Posts
4 hours ago
Monday, 29 June 2009
Mondowiess Expose
Mondowiess Expose
Jay Adler has a long, thoughtful and empathic analysis of the Mondoweiss folks. It hinges on Jewish identity, and how it can function or malfunction. Jay's reading is as compelling as it is, precisely because he more or less shares a starting point with the Mondoweiss folks - though of course he then took a different road. Read the whole thing.
Can we say all this of Mondoweiss? No, we cannot. Not really. For while Mondoweiss may at times espouse these positions, none of them are the end it seeks to serve, not even the ultimate end of a just settlement and a lasting peace. In conflict, a just settlement recognizes the legitimate desires of all parties, not the moral claim of only one. But the active agents behind Mondoweiss do not believe that Israel, or the Jewish people in relation to Israel, has just desires. Horowitz does not support the existence of a Jewish state. Blumenthal, like him, believes that Zionism (Jewish nationalism) – in apparent contradistinction to any other nationalism – is inherently racist. Weiss, a deeply anti-Semitic work in progress, in his haziest, most narcotic fantasy of peace, envisions as its ecstatic end not the peace, but the end of Israel.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
American Philanthropy in Israel
American Philanthropy in Israel
There's a fellow who has been writing me recently to convince me, I suppose, of his opinion. His thesis is that American Jews should be donating to worthy causes near home and in their own communities, while Israel should wean itself of its dependence on them.
It's a compelling argument, and I can see his point. Except he's missing most of the picture.
The national budget weaving its way through the Knesset these days is for almost $64billion. I've spent the past half hour or so Googling to find how much American Jews give annually to Israeli philanthropic causes (investing, supporting one's children who are in Israel, maintaining an apartment here and so on, don't count as philanthropy). Or for that matter, all Jews outside Israel. I'm somewhat out of my depth, and short of spare time, so I haven't found the number. But by all accounts I have found, it lies somewhere between 1-5% of the total. Probably closer to the lower sum.
Which means at least 95% of the financial cost of having a Jewish State is covered by the people who live in it. (Not to mention other types of cost, such as defending it). This is as it should be: states and their citizens are meant to cover their costs. But it does raise a different question: if the entire effort of having a Jewish State and 95% of its cost is borne by the 45% of the Jews who live in it, in what way do the others participate? Not by coming here often, alas: something like 80% of America's Jews have never been here, not even once.
I agree with my correspondent that philanthropy, or what used to be called "check-book Zionism", is not the best way for America's Jews to participate in the most important Jewish effort of the past 2,000 years. Investing here, coming often, owning an apartment and spending time here most years, sending each child to study one year at one of our fine universities or yeshivas – all these and many other options are preferable to the check-book variant of Zionism. But they're also all more time consuming, more of an effort, and probably costlier in an immediate way, though eventually they give far better returns.
Philanthropy is a time honored tradition in Judaism. If a majority of America's Jews have decided to marginalize themselves from the Zionist project, I wouldn't try to break one of the most important bonds they still do have (if they do). They need the connection.
It's a compelling argument, and I can see his point. Except he's missing most of the picture.
The national budget weaving its way through the Knesset these days is for almost $64billion. I've spent the past half hour or so Googling to find how much American Jews give annually to Israeli philanthropic causes (investing, supporting one's children who are in Israel, maintaining an apartment here and so on, don't count as philanthropy). Or for that matter, all Jews outside Israel. I'm somewhat out of my depth, and short of spare time, so I haven't found the number. But by all accounts I have found, it lies somewhere between 1-5% of the total. Probably closer to the lower sum.
Which means at least 95% of the financial cost of having a Jewish State is covered by the people who live in it. (Not to mention other types of cost, such as defending it). This is as it should be: states and their citizens are meant to cover their costs. But it does raise a different question: if the entire effort of having a Jewish State and 95% of its cost is borne by the 45% of the Jews who live in it, in what way do the others participate? Not by coming here often, alas: something like 80% of America's Jews have never been here, not even once.
I agree with my correspondent that philanthropy, or what used to be called "check-book Zionism", is not the best way for America's Jews to participate in the most important Jewish effort of the past 2,000 years. Investing here, coming often, owning an apartment and spending time here most years, sending each child to study one year at one of our fine universities or yeshivas – all these and many other options are preferable to the check-book variant of Zionism. But they're also all more time consuming, more of an effort, and probably costlier in an immediate way, though eventually they give far better returns.
Philanthropy is a time honored tradition in Judaism. If a majority of America's Jews have decided to marginalize themselves from the Zionist project, I wouldn't try to break one of the most important bonds they still do have (if they do). They need the connection.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Jews Can Be Our Worst Enemies
Jews Can Be Our Worst Enemies
A Dutch organization whose aim is to convince Dutchmen to boycott Israel has been rebuked by a local "truth in advertising" watchdog for, how shall we put it, fibbing.
So we've got some folks blatantly lying so as to hurt the Jewish State. I think that's a reasonable early warning sign of antisemitism, don't you? I continue to think so, even after reading the item all the way through:
So we've got some folks blatantly lying so as to hurt the Jewish State. I think that's a reasonable early warning sign of antisemitism, don't you? I continue to think so, even after reading the item all the way through:
Peace chairman Joost Hardeman, who is Jewish and says he supports Israel
but opposes its occupation of Palestinian land, told Haaretz earlier this year
that he rejected the center's allegations. "We do not propose a comprehensive
ban on Israeli goods, and we are opposed to this," he said. "We only demand that
consumers be made aware, through labeling, of the origins of the goods they are
purchasing."taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Khaled Meshaal, Peacenik
Khaled Meshaal, Peacenik
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal responds to the positions of Obama and Netanyahu:
"We reject the position taken by Netanyahu... on east Jerusalem, settlement activity, the right of return of Palestinian refugees and his vision of a demilitarised Palestinian state deprived of sovereignty over its land, air space and territorial waters," Meshaal said.Meshaal said Hamas opposed Israel as a Jewish state because that would amount to the denial of the rights of the six million Palestinian refugees."The enemy's leaders call for a so-called Jewish state is a racist demand that is no different from calls by Italian Fascists and Hitler's Nazism," Mashaal said.
This is actually mildly funny, since the Hamas Charter blames the Jews for World War Two (along with WWI and the French Revolution). It's also not in any way new; I'm linking to it not to inform y'all of something you didn't already know, but simply to record the re-iteration of these well-worn positions after all those speeches.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Israel Matzav: 1939 and 2009: The parallels are eerie
1939 and 2009: The parallels are eerie
What do Barack Obama and Neville Chamberlain have in common? Even more than you thought already says Jonathan Rosenblum. Israel Matzav: 1939 and 2009: The parallels are eerieTHE PARALLELS between today and the earlier period are eerie. Chamberlain, like US President Barack Obama today, enjoyed an overwhelming majority in Parliament. His party whips enforced party discipline with an iron hand - think Rahm Emanuel - and backbenchers who stepped out of line jeopardized their political futures.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: How Europe would administer the Gaza Strip
How Europe would administer the Gaza Strip
This is from an interview with Jan Kohout, foreign minister of the Czech Republic, which is one of the EU countries that is considered 'friendly' to Israel: Israel Matzav: How Europe would administer the Gaza StripAsked what the EU expected of Israel as far as the opening of crossings into Gaza, Kohout said that more humanitarian goods and supplies should be allowed to pass through.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: The mainstream media's double standard
The mainstream media's double standard
This is from Khaled Abu Toameh, best-known as the JPost's 'Palestinian' correspondent. This story has gotten way too little exposure in the media (Hat Tip: Melanie Phillips).
Israel Matzav: The mainstream media's double standardAs for the international media, it's time to abandon the policy of double standards in covering the Israeli-Arab conflict. For many years, the mainstream media in the US and Europe turned a blind eye to stories about financial corruption under Yasser Arafat. The result was that Arafat and his cronies got away with stealing billions of dollars that had been donated to the Palestinians by the Americans and Europeans.
Back then, many foreign journalists said they believed that the stories about financial corruption in the Palestinian areas were "Zionist propaganda." Other journalists said they would rather file an anti-Israel story because this way they would become more popular with their editors and publishers.
Recently, a Palestinian TV crew was stopped at a checkpoint in the West Bank, where soldiers confiscated a tape and erased its content.
This incident, hardly received any coverage in the mainstream media in the US and Europe.Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Obama's double standard
Obama's double standard
Melanie Philips' Friday column in Britain's Jewish Chronicle is spot-on: Israel Matzav: Obama's double standardAs the world watched events unfold in Iran, Obama’s double standard over Israel was illuminated in flashing neon lights. How come he’s saying it is wrong for him to tell the Iranians what to do, people asked themselves, when he is dictating to Israel its policy on settlements?
Why was he so concerned not to antagonise the Iranian regime? Was it because he hopes to reach a Grand Bargain which would allow Iran to develop nuclear capability, provided it promises him ever so nicely it would never turn this into weapons — in exchange for which, Israel would be offered up on a plate?Read All at :
Israel Matzav: What a 'temporary freeze' might look like
What a 'temporary freeze' might look like
The Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot reports today that Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who heads to Washington this week, will be bringing along a proposal for a three-month 'temporary freeze' on 'settlement' construction. The freeze, that would apply to all new construction - including in the settlement blocs (though not clear if also applies to Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem) - would be in order to facilitate the renewal of talks with the PA.
According to Schiffer, the proposed freeze would not apply to projects already well underway that include some 2,000 buildings - principally public buildings - in the settlement blocs.
According to Schiffer, the proposed freeze would not apply to projects already well underway that include some 2,000 buildings - principally public buildings - in the settlement blocs.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: What a 'temporary freeze' might look like
Israel Matzav: US trying to bring Hamas into negotiations
US trying to bring Hamas into negotiations
Last week, a regular reader sent me an email asking whether I had seen any evidence that US Middle East envoy George Mitchell had met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal while he was in Syria recently, and suggesting that I keep my eye out for evidence that such a meeting took place or will take place. There is good reason to be concerned. By hook or by crook, the Obama administration is likely set on bringing Hamas into the 'peace process.'
Meanwhile, four senior Republican and Democratic figures, including former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker, called on President Barack Obama to initiate a dialogue with Hamas without delay. Speaking during interviews organized by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Baker said that just like the U.S. found a way to begin dialogue with the PLO, it must do so with Hamas. Baker noted that it is impossible to make peace with people if you are unwilling to talk with them.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: US trying to bring Hamas into negotiations
Israel Matzav: The next war with Hezbullah may not be so easy
The next war with Hezbullah may not be so easy
When the story of the arrest of Israeli intelligence operatives in Lebanon first started breaking, I thought it possible that the charges were trumped up and that those arrested were not Israeli spies. This set of facts makes that scenario seem unlikely. Israel Matzav: The next war with Hezbullah may not be so easyThe alleged agents included a former general in Lebanon's premier security service, two army colonels and a former mayor. Lebanese authorities say most of those arrested, including those just listed, have all confessed that they had been spying in Lebanon for years.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Who will stand up to Iran?
Who will stand up to Iran?
The Iranian government has arrested eight 'local employees' of the British embassy in Tehran, for what was described as their alleged role in post-election protests. The implication of the term 'local employees' is that they are Iranian nationals and not Brits. Nevertheless, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has demanded their release. Israel Matzav: Who will stand up to Iran?British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Sunday demanded the release of eight Iranian British Embassy employees detained by Iranian authorities in Teheran, warning Iran that "continued harassment will be met by a strong and united EU response."
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: The Obama administration goes limp on the axis of evil
The Obama administration goes limp on the axis of evil
Before he went soft in his second term, George W. Bush referred to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the 'axis of evil.' It was a speech that was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's 'evil empire' speech of the 1980's (for those under 20, he was referring to the Soviet Union), and many hoped that the Bush administration would take action against those who spread fear and terrorism around the world. Bush took action against Iraq, but went soft in his second term, even removing North Korea from the international terror list.Israel Matzav: The Obama administration goes limp on the axis of evil
Israel Matzav: An historical defense of Jewish 'settlements' in Judea and Samaria
An historical defense of Jewish 'settlements' in Judea and Samaria
At the outset, I must say that we need another word for 'settlements.' My problem is that the word 'settlements' has a connotation of being temporary and not permanent. It's the same problem I have with the word 'settler,' which I almost never use at all (and even then generally I don't use it without scare quotes). Instead of 'settler,' I use the word "revenant," which means one who has returned to his former land. This op-ed comes from the guy who taught me the word "revenant."
Israel Matzav: An historical defense of Jewish 'settlements' in Judea and SamariaSome have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: It's time to talk about Jewish historical rights to the land of Israel
It's time to talk about Jewish historical rights to the land of Israel
In Friday's Haaretz, Nadav Shragai nailed it:
Israel Matzav: It's time to talk about Jewish historical rights to the land of IsraelOne might expect more national pride and a clearer, more lucid statement from a government that believes Judea and Samaria are inseparable parts of the historic homeland, and at the very least sees the "settlement blocs" as an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any final status accord. Perhaps a statement in the spirit of Simon Maccabaeus, who said: "We have neither taken other men's land, neither do we hold that which is other men's: but the inheritance of our fathers, which was for some time unjustly possessed by our enemies."
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: The ultimate betrayal
The ultimate betrayal
I am sure that many of you recall Haaretz editor David Landau's request to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States 'rape' Israel. Rice did not succeed in doing so - arguably because President Bush did not let her. But the Obama administration has taken up the quest with full force, and led by the President himself it is seeking to betray America's staunchest ally and deprive her of the means to defend herself. Moshe Dann explains why rape is the perfect description for what the Obama administration is trying to do. But this isn't just any normal rape: It's a rape by a family member, and that's the worst kind of rape. Read All at :
Israel Matzav: The ultimate betrayal
American Pressure on Israel can Cost Lives
American Pressure on Israel can Cost Lives
I'm having a second look at Elliot Abram's article "Hillary is Wrong".
There is nothing in it that we didn't already know, of course, yet let's look at this section:
There is nothing in it that we didn't already know, of course, yet let's look at this section:
In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.
These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us.
Noteworthy points:
1. Sharon, like Barak before him, publicly accepted Palestinian statehood, but this made it no more likely to happen.
2. The Bush administration (Bush!) pressured Israel to go beyond what it intended, and Israel complied. This made Palestinian statehood no more likely than before, since the fundamental Palestinian demands are incompatible with Zionism, and therefore won't happen.
3. The Bush administration forced Israel to take severe risks, namely leaving the strip of territory along the Gaza-Egyptian border. The idea was that only by totally leaving Gaza could Israel claim it had really left, and this was regarded as neccessary for the rise of a functioning Palestinian quasi-state in Gaza. The hope was that the Palestinians would indeed take advantage of the opportunity, and it would be possible to build on it. The danger was that the Palestinians would not try to get their act together and would prefer to continue waging war against Israeli civilians.
4. After the Bush administration forced Israel to take the risk, and the calculation misfired, there was no cost to the Americans. Israelis died, and lots of Palestinians, but no Americans. On the contrary: the Americans held an election, replaced their administration, and the new one is repeating the mistakes of its predecessor.
1. Sharon, like Barak before him, publicly accepted Palestinian statehood, but this made it no more likely to happen.
2. The Bush administration (Bush!) pressured Israel to go beyond what it intended, and Israel complied. This made Palestinian statehood no more likely than before, since the fundamental Palestinian demands are incompatible with Zionism, and therefore won't happen.
3. The Bush administration forced Israel to take severe risks, namely leaving the strip of territory along the Gaza-Egyptian border. The idea was that only by totally leaving Gaza could Israel claim it had really left, and this was regarded as neccessary for the rise of a functioning Palestinian quasi-state in Gaza. The hope was that the Palestinians would indeed take advantage of the opportunity, and it would be possible to build on it. The danger was that the Palestinians would not try to get their act together and would prefer to continue waging war against Israeli civilians.
4. After the Bush administration forced Israel to take the risk, and the calculation misfired, there was no cost to the Americans. Israelis died, and lots of Palestinians, but no Americans. On the contrary: the Americans held an election, replaced their administration, and the new one is repeating the mistakes of its predecessor.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
The Palestinians Missed Again
The Palestinians Missed Again
Ehud Olmert and Saeb Erekat both agree that Olmet made on offer to the Palestinians in September 2008 that goes way beyond what any Israeli prime minister ever offered, and the Palestinians didn't respond.
At the end of Olmert's term he tried one last maneuver in an effort to secure a legacy. Olmert told me he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008 and unfurled a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He says he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the Palestinian territories, along with a land swap of 5.8 percent and a safe-passage corridor from Gaza to the West Bank that he says would make up the rest. The Holy Basin of Jerusalem would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans. Regarding refugees, Olmert says he rejected the right of return and instead offered, as a "humanitarian gesture," a small number of returnees, although "smaller than the Palestinians wanted—a very, very limited number."
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, confirmed that Olmert had made the offer. "It's very sad," Erekat said. "He was serious, I have to say." Erekat said that he and Abbas studied the materials and began to formulate a response, coordinating with the Americans. But time eventually ran out. A few months after Olmert presented his offer, war erupted in Gaza. Shortly after that, Olmert was out of power.
The line about how time ran out is unconvincing. In September 2008 Olmert was about to be replaced by Livni; that this didn't happen was not something anyone could have counted on at the time. Basically, there was an offer on the table that gave the Palestinians considerably more than the Israeli public intended, made by a prime minister who had nothing to lose since his political career was over, and the Palestinians dithered. They always do: either because they're incompetent, or because they'll never give up on their precious right of return – and we'll never allow it. Which means they're holding out for what they can't have, and in the meantime they live without what they could have.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
