaabari, a very important Muslim Arab leader in Hebron. Although he is NOT a Zionist, he actually believes in coexistence with the Jews and is very much a pragmatist. His ideas certainly are much more grounded in reality than most others and would be much more beneficial for both Israel AND the Arab inhabitants of Judea and Samaria. I think they merit serious consideration.
The first article is an interesting analysis of the what may happen in Lebanon following the demise of Assad in Syria. The situation is, of course, complex. On the one hand, Hizbollah owes most of its strength to the arms it had received and continue to receive from Syria. Of course, most of them really are from Iran, but Syria is the key link in the supply chain. On the other hand, Hizbollah is now the most powerful and best armed group in Lebanon, and the Shiite community that they are associated with constitute probably about half the current population of the country. Of course, as usual, NONE of the outcomes are particularly positive for Israel.
Another big item in the news this week was the refusal of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to accept a minute of silence in memory of the Israeli athletes brutally murdered by a terrorist attack at the Munich olympics, 40 years ago. The craziness around this has been absolutely astounding! They claimed that they refused this because it would "politicize" the Olympics. What b***s***! They had no problem with remembering the victims of 9/11, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Olympics. THIS massacre, however, happened specifically AT the Olympic Village, and Olympic players and their coaches were explicitly targeted! This, in reality, was an attack on the very spirit of the Olympic Movement itself.
This brings us to our next article. The president of the Palestinian Olympic Committee sent a letter congratulating the IOC on their decision, saying that a moment of silence remembering these athletes would be "racist"! Huh?!? One could certainly argue that the attack ITSELF was racist, since it targeted Israeli athletes. But then a moment of silence would actually be blow AGAINST racism!
Of course, as our article point out, the REAL reason that the "Palestinians" are opposed to any kind of memorial is that they do not consider the attack terrorist or even bad. In fact, to them, it was a "glorious operation", something which they continue to glorify. Peace, peace, who wants peace? Certainly not THEM!
The last 2 articles are both on the topic of Judea and Samaria (the territories misleadingly named "The West Bank" by the Kingdom of Jordan during their illegal occupation of the area from 1948 to 1967).
The first article of these two points out that, while far from ideal, the status quo (i.e. the current situation there) is better liked by nearly anyone who is directly affected by it than any "2-state solution" that could conceivably replace it. This, of course, is very disturbing to people for whom such a solution is the only possibility, but these people generally are not really aware of the actualities of the territories. If you happen to be one of these people (and most people outside the immediate area are), you should read this article carefully and become more enlightened.
The last article is about Sheikh Farid Khadar Al Jaabari, a very important Muslim Arab leader in Hebron. Although he is NOT a Zionist, he actually believes in coexistence with the Jews and is very much a pragmatist. His ideas certainly are much more grounded in reality than most others and would be much more beneficial for both Israel AND the Arab inhabitants of Judea and Samaria. I think they merit serious consideration.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Week ending 21 July 2012
Let's start this week by talking about summer camp. "Summer camp?" you say. "What's that got to do with a serious blog like this?" Plenty, as it turns out.
To most of us, summer camp is a time for kids to get out away from the city and enjoy good times, healthy exercise, and fun learning, with nice campfire sing-a-longs in the evenings.
But for the would-be "Palestinians", it is apparently MUCH more serious. As you can read in this article, they apparently view this as the perfect opportunity to convince tender young minds that their main purpose in life should be to blow themselves up in some area where they will take lots of Jews with them. This goes beyond mere incitement; this is also child abuse!
In previous years, there have been summer camps in Gaza run by Hamas, the rulers there, and others run by the UN (their aiders and abettors). Nevertheless, the UN at least TRIED to have some traditional elements in their camps. This was MUCH too liberal for Hamas, so they have now shut down ALL of the UN summer camps.
In some ways, though, the situation in Fatah-controlled territories is even more insidious. After all, Hamas doesn't even make any PRETENSE of wanting peace or even co-existence with Israel. But Fatah supposedly IS willing to make some kind of a deal with Israel (although they have, of course, been refusing to negotiate at all until Israel FIRST agrees to all their most important demands). As the same article points out, Fatah has just named a summer camp after Dalal Mughrabi. In case you don't remember, she was the leader of the most lethal terror attack in Israel's history, which resulted in the deaths of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. If you think that's just ancient history, or "water under the bridge", the article reminds us that, just this week, the governor of the Jericho district of the Palestinian Authority told campers (those tender young minds!) that Mughrabi "should be a beacon for us in our activities." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 16, 2012) Keep this in mind next time someone talks about the "moderate" Fatah!
Now we'll move on, to Syria, where Assad has been continuing to slaughter his own people. Not so surprisingly, they're beginning to fight back more seriously now. This has got to have Assad more than a little worried. But, as this article in The Daily Star, an English-language site in Lebanon, reminds us, his friend, Nasrallah, the head of Hizbollah, is still supporting him. Of course, Nasrallah owes him big time for all the missiles and other weapons that he shipped to Hizbollah (most of them, of course, originated in Iran, but Syria was the go-between). This is just a bit personal for me, since 2 of those missiles landed close enough to my house in Tsfat 6 years ago to break windows and cause other minor damage. Some of the missiles he fired at northern Israel that summer, of course, did MUCH worse than that!
But Nasrallah is certainly NOT Assad's only supporter. Russia, whose only naval base on the Mediterranean Sea is located in Syria, has also continued to back him. But, perhaps most absurdly of all, as this article points out, Syria is about to be "elected" (we use that word VERY loosely in the case of anything having to do with the UN) as a member of, wait for it, ... the Human Rights Council.
Unfortunately, this is pretty much par for the course for the UN these days. When the UN was established after World War II, there were many high hopes that it would succeed in bringing world peace after the failure of the League of Nations. But there were some fatal flaws, one of the most egregious of which was giving exactly one vote to each nation, no matter how big or small, important or unimportant, it was. Of course, there have been other faults, as well. Now, the UN has become worse than useless -- it's actually DANGEROUS to world peace! It really SHOULD be abolished completely, but there's not any chance at all of that happening anytime soon, I'm sure.
Finally, we move to Israel and the so-called "territories". Our last article is a continuation of one I talked about last week. The author, as he promised, continues this week with more clear thinking about the folly of the 2-state solution. One of his most interesting arguments has to do with the issue of building in disputed areas. This arises from the notion, often proposed, that the first issue to be resolved should be borders, or at least some agreement about which areas will definitely be included in Israel, which areas remain disputed, and which will definitely be part of a Palestinian state. Then, of course, Israel would be free to build as much as it wanted in the first case and not at all in the last. The middle set, though, is where the problem lies. Proponents of the 2-state solution generally say that Israel should not be allowed to build at all in these disputed areas either. But they do NOT say that there should be NO building by EITHER side in these areas. In other words, they essentially give them away at the very beginning! The other BIG problem, of course, is that no "Palestinian" is ever likely to agree to any of this anyway. Actually, maybe that's a good thing!
To most of us, summer camp is a time for kids to get out away from the city and enjoy good times, healthy exercise, and fun learning, with nice campfire sing-a-longs in the evenings.
But for the would-be "Palestinians", it is apparently MUCH more serious. As you can read in this article, they apparently view this as the perfect opportunity to convince tender young minds that their main purpose in life should be to blow themselves up in some area where they will take lots of Jews with them. This goes beyond mere incitement; this is also child abuse!
In previous years, there have been summer camps in Gaza run by Hamas, the rulers there, and others run by the UN (their aiders and abettors). Nevertheless, the UN at least TRIED to have some traditional elements in their camps. This was MUCH too liberal for Hamas, so they have now shut down ALL of the UN summer camps.
In some ways, though, the situation in Fatah-controlled territories is even more insidious. After all, Hamas doesn't even make any PRETENSE of wanting peace or even co-existence with Israel. But Fatah supposedly IS willing to make some kind of a deal with Israel (although they have, of course, been refusing to negotiate at all until Israel FIRST agrees to all their most important demands). As the same article points out, Fatah has just named a summer camp after Dalal Mughrabi. In case you don't remember, she was the leader of the most lethal terror attack in Israel's history, which resulted in the deaths of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. If you think that's just ancient history, or "water under the bridge", the article reminds us that, just this week, the governor of the Jericho district of the Palestinian Authority told campers (those tender young minds!) that Mughrabi "should be a beacon for us in our activities." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 16, 2012) Keep this in mind next time someone talks about the "moderate" Fatah!
Now we'll move on, to Syria, where Assad has been continuing to slaughter his own people. Not so surprisingly, they're beginning to fight back more seriously now. This has got to have Assad more than a little worried. But, as this article in The Daily Star, an English-language site in Lebanon, reminds us, his friend, Nasrallah, the head of Hizbollah, is still supporting him. Of course, Nasrallah owes him big time for all the missiles and other weapons that he shipped to Hizbollah (most of them, of course, originated in Iran, but Syria was the go-between). This is just a bit personal for me, since 2 of those missiles landed close enough to my house in Tsfat 6 years ago to break windows and cause other minor damage. Some of the missiles he fired at northern Israel that summer, of course, did MUCH worse than that!
But Nasrallah is certainly NOT Assad's only supporter. Russia, whose only naval base on the Mediterranean Sea is located in Syria, has also continued to back him. But, perhaps most absurdly of all, as this article points out, Syria is about to be "elected" (we use that word VERY loosely in the case of anything having to do with the UN) as a member of, wait for it, ... the Human Rights Council.
Unfortunately, this is pretty much par for the course for the UN these days. When the UN was established after World War II, there were many high hopes that it would succeed in bringing world peace after the failure of the League of Nations. But there were some fatal flaws, one of the most egregious of which was giving exactly one vote to each nation, no matter how big or small, important or unimportant, it was. Of course, there have been other faults, as well. Now, the UN has become worse than useless -- it's actually DANGEROUS to world peace! It really SHOULD be abolished completely, but there's not any chance at all of that happening anytime soon, I'm sure.
Finally, we move to Israel and the so-called "territories". Our last article is a continuation of one I talked about last week. The author, as he promised, continues this week with more clear thinking about the folly of the 2-state solution. One of his most interesting arguments has to do with the issue of building in disputed areas. This arises from the notion, often proposed, that the first issue to be resolved should be borders, or at least some agreement about which areas will definitely be included in Israel, which areas remain disputed, and which will definitely be part of a Palestinian state. Then, of course, Israel would be free to build as much as it wanted in the first case and not at all in the last. The middle set, though, is where the problem lies. Proponents of the 2-state solution generally say that Israel should not be allowed to build at all in these disputed areas either. But they do NOT say that there should be NO building by EITHER side in these areas. In other words, they essentially give them away at the very beginning! The other BIG problem, of course, is that no "Palestinian" is ever likely to agree to any of this anyway. Actually, maybe that's a good thing!
Friday, July 13, 2012
Week ending 14 July 2012
We start our review this week with an article about a former Islamic jihad member from Egypt who is now a strong Muslim supporter of Israel. The article is well worth reading because he gives a lot of insight into the dynamics of radical Islam and how it seduces young people, especially men, into its service. The article is a little on the long side, but it is worth taking the time to read.
Our second article is also about radical Islam in Egypt. This story is a bit sensational, and the practice it is talking about, sex slavery in Egypt, is certainly still controversial even there. However, it does show how far radical Islam can go from anything remotely acceptable in the modern Western world, a fact worth pondering now that the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate will soon be President of Egypt. This article is NOT very long.
The third article is very short and reports about a recent Friday sermon of the Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide in Egypt (remember, they're the ones whose candidate just won the presidential election there). In it, he says that ALL faithful Muslims have an individual duty to do everything they can to "free al-Quds", i.e. to force Israel out of its capital, Jerusalem. If his advice is actually followed, Egypt will have to attack Israel, violating the peace agreement which was paid for many years ago by transferring the entire Sinai peninsula (nearly 3/4 of the area Israel controlled at the end of 1967) to Egyptian sovereignty (the "land for peace" deal). Did I mention that their candidate just won the presidential election there?
Our fourth article outlines the Muslim Brotherhood's ideas of the goals of an election. And what are these goals? Not merely that their people should win, but that Sharia law will be established. As the article states, the directives were: "Cheat, fight, and kill during elections, as long as doing so enables Sharia; vote only for whoever will enable Sharia; avoid hell by enabling Sharia." Will the Muslim Brotherhood candidates, including President Morsi, actually takes steps to implement Sharia law in Egypt? We can hope not, but, remember, it IS what they were ELECTED to do!
We now turn to Israel and the areas under its control. The first article in this category proposes something a bit radical, at least at first blush: applying Israeli law over all of Judea and Samaria (the area, part of the ancient heartland of the Jewish People, that Jordan dubbed "The West Bank" during its years of illegal occupation there, from 1948 to 1967). But if you read further, the author makes a good argument for this. In particular, this would stop the use of the Jordanian land registry as the main the authority on land ownership there. This is important because this registry is mostly fictitious, awarding ownership of land to people who had NO idea that they were its owners and had never made any claims to the land in 40 years. This is the supposedly "private" land that you see headlines about Jewish settlements being built on. It's important to know the truth about this, I think, because the headlines make the "settlers" look like thieves, when they actually are NOT.
Our second article in this category is a light-hearted, heart-warming story about a personal friendship between a "settler" (i.e. a Jewish resident of Samaria) and an Israeli Muslim Arab. If there is EVER to be anything even RESEMBLING peace here, THIS is how it will start.
The next article starts out with some rather strong, critical language, just short of name-calling. However, the author supports his statements well, and I recommend reading his clear-headed analysis, as opposed to the muddy thinking that he is debunking.
The bizarre title of our next article, "Is Israel in danger of becoming a failed state?", is actually what made me read it. As a citizen and resident of Israel, I can assure you with rather high confidence that Israel is not anywhere NEAR becoming ANYTHING like a "failed state" in the near future! Even the parts of Judea and Samaria under the control of the Palestinian Authority are doing better than most of the Arab world right now, and, of course, the parts of Israel under direct Israeli control are booming! The strange thing is that strong proponents of the 2-state solution are trying to use this classification to argue that Israel must relinquish territory in order to avoid being dragged under. But this is insane! First of all, Israel is doing very well, even WITH the support that it gives to the PA areas. Releasing those areas in order to form a Palestine state very likely WOULD lead to such a state becoming a failed state in short order (look at Gaza under Hamas, for example). This would not be a good outcome for Israel OR for the people living in such an ill-conceived state!
Our last article is rather long, but it is excellent. It looks in particular at the controversy over Silwan, a neighborhood in Jerusalem that lies just southeast of the Old City. In fact, there's rather strong archeological evidence that THIS is the REALLY old city of Jerusalem, the city of the Jebusites and of the biblical King David. But, as the article points out, the controversy here follows an increasingly familiar pattern: fabrication of "Palestinian" history. The serious problem with this, though, is that it really would be better labeled "denial of any Jewish connection to ANYTHING at all here in the Land of Israel". Take the time to read this well-documented article to learn MANY more details about this process.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)