Thursday 30 July 2009

Nastiness Inspired by Israel

Nastiness Inspired by Israel

Robert Mackey at the New York Times tells a troubling story about what he calls India's Wall of Death.

Well, sort of. Actually he tells a rambling tale that starts with Indian women who have joined the Border Security Force. Since most of us have never heard of the BSF, he helpfully sends us to a recruiting film they've posted on You-Tube, while smirking about its resemblance to Bollywood films. I assume such a film fits into a context its intended Indian audience recognize, and which the rest of us don't, so perhaps the smirk is unwarranted. The article then wanders on to tell how violent the BSF is - even their own website says so - and then it brings various people who tell that the violence is unjustified and wanton. Since they say so it must be true, apparently, because Mackey wastes no time on any attempt to figure out what's really going on. You might be interested to hear that while he cites a statistic from the BSF website about 4,814 people they've killed in 19 years, and sets this up so we think they were mostly innocent villagers, he fails to cite the number from the same webpage whereby 1,375 BSF men have also died. I guess the innocent villagers were armed and shot back. Or perhaps sometimes shot first. It's hard to know if you parachute into the story from the stratosphere and immedately begin pontificating.

The BSF link, by the way, is here. Mackey forgot to add it.

Having introduced us to an organization we'd never heard of, poked fun at its self image by choosing one item divorced from any context, convinced us it's an outfit of bloodthirsty gunslingers which routinely kills villagers, he then embeds a British Channel 4 film to prove the whole thing. If there are pictures in a film, it must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Finally, having convinced us this is an ugly story, he informs us the Indian fence was inspired by Israel, and he helpfully recommends we read what he calls a "fascinating article" published by an Indian we know nothing about in a UAE newspaper. UAE, in case you don't know and he doesn't tell, is United Arab Emirates. Just the place to learn about Israel. So I read the fascinating article. The author knows about India, though I have no way of telling how acceptable his analysis is; he certainly knows nothing about Israel beyond a clischee here and there.

Parting shot: If Israel hadn't inspired the Indians, none of this would be happening, we're led to understand. Of course, the fact that lots of people are dying along the Indian fence, while the Israeli one has played a demonstrable role in saving thousands of lives goes unmentioned. (Yes, over the years four or five people have also died along it, but they weren't villagers tending their fields). The source for this nasty allegation? Jonathan Rugman, at Channel 4. Except that even as he makes this unsubstantiated claim, he also demonstrates how false it is, by noting that the Indians began constructing their fence in 2000. The Israelis began constructing theirs, I remind you, in 2002. Perhaps they were inspired by the Indians?

Top notch journalism, 2009.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Israel Matzav: Tisha b'Av

Tisha b'Av

Wednesday night and Thursday are Tisha b'Av, the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av, the saddest day on the Jewish calendar.

Five tragedies befell the Jewish people on Tisha b'Av in ancient times, the two most important of which were the destruction of the two Holy Temples:

- It was decreed that the generation which left Egypt would remain in the desert for 40 years and not enter the land of Israel, after believing the inaccurate report of 10 of the 12 spies in the year 2449 (the current Jewish year is 5769).

- The first Bet Hamikdash (Holy Temple) was destroyed on 9 B'Av in the year 3339.

- The second Bet Hamikdash (Holy Temple) was destroyed on 9 B'Av about 1948 years ago.

- The city of Betar was captured and tens of thousands of Jews were killed in the year 3893.

- The wicked Turnus Rufus plowed the site of the Bet Hamikdash and its surroundings and renamed it Aelia Capitolina, also in the year 3893.

Since these tragedies occurred on 9 B'Av, it was decreed as a day of fasting and mourning.

Read All at :


Israel Matzav: Tisha b'Av

Israel Matzav: The Obama doctrine of 'engagement' is dead

The Obama doctrine of 'engagement' is dead

Writing in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson argues that at least with regard to North Korea and Iran, Obama's doctrine of 'engagement' is dead.

Six months on, how fares the Obama doctrine? Concerning North Korea and Iran, the doctrine is on its deathbed.

North Korea responded to administration outreach by testing a nuclear weapon, firing missiles toward U.S. allies, resuming plutonium reprocessing and threatening the United States with a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation." During congressional testimony, Clinton admitted, "At this point [it] seems implausible, if not impossible, the North Koreans will return to the six-party talks and begin to disable their nuclear capacity again."

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The Obama doctrine of 'engagement' is dead

Israel Matzav: US and Israel divided on Iran

US and Israel divided on Iran

When Defense Secretary Gates was here earlier in the week, an effort was made to downplay differences between the US and Israel over how to deal with Iran. True, there was that moment at the press conference when Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel was leaving 'all options' on the table, clearly implying that one option was a military one, but Gates pandered to Israel, saying that 'engagement' with Iran would not be open-ended and that Iran would not be allowed to 'run out the clock.' The Wall Street Journal's Yochi Dreazen reports that the differences between the US and Israel on how to deal with Iran are still significant.
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: US and Israel divided on Iran

Israel Matzav: 'Our friends the Saudis': Bowing down isn't enough

'Our friends the Saudis': Bowing down isn't enough

President Obumbler bowing down to King Abdullah is apparently not enough to keep the Saudis happy.

Experts argue that the roots of the disagreement with Saudi Arabia, considered a linchpin for progress, go deeper.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the Saudis are disappointed with many aspects of Obama's policy: His drive for ending America's dependency on foreign oil, the decision not to appoint a close confidant as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and choosing the route of diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: 'Our friends the Saudis': Bowing down isn't enough

Israel Matzav: Bolton: It's 'crunch time'

Bolton: It's 'crunch time'

Those of you who are basketball fans know that 'crunch time' is the last few minutes of a close game when all the exhausted starters are on the floor and every shot counts. If you're a coach, you want your best players on the floor during 'crunch time' and you want to have them control the game flow as much as possible.

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argues that it's 'crunch time' for Israel on Iran's development of nuclear weapons. According to Bolton, Israel is going to have to make a decision to go it alone in the next few months, or the world will be staring at a nuclear Iran.
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Bolton: It's 'crunch time'

Israel Matzav: Former Defense Secretary: Arabs more concerned about Iran than about Israel

Former Defense Secretary: Arabs more concerned about Iran than about Israel

William Cohen, a former Senator from Maine who served as Secretary of Defense in President Clinton's second administration, tells the Washington Times that fear of Iran has replaced animosity toward as Israel as the top concern of Arab governments in the Middle East.

Having made six trips to the Gulf in the past 18 months, Mr. Cohen came to a conclusion reached by other U.S. and foreign diplomats and analysts regarding Arab jitters about Iranian influence.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Former Defense Secretary: Arabs more concerned about Iran than about Israel

Israel Matzav: Arab countries won't deliver 'normalization' gestures

Arab countries won't deliver 'normalization' gestures

The Jerusalem Post reports on Wednesday that the Netanyahu government expects that US Middle East envoy George Mitchell will have 'normalization gestures' in hand from the Arab countries by the time he returns to Israel in August.

The assessments in Jerusalem are that negotiations with the Palestinians would begin only after the US and Israel agreed on some kind of settlement construction freeze, and this freeze would be declared when the US had commitments for some normalization gestures from the Arab world.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Arab countries won't deliver 'normalization' gestures

Israel Matzav: More than two third of Israeli Jews who supported Gaza expulsion are now sorry

More than two third of Israeli Jews who supported Gaza expulsion are now sorry

A poll by the Maagar Mochot polling agency indicates that more than two thirds of the Israeli Jews who supported the expulsion of Gaza's Jewish population in the summer of 2005 (known as 'disengagement') are now sorry that they did so.
These days, 4 years to the evacuation of Gush Katif is being marked. In the past did you support or oppose the evacuation of Gush Katif?
Oppose 24% Supported 48% Other replies 28%

Among those who supported: Are you sorry today that you supported the evacuation Gush Katif?
Yes 68% No 22% Other replies 10%

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: More than two third of Israeli Jews who supported Gaza expulsion are now sorry

Israel Matzav: More details about Obama's letters to Arab countries

More details about Obama's letters to Arab countries

On Tuesday, I reported that President Obama had sent letters to Arab countries seeking 'reciprocal gestures' toward Israel in return for a 'settlement freeze.' Here are a few more details about those letters.

On Monday the White House confirmed a report, which first appeared in a foreign policy blog by Laura Rozen on Sunday, that Obama had sent letters to a handful of Arab and Gulf states within the last two months seeking confidence-building measures toward Israel

Read All at :


Israel Matzav: More details about Obama's letters to Arab countries

Israel Matzav: There is a military solution to terror

There is a military solution to terror

In Commentary, Michael Totten argues that Operation Cast Lead shows that there is a military solution to terror (Hat Tip: Instapundit).

The New York Times reports that Hamas has decided to wage a “culture war” instead of a rocket war because, as one leader put it, “the fighters needed a break and the people needed a break.”

Movies, plays, art exhibitions, and poems are Hamas’s new weapons. Hamas supporters, though, aren’t the only Palestinians in Gaza using art as a weapon. Said al-Bettar skewers Hamas every night at Gaza City’s Shawa cultural center in his popular play The Women of Gaza and the Patience of Job. “We were the victims of a big lie,” he says about the doctrine of armed “resistance.”

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: There is a military solution to terror

No-One Really Cares About the Laws of War

No-One Really Cares About the Laws of War

The Guardian is an antisemitic bastion; the Mondoweiss people are beyond rational discussion. One reason why I return again and again to the Economist is that if they aren't rational, no-one is; if they can't get a story right, who will?

This week they've got two articles on the Pakistani war against the Taliban (in Pakistan). One, an editorial, mostly crows about how the Pakistani army seems to have won a round and must continue; the other, a descriptive article, is, well, descriptive.

Both tell how the army won, but in a most revealing way. Take the opening paragraph of the leader, for example:

LONG reviled for their reluctance to fight the Islamist militancy that they themselves helped unleash, Pakistan’s generals have a rare victory to boast of.
In a three-month offensive against the Taliban in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), the army has regained control of the lofty Malakand region, killing hundreds of militants. This has done less damage to civilian life and property than two previous, failed offensives in Malakand. The local Pushtuns, over 2m of whom were displaced by the fighting, are now returning home. They mostly support the army’s efforts. (My italics, of course).


This observation is then fleshed out, just a wee bit, in the second article:

SULTANWAS, a once-prosperous village in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), is now a bomb site. Its white concrete houses, gaudily decorated thanks to migrant wages sent back from Dubai, lie in heaps. Debris that had billowed in great clouds after army jets bombed the village in early May litters the surrounding fields. The Taliban, who had occupied Sultanwas a few weeks before, had no chance; 80 allegedly died in the rubble.
Involving some 40,000 troops, the army’s action has been devastating. Over
2m have been displaced, in what may be the biggest unplanned movement of people
since the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Hundreds are reported to have been killed. Yet the army, which has received unprecedented public support for its attack on the Taliban, is claiming a great success.

Should we take a closer look? The Pakistani army bombed its own towns, millions of its own civilians became refugees, but no worry. There were fewer civilians killed than last time. How many fewer? Why dwell on such things. Were many towns pulverized - well, probably, since the article tells that billions will be needed for reconstruction efforts, but why allow such minutiae to bother us when a glorious victory over the Very Bad Guys has just been had.

The theory of Just War distinguishes between waging a just war (this one certainly is), and waging a war justly. Yet the more I follow the way we report to ourselves on the wars of the world, the more I become convinced this distinction is meaningless in the real world. Wars are judged bythe first criteria only. When going to war is justified, no-one cares about the way it's waged, if carefully or barbarically. When the decision to be at war is unjustified, no-one cares how careful the warriors are; they'll be damned. Though there's then a second twist, which is that if it's our country at war, we won't report on the full impact it's having; this would explain why to this very day it's basically impossible to find an honest reckoning of the two battles of Faluga, say, even tho most of the media really didn't like that war. But the "home team" effect over-rode their distatse.

If we're honest about it we must recongnize that Israel's wars are unacceptable to most of the rest of the world irrespective of the way they're waged, which is why no-matter what the reality is the reports about it are automatically the opposite from reports such as these about Pakistan (or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or have your pick). And the reason for this is profound and fundamental. It's not - as I used to think - that Israel insists on using military force in a post-military world. The world isn't post military. Just look at how the Economist eggs the pakistanis on: more! Keep on Going!

Where are the exhortations for peaceful engagement and seeking dialogue with the enemy since only that can ever succeed?
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Now They Tell Us

Now They Tell Us

Remember the article of faith across most of society from early 2003 at the latest, whereby George Bush was uniformly hated the world over, and his removal was an essential, urgent prerequisite for healing America's relations with humankind? I'll bet you've heard this line before, unless you spent the past six years in the Amazonian jungle, perhaps.

Well, it ain't necessarily so. People who preferred nuanced reality to articles of faith always knew that in Eastern Europe many people rather liked the American President, many in Africa likewise – and of course, those pesky Israelis demonstrated their general obnoxiousness by thinking him perfectly acceptable.

Now that the nightmare of his presidency is over and past, however, the Economist lets slip that actually, in the world's largest democracy and soon its largest country, Bush was much liked.

WHEN she landed in Mumbai on July 17th as the first front-rank visitor from Barack Obama’s administration, Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, faced an unfamiliar difficulty. India was uncommonly keen on his predecessor, George Bush. In the words of Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, its people “deeply loved” Mr Bush for his efforts to strengthen bilateral bonds between the world’s biggest democracies.
At the heart of this strengthening was a nuclear co-operation agreement that made India an exception to the global counter-proliferation regime and a more legitimate nuclear power. By contrast, many Indians have looked on Mr Obama nervously. On the campaign trail, he threatened protectionism against their outsourcing industry. In office his team has paid more attention to Pakistan. America has also been paying court to China—against which Mr Bush had wanted India as a counterweight.

taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Carlo Strenger Proves his Point (Easily)

Carlo Strenger Proves his Point (Easily)

Carlo Strenger is a psychiatrist and professor at Tel Aviv University. I've known him, a bit, for more than 25 years, and have been following his rise the whole time. I've also started reading some of his books, though I don't think I ever read one all the way through. He's far to my left politically, but in a typical Israeli way, which means his life story is more complicated than that of many of his Western counterparts, and his positions often have more subtlety than theirs.

He has somehow worked his way onto the roster of contributors to the Guardian's Comment is Free (CiF), the paper's pseudo-blog platform for online discussion, and there he tends to write columns that would better fit into the local Hebrew-language discussion. (He also writes in Haaretz, but in an interesting twist many of us are familiar with, when writing in Hebrew his positions move even further from the center as he strives to ensure he's shocking us).

His most recent contribution to CiF is a classic case of setting up the yokels. He pokes fun at the knee-jerk fundamentals of too many on the Western Left (Israel/America always wrong; People of Color always right and so on), and tries to show why such positions might be unhelpful in explaining what's really going on in Israel and by implication, in the rest of the region.

Sure enough, the Loonies pile on in large numbers to prove his thesis by castigating him for being an Israeli.

I'm actually not suggesting you waste your time reading his column nor the responses to it. I'm just documenting the malaise, and reminding myself that it's virulence doesn't abate in the slightest merely because it's been a few months already since Israel was last capturing world headlines with some imagined atrocity.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Reflections on Tisha B

destruction_temp_2_gallery

As we are quickly approaching Tisha B’av, one of the saddest days in Jewish history, I sit and reflect on current events and within the past couple years it is not difficult to be distressed. As we know on Tisha B’av we are mourning the destruction of both the holy temples and pray for our speedy redemption from exile. It is said that every generation that Moshiach hasn’t come it is as if the temple is being destroyed again. This is a very interesting statement and we can ask why this is the case. We understand that it is a great tragedy but is it that bad that it is as if we in our generation are destroying the temple? To try to explain this idea., we need to go back into history before the second temple was destroyed. The Gemara describes the story of Kamsa and Bar Kamsa and they explain that this was the cause of the destruction of the second temple. It is explained that there was a man named Kamsa who had a party and by accident an invitation was sent to Bar Kamsa, who was a man that Kamsa despised. When Bar Kamsa came to the party and even offered to pay towards his meal he was refused and Kamsa had him thrown out of his house. In his fury at the situation and that the rabbis who were there did not get involved to pacify the situation, he decided to get back at the rabbis by speaking slander against them to the Caesar. He told the emperor Caesar that the jews have rebelled against him and if he would give a Korban to the temple, he should see if they would accept it. In the meantime Bar Kamsa made a blemish on the animal and since a blemished animal could not be offered up as a korban, Caesar’s Korban was refused. As a result of this incident the temple was eventually destroyed.

Read All at :

Reflections on Tisha B’av

Posted using ShareThis

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: TISHA B'AV: TRIANGULATION COMPLETE

TISHA B'AV: TRIANGULATION COMPLETE

By Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman

2012 may indeed herald a year of cleansing for humanity as a whole. It may usher in a new era of radical awareness of our common humanity, a new era of recognition of the futility of an ethos of hatred and division, of separation from the heart of our Creator. Perhaps it may take a new world war to achieve this awareness. Or perhaps not. The messianic age, it is said, will be ushered in with kindness and ease, if we are deserving, or the opposite, if not.

The Mayan calendar said it. Nostradamus said it. Now, "Judaism," or if you prefer, the Jewish calendar, says it. The triangulation is complete. 2012. The year of the "big cleanse." Are you ready?

Tisha B'Av, the 9th day of the month of Av, is the most sorrowful day on the Jewish calendar, the culmination of three weeks of semi-mourning. A comprehensive list of national Jewish tragedies, from the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem to the expulsion from Spain, among many other expulsions and destructions- all took place on this date.
Read All at :

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: TISHA B'AV: TRIANGULATION COMPLETE