Friday 2 October 2009

RubinReports: The West’s Choice of Strategy: Defending Itself From Terror Attacks or Combatting A Radical Strategic Threat?

The West’s Choice of Strategy: Defending Itself From Terror Attacks or Combatting A Radical Strategic Threat?

By Barry Rubin

There are two basic strategies being put forth in the West and particularly the United States today in regard to the challenge from radical and Islamist forces. The narrower, terror-only strategy is a far more tempting one to follow. It is less expensive, less risky, and makes it far easier to claim success. That’s why it has such enormous appeal and is generally the one being adopted.

--The Terror-Only Strategy

In this approach, the problem is defined as direct terror attacks on Western territory and facilities elsewhere like embassies. The enemy is those groups which directly target the West, meaning al-Qaida and its allies plus various independent local self-made terrorists (who are influenced, of course, by Jihadist propaganda).

Since these groups have no major state sponsor, this is a narrow counterterrorism strategy which does not require confrontation or conflict with any other country. It can be handled largely as a police and criminal matter. Success is measured by an ability to keep such attacks to an absolute minimum.

Moreover, it permits the luxury of ignoring attacks on or in other countries—including Israel especially—as not being a matter of much concern. Thus, a whole category of groups and their state sponsors can be ignored. If you don’t bother them, it is hoped, they won’t bother you. (This is not without exception, though, as Western states have been willing to put sanctions on Hamas, though these are under some challenge.)

This strategy also has an internal aspect. Since only those small groups which want to attack on their territory are the problem, it can be argued that the best defense is to work with Islamist groups which, no matter how extreme their ideology and their support for terrorism abroad, don’t engage in violence on your own territory.

While there is a sharp debate over the domestic aspect of the strategy--some countries like Britain and France are ready to work with "moderate" Islamists, others aren't—it has clearly won out on the international front and has been adopted by the Obama Administration.

--The Anti-Islamist Strategy

This seems closer to the Bush Administration’s view and is thus considered discredited in most Western policymaking circles. The concept here is that radical Islamist forces threaten Western strategic interests and pose the principal threat of this era.

The other side here consists, of several different forces: an Iran-led alliance (Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Iraqi insurgents); Jihadist terrorist groups (al-Qaida and its various affiliates and the Taliban); the Muslim Brotherhoods; and some countries with radical regimes (Sudan, Libya). The key problem is not whether these forces are engaged in direct violence against Western targets, they are at war with Western interests which they seek to destroy.

In this context, they may well engage in anti-Western violence in future. But more important, they are capable of seizing control of countries or regions thus wielding enormous assets. If they succeed—or are perceived by millions of Muslims as succeeding—the entire strategic balance in the Middle East would shift. Western interests would suffer a huge setback and the imbalance could escalate over time.

Obviously, this latter strategy is far less attractive to policymakers. Why get into a possible confrontation with powerful forces and large countries if that can be avoided? Why set the standard of success so high that you probably cannot reach it?

Of course, the problem is that the larger threat is by far the more serious threat. A shift in the balance of forces in such a strategic region, leading inevitably to the encouragement of subversive and violent forces in one’s own countries, is a far more dangerous situation than the occasional bombing or shooting.

But if you believe that it is adequate to deal only with direct violence against you, it can be argued that the best solution is to engage the radical forces at home and abroad, appease them, and avoid trouble. As President Barack Obama put it, he doesn’t seek victory over Iran but a solution to the problem, which is defined as Iran developing nuclear weapons without some agreement or at all.

Iranian involvement in subverting Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other countries, or fighting Israel, for example, becomes part of the background which you take for granted. But then so is Tehran’s sponsorship of terrorism against U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, too.
At home, the problem is three-fold. First, if you strengthen Islamist forces, since their goal is to transform the state and society there is a likelihood that they will be a far bigger problem in future, including involvement in violence.

Second, there are always violent spin-offs from these groups, based on the people they indoctrinate even if the main group refrains from violence. Where do Jihadi terrorists come from except through the ranks of such organizations?

Third, by empowering an Islamist leadership, such individuals and groups are more likely to emerge at the head of all, or most, of the Muslim community. This will defeat assimilationist and moderate tendencies and thus greatly magnify the power of the Islamists. In effect, the government tells Muslims: these groups are your leaders so follow them and their ideology. By doing this, massive damage is being inflicted on the host society.

Understandably, this limited terrorism-only strategy is tempting as a policy since it is so hard to do anything to solve the bigger Islamist threat. But doesn’t this choice also put the West in great long-term jeopardy, discourage more moderate Third World clients, and guarantee a far higher level of anti-Western violence in future?

That’s something most Western policymakers prefer not to think about, far less do anything about.

RubinReports: The West’s Choice of Strategy: Defending Itself From Terror Attacks or Combatting A Radical Strategic Threat?

RubinReports: Obama Administration and Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Grinding to a Total and Humiliating Halt

Obama Administration and Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Grinding to a Total and Humiliating Halt

By Barry Rubin

The newly elected Fatah Central Committee—the one that was supposedly made up of young, reform-minded moderates but actually isn’t—has told Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas that he should absolutely not negotiate with Israel unless all building of apartments anywhere on the West Bank or in east Jerusalem comes to a complete halt.

That’s not going to happen.

This means there won’t be direct negotiations, totally contradicting President Barack Obama’s absolutely clear and “firm” statement at the UN that talks much, should, and will begin immediately.

It should be remembered that this whole construction on settlements freeze idea was started by Obama himself, thus giving the Palestinians an excuse not to talk. Israel refused (Pie in Face #1). Later he backed down a bit, saying that Israel should get something in exchange for the settlement freeze, but then Arab states refused (Pie in Face #2). So he backed down again, while pretending that somebody had offered to do something.

But while Israel is eager to negotiate (not because it expects anything will be achieved), the Palestinians flatly refuse (Pie in Face #3) and keep escalating their refusal.

Israel offers a compromise in which it makes real material concessions; Palestinians remain completely intransigent but merely complain that Israel hasn't given even more. Is there a pattern here?

Obama tried to solve the problem by working out some partial freeze with Israel, an idea to which the Israeli government has responded positively. But the Palestinians simply reject such a compromise. They don’t want a medium-sized unilateral Israeli concession but will only accept a very large unilateral Israeli concession, and then only as a basis for demanding more unilateral Israeli concessions.

So what are Obama’s options at this point?

Option 1: Go back to having a confrontation with Israel demanding it freeze construction and get nothing in return. That’s not going to happen.

Option 2: Criticize the Palestinian stand and pressure it (after all, the United States is providing all of its money or helping to raise it among allied countries) to go to talks. That’s not going to happen.

Option 3: Pretend everything is going well, have officials run around as if something is getting done, develop some new photo opportunities, and hope no one notices. Yep, that’s the one.

Here's how Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat put it: "There will not be Palestinian-Israeli negotiations in Washington. There will be parallel American-Israeli negotiations and Palestinian-American negotiations." That sort of sets things back to the way they were around 1990.

After nine months in office and after having declared it would hit the ground running on Israel-Palestinian issues and get peace very fast, the Obama Administration has achieved nothing. In fact, it has set back the process and is getting less done than the supposedly criminally passive Bush Administration.

RubinReports: Obama Administration and Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Grinding to a Total and Humiliating Halt

RubinReports: Winston Churchill and Multiculturalist Political Correctness in 1898

Winston Churchill and Multiculturalist Political Correctness in 1898

By Barry Rubin

If you think things have changed so much from the past, consider a letter Winston Churchill wrote on August 24, 1898. He was a lieutenant with the British force fighting the Islamist state of the Mahdi in Sudan—in some ways a far more successful version of Usama bin Ladin--and which succeeded in destroying it.

When the British column reached the town of Metemmeh, Churchill wrote:

“Metemmeh was a great stronghold of the Jaalins [a tribe almost wiped out by the Mahdi’s armies] and when Mahmoud [commander of a Mahdist army] took it last year he put all the men and children to the sword. He also paraded all the women and selecting forty for even greater horrors had the others decapitated. This paladin is now in Wadi Halfa jail and will probably soon become the object of sympathy among certain classes in England. The correct procedure in his case would be to try him [in court] and if he should be found guilty to hang him….It would, of course, be urged on his behalf that he had only acted according to his nature, and that he should not be judged by our standards. Some people will perhaps admit that plea [but Churchill expects his correspondent would not do so] for I remember that you have several times asserted in my hearing your belief in an eternal standard of right and wrong independent of and superior to climate, custom, and caprice. ”

So it’s all there in 1898: popular sympathy by elements in the elite for a mass murderer and the excusing of his crimes due to the rational of cultural relativism.


RubinReports: Winston Churchill and Multiculturalist Political Correctness in 1898

Israel Matzav: Negotiating over the shape of the table

Negotiating over the shape of the table

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember the Paris Peace Talks that were designed to bring about an end to the Vietnam War. With his term of office coming to an end in late 1968, Lyndon Johnson was determined to get substantive peace talks with North Vietnam going before he turned over the reins of power to Richard Nixon on January 20, 1969. But North Vietnam had different ideas.

The official talks still did not begin. South Vietnam raised a series of procedural issues, the most prominent of which were the particular use of flags and name plates, the speaking order of the participants, and the physical arrangement of the conference, including most notably the shape of the conference table. On the latter issue, the North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front (NLF) insisted on a four-sided table to emphasize equality between the parties, while the United States and especially the GVN favored a two-sided arrangement that did not obviously give the NLF equal footing with the GVN. (250, 260, 264) On January 2, 1969, the North Vietnamese relented on their requirement that made flags and nameplates contingent upon the acceptance by the other side of a continuous round table. (268, 269) On January 7 Johnson sent Thieu a strongly worded message to desist from the "continued stalemate on present lines" that was undermining public support within the United States for South Vietnam. (276) Thieu continued to refuse to consider such a trade-off from his original position on the shape of the table. (277-279) Pressure on Thieu from Washington coupled with the involvement of Soviet diplomats eventually overcame this impasse. On January 13 the Soviet Ambassador in Paris directed his subordinate to propose a resolution: a round table with two smaller rectangular tables at opposite sides; no flags or nameplates; and speaking order arranged by the drawing of lots. (280, 281) Both the North Vietnamese and the American delegations agreed to this proposal on January 15, as did both South Vietnam and the NLF the next day. (283, 284) On January 18 the first meeting between the four parties, which focused solely on modalities for the substantive talks, was held. (286) The Johnson administration left office on January 20, 1969, with the knowledge that peace talks were finally underway.

Those talks may have been the diplomatic model for an exercise in futility. Until now.

Having been emboldened by the Obama administration's foolish effort to bring about a 'full settlement freeze,' the 'Palestinians' are continuing to refuse to engage in direct negotiations with Israel without that freeze. And Barry Rubin reports that President Obama does not have a lot of options.

So what are Obama’s options at this point?

Option 1: Go back to having a confrontation with Israel demanding it freeze construction and get nothing in return. That’s not going to happen.

Option 2: Criticize the Palestinian stand and pressure it (after all, the United States is providing all of its money or helping to raise it among allied countries) to go to talks. That’s not going to happen.

Option 3: Pretend everything is going well, have officials run around as if something is getting done, develop some new photo opportunities, and hope no one notices. Yep, that’s the one.

Here's how Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat put it: "There will not be Palestinian-Israeli negotiations in Washington. There will be parallel American-Israeli negotiations and Palestinian-American negotiations." That sort of sets things back to the way they were around 1990.

After nine months in office and after having declared it would hit the ground running on Israel-Palestinian issues and get peace very fast, the Obama Administration has achieved nothing. In fact, it has set back the process and is getting less done than the supposedly criminally passive Bush Administration.

Indeed. It looks like hope and change same.


Israel Matzav: Negotiating over the shape of the table

Israel Matzav: Iran steps back from the brink?

Iran steps back from the brink?

The Washington Post reports that Iran and the P - 5 + 1 reached a 'series of understandings' in Geneva on Thursday, which represent a step back from confrontation between Iran and the West (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Under the tentative deal, Iran would give up most of its enriched uranium to Russia in order for it to be converted into desperately needed material for a medical research reactor in Tehran. Iran also agreed to let international inspectors visit the newly disclosed uranium-enrichment facility in Qom within two weeks, and then to attend another meeting with negotiators from the major powers by the end of the month. The series of agreements struck at the meeting was in itself unusual because, in the past, the Iranian negotiators have said they would get back with an answer -- and then fail to do so.

If this sounds a little too pat for you, well, you're not the only one. I'll give you my reaction to this in a little bit, but first I'd like to give you John Bolton's reaction.

The outcome of the talks was immediately criticized by former U.N. ambassador John R. Bolton, who as a Bush administration official balked at George W. Bush's efforts to entice Iran into negotiations. "They've now got the United States ensnared in negotiations," he said. "This is like the movie 'Groundhog Day.' " But another Bush-era official, former undersecretary of state R. Nicholas Burns, said that even if talks fail, Obama will have demonstrated that he tried hard to make diplomacy work -- and will win greater support for sanctions.

And everyone agrees that this does not end the standoff:

"This is only a start, and we shall need to see progress through some of the practical steps we have discussed today," said European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who headed the delegation of six nations meeting with Iran. He said he hoped for "rapid and intense" negotiations to follow.

U.S. officials have asserted that the revelation of the Qom facility had diplomatically isolated Iran, leaving it little choice but to cooperate or face new sanctions. Diplomats said the term "sanctions" was never uttered during the lengthy day, though oblique reference was made to a statement issued by foreign ministers of the group last week. That statement raised the possibility of more sanctions if no negotiating track was soon established.

My first thought on seeing this story was that Iran was agreeing to ship most of its known enriched uranium to Russia - not most of its enriched uranium. The New York Times addresses that point:

Iran’s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing — if it happens — would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.

If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded.

Does anyone really doubt that Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium? And the Times points out other problematic points that were ignored or not clarified in Thursday's announcement.

While American officials refused to specify the amount, other Western officials said it could be 1,200 kilograms, or more than 2,600 pounds, of enriched uranium, which could be as much as 75 percent of Iran’s declared stockpile. While there may be hidden stocks of enriched uranium, such a transfer, if it occurs, “buys some time” for further negotiations, a senior American official said.

...

Many diplomats and analysts believe that the plant near Qum is only one of a series of hidden installations that Iran has constructed, in addition to its publicly acknowledged ones, for what is considered to be a military program. Iran insists that its program is purely peaceful and that it has a right under the nonproliferation treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But it has regularly lied to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency about its facilities.

And then there's another possibility: What if Ahmadinejad and Khameni decide that their negotiator - Saeed Jalili - went too far and exceeded his authority?

What this does do - unfortunately - is take a military option out of Israel's hands for the time being. So while the Post is portraying it as a victory for the West and the Times is writing about the Obama administration's pains to strike a cautious tone, the real winner here is Iran. Once again, it has bought time to continue spinning the centrifuges that are hidden from the public and the inspectors.

What more could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Iran steps back from the brink?

Israel Matzav: 'Human Rights Council' vote on Goldstone postponed to March

'Human Rights Council' vote on Goldstone postponed to March

With the consent of the 'Palestinian Authority,' the 'Human Rights Council' agreed on Thursday to postpone a vote on referring the Goldstone Commission Report to the United Nations Security Council to March.

The deferral came after unsuccessful negotiations to find a compromise text that would be acceptable to the six Western countries on the 47-member council: the United States, Belgium, France, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom.

...

There were reports of US pressure on the PA to defer the vote, with some sources claiming that US President Barack Obama had personally intervened behind the scenes, impressing upon the Palestinians that the diplomatic process would be adversely affected if the vote were not shelved.

The PLO ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi, told The Jerusalem Post he was interested in a compromise text because it was important that the report, which condemned Israel's military actions in Gaza last January, received the widest range of support possible.

"It will help us to explain to the Israelis that the international community is with the Palestinians to achieve their hopes and their dreams," said Khraishi.

When the hour grew late and no compromise was in sight, he said, "we decided to defer the matter" to the council's next session in March.

Israel was pleased with the outcome.

"What happened today is proof that their strategy of not cooperating" with the four-person fact-finding mission led by South Africa jurist Richard Goldstone "was correct... Israel insisted from the beginning that this was about politics against the State of Israel and not human rights. It emphasized the primacy of the peace process. It is a precedent for all states fighting terror," said Leshno-Yaar.

He added that "it shows above all that the priority of the international community is to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to relaunch negotiations."

At a press conference with the international media on Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon slammed Fatah for its hypocrisy.

He noted that Fatah, which "pushed us to do away with Hamas" in Gaza, is "now trying to take us into the international courts" for Israel's military actions against Hamas.

"Not to mention the fact that the ones who are benefiting from this report are the extremists anywhere and everywhere, especially in Gaza," said Ayalon.

UN Watch's Hillel Neuer called Thursday's postponement a 'massive defeat' for Goldstone.

"This constitutes a massive defeat for Mr. Goldstone's biased report, a slipshod piece of work whose scattershot recommendations to the entire world threatened to ...harm, not help, the peace process," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva human rights monitoring group.

I suppose that a postponement is the best outcome. I don't see anything changing in six months unless the West decides to vote against us (I'm sure Norway will and probably wanted to already, but they are the least influential of the six nations listed). The 'Palestinians' are not going to let up on a referral to the UN General Assembly (where there is no veto), to the Security Council (where the United States will be pressured not to use its veto) and to the International Criminal Court.

But Goldstone is paving the path for 'peace.' What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: 'Human Rights Council' vote on Goldstone postponed to March

Love of the Land: The Quartet's disturbing shift and America's new direction

The Quartet's disturbing shift and America's new direction


Dore Gold
JPost
02 October 09

Amidst the major developments of the last few weeks surrounding Iran and the opening of the UN General Assembly, the Quartet - representing the US, the UN Secretariat, the EU and Russia - issued a new policy statement in New York on September 24 about the state of Israeli-Palestinian contacts that was extremely disturbing. Surprisingly, it has received little if any notice in the mainstream media.

As usual, the Quartet meeting in New York that issued the statement was held at a very senior level - including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with the US special envoy George Mitchell, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, and Tony Blair, the Quartet representative.

At the outset, the statement discarded the principle of reciprocity, which not only is closely associated with the diplomatic principles advocated by Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but is also a fundamental axiom of international law. Astoundingly, the Quartet called on both parties to "act on their previous agreements and obligations - in particular adherence to the road map, irrespective of reciprocity (emphasis added)..."

The road map was issued in March 2003 by the Quartet, which was formed by the Bush administration to provide European states with a formal peacemaking role in exchange for gaining their support for the Iraq War.

But the original road map was "performance-based" - movement from one stage to the next was contingent upon the fulfillment by both Israelis and Palestinians of their respective responsibilities. Now this critical element appeared to have been removed. True, the erosion of the road map was helped by past Israeli governments that plunged into permanent-status negotiations before the Palestinians fulfilled their obligations. But it is the new formal position of the Quartet that provides the final blow to the road map's carefully structured conditionality.

In general, the Quartet wanted to provide its own multilateral stamp of approval on President Barack Obama's UN address from September 22. It is to be remembered that Obama's remarks were unusual in their exceptionally long and detailed treatment of the Arab-Israel conflict: Roughly one-tenth of the speech was devoted to the issue of Israel and the Palestinians - far more than any other conflict in the world. He specifically proposed the establishment of "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."

In doing so, Obama adopted language that was not balanced out by an equal reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242, which appears in the Quartet road map and did not call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines.

OBAMA'S PUSH for the 1967 lines is also evident in his language during his UN address that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

In April 2004, president George W. Bush sent a letter to prime minister Ariel Sharon stating that it was unrealistic to expect that Israel would withdraw from its large "population centers" in the West Bank. This acknowledgement of the settlement blocs granted a portion of the settlements a degree of legitimacy that Obama's formal remarks denied.

It also led Bush to accept the fact that Israel was not going to withdraw to the 1967 lines and was entitled to "defensible borders." The Bush letter, moreover, received massive support from both houses of the US Congress in June 2004, providing it with bipartisan backing (including Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Hillary Clinton). Given the language Obama used at the UN - and the Quartet now backed - it is not surprising that his administration has not openly committed itself to the 2004 letter.

The Quartet statement also goes out of its way to back the Palestinian Authority's new plan for building the institutions of a Palestinian state over the next 24 months - which was drafted by Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad. On the one hand, the Fayad Plan appears to address Israel's call for bottom-up peacemaking by tackling head-on the lack of sufficient self-governing bodies on the Palestinian side. On the other hand, it is a program that leads the Palestinian Authority seven-eighths of the way to an independent Palestinian state, leaving ambiguous how the Palestinians get to the finish line. What it leaves open is the possibility of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians or by someone else.
(cid=1254393080355&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull">Full Article)


Love of the Land: The Quartet's disturbing shift and America's new direction

Love of the Land: The Waller Family: “Harvesting” in Israel

The Waller Family: “Harvesting” in Israel

Shilo Musings
Posted by Jewish Israel
02 October 09

It’s Erev Succot and “harvest” time in Israel...

Tommy Waller and his family of 13, plus a company of many more, are here to help with the grape harvest and do other agricultural work in or near the communities of Har Bracha, Ariel, Itamar and Shiloh.

As devout evangelicals, the Wallers have a hankerin’ for “breaking barriers” and “planting the grapes in Samaria, with the people of Israel and at the same time, chipping away at that wall”[that separates Jews and Christians]. Meanwhile, the Jews are obligated to keep those fences intact and avoid avoda zarah at all costs.

It’s not that the Wallers aren’t good, moral, upstanding Christians – because they are. It’s just that the old “one new man” and "grafted" thing keeps getting in the way.

If it helps clear the air, Jewish Israel would like evangelicals (and Jews for that matter) to understand that our avoidance of a theologically-based Jewish-Christian reconciliation is not due to generations of anti-Semitic baggage. Rather, it is an halachic issue of the highest order.

Jewish Israel explores the costs involved when we partner with those who help harvest our fields with the ultimate intentions of "harvesting our souls" and laying claim to our inheritance in Eretz Yisrael...more at Jewish Israel


Love of the Land: The Waller Family: “Harvesting” in Israel

Love of the Land: Manhigut Yehudit - Chol HaMoed

Manhigut Yehudit - Chol HaMoed


Sunday, 1st Day of Chol Hamoed Sukkot (16 Tishrei/Oct. 4) Jerusalem
Open Sukkah with Moshe Feiglin, Michael Fuah,
Rabbis, MKs, and Manhigut Yehudit Friends


Place:
Sukkah of Sharki Family
11 Givat Shaul St. (Ground floor)
Givat Shaul, Jerusalem

Time:
4 p.m. and on

Join us for a meat meal, refreshments and discussions.

All are welcome!
Tuesday, 3rd Day of Chol Hamoed Sukkot (18 Tishrei/Oct. 6) Shomron
All-day "Tiyul" for the entire family - bring the kids!10AM - Bullet-proof bus picks up from the Citadel Hotel and travels to the GOLANI army base in the Shechem area. The officers on the base will show us around the base and let the kids jump on the equipment. They will also show us Mt. Gerizzim and Mt. Eval and we will look at a great view of Kever Yosef.

After that, we will tour the Yitzhar organic winery, which Manhigut Yehudit helped plant. There will be delicious wine tasting for everybody! See also the brand new "Od Yosef Chai" Yeshiva building (in Yitzhar) built by Ben Landa, Chairman of the Board of Manhigut Yehudit. Mincha will be held in the Yeshiva's beautiful Bet Midrash.

After that, we will proceed to the Neve Aliza neighborhood of Karnei Shomron and have lunch with Moshe and Tzippy Feiglin in their Sukkah!

B'ezrat Hashem, the bus will return to Jerusalem at around 7:30PM.

Space is limited and you MUST reserve ASAP.

Cost for this trip is: NIS 70 per person.

Our apologizes for the high price but the Ministry of Tourism REQUIRES a bullet-proof bus on a trip like this and these buses are quite expensive.

For more information, or to RSVP for the "tiyul" on Tuesday,
please call Shmuel Sackett (052) 607-0119

You can also send Shmuel an email at: Shmuel@JewishIsrael.org
Wednesday, 4th Day of Chol Hamoed Sukkot (19 Tishrei/Oct. 7) Jerusalem
Going up to "Har Ha'Bayit" with Moshe Feiglin and Shmuel Sackett
(That's REAL "aliyah la'regel"!!!)
Please be at the entrance to Har Ha'Bayit (next to the main entrance for the Kotel) - after all Halachic preparations - at 7:30 AM SHARP!!!

If you get there any later, the police will not allow you to ascend. You must also bring picture ID (passport, drivers license, teudat zehut)

This aliyah to Har Ha'Bayit is limited to men only.

For more information, or to RSVP for the "tiyul" on Tuesday,
please call Shmuel Sackett (052) 607-0119

You can also send Shmuel an email at: Shmuel@JewishIsrael.org



Love of the Land: Manhigut Yehudit - Chol HaMoed

Love of the Land: New Neighborhood in Shiloh!

New Neighborhood in Shiloh!

Batya Medad
Shilo Musings
2 October 09

Groundbreaking has begun on Shiloh's new housing project.




As I've written many times, we have a serious housing shortage. Many people want to move to Shiloh for its community, education, convenient location and other reasons. It's amazing how many kids who grew up here want to raise their kids in Shiloh. This building initative is by one of them.

(Ken Yirbu!)


Love of the Land: New Neighborhood in Shiloh!

Love of the Land: Weekly Commentary: Palestinian demands to free terrorists - the failed litmus test#links#links

Weekly Commentary: Palestinian demands to free terrorists - the failed litmus test


Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
1 October 09

If a Palestinian gunman was captured tonight as he was murdering an Israeli family what would "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas like Israel to with him?

Transfer him to a Palestinian prison to serve his sentence?

No.

Transfer him to the Palestinian Authority to be tried and punished?

No.

How about banish him from the country?

No.

Then what does "moderate" Abbas demand that Israel do with a Palestinian gunman captured as he was murdering an Israeli family?

Release him.

That's right.

And for a hero's welcome.

This is a fundamental problem.

Because when Palestinian "moderates" want Israel to release all Palestinian terrorists regardless of when they committed their crimes, they are effectively saying that no Palestinian commitment is binding. - including the very anchor commitment of Oslo to abandon violence.

In the heady early days of Oslo when some leading Israeli Leftists argued for the release of terrorists with "blood on their hands", the debate was over murderers serving time for pre-Oslo crimes. Post Oslo crime was just that: crime.

But not in the eyes of the Palestinian "moderates".

For these "moderate" Palestinians, terrorists aren't guilty of murder - at most they are guilty of bad PR for the cause.

Love of the Land: Weekly Commentary: Palestinian demands to free terrorists - the failed litmus test

Love of the Land: Sukkot 2009

Sukkot 2009


Sukkot 2009: Dry Bones cartoon.

I am off on a speaking tour in the States until the end of October. I wrote, drew, and posted a set of cartoons to provide you with a daily chuckle while I'm away.

This is one of those cartoons.



Love of the Land: Sukkot 2009

Israel Matzav: The UAE adopts 'transfer'

Israel Matzav: The UAE adopts 'transfer'

DoubleTapper: IDF Women

DoubleTapper: IDF Women

DoubleTapper: The Festival of Sukkot

DoubleTapper: The Festival of Sukkot

Love of the Land: Civil Fights: Goldstone's recipe for never-ending conflict

Civil Fights: Goldstone's recipe for never-ending conflict


Evelyn Gordon
JPost
30 September 09


It is a pity that amid the 10,000 documents he perused while seeking war crimes in Gaza, Judge Richard Goldstone did not make time for one book - or even one review. The book is The Bitter Road to Freedom: A New History of the Liberation of Europe, by historian William Hitchcock, and reading it would undoubtedly have given Goldstone insight into the reality of warfare. But even Richard Bernstein's thoughtful review in The New York Times last May would have sufficed.

The book details the sheer scope of civilian casualties, including Allied ones, that Europe's liberation from the Nazis entailed. For instance, 1,300 civilians died in a single Normandy department, Calvados, on D-Day alone; another 1,200 died the next day. Some 900 French civilians were killed in a single town, Rouen, on another single day, April 19, when Britain bombed it to soften German resistance. Altogether, about 19,890 civilians died in the five worst-hit French departments over just 11 weeks: June 6 to August 25, 1944.

Hitchcock's point, Bernstein noted, is not that the Allies committed war crimes, but that "even in a morally clear, entirely just and necessary conflict like World War II, civilian suffering was tremendous."

Indeed, Hitchcock goes even further: World War II succeeded "in large part because it was so brutal," Bernstein quotes him saying. The Allies won, "but this victory required massive force."

And that is the truth Goldstone's commission signally ignored: It is not possible to wage any kind of war without civilian casualties. The Allies did not slaughter French civilians intentionally. But if civilians are present in a war zone, many will inevitably die.

Partly, this is because mistakes are inevitable. Information in wartime is always imperfect; it is often impossible to know whether the people in your sights are civilians, enemy fighters or your own soldiers. Soldiers must make split-second judgments using this imperfect information, and sometimes they are wrong.

Moreover, even with correct information, nobody is infallible. And misaiming by even a hair can mean hitting an innocent person or building instead of the target.

That is why all battles produce friendly-fire casualties. Indeed, four of the 10 IDF soldiers killed in the Gaza fighting - fully 40 percent - were friendly-fire deaths. Does Goldstone believe Israeli troops shot their own comrades deliberately? Presumably not. Yet he insists that numerous Palestinian civilians were killed deliberately. That Israelis err when killing their comrades but never when killing Palestinians is a conclusion so illogical as to defy comprehension.

And indeed, simple error can easily explain many of Goldstone's "Israeli war crimes." But Hitchcock also offers a lesson relevant to the rest: Not only is it impossible to wage war without civilian casualties, but the harder you try, the less effective your fighting becomes.
(
Full Article)



Love of the Land: Civil Fights: Goldstone's recipe for never-ending conflict

Love of the Land: Obama Administration and Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Grinding to a Total and Humiliating Halt

Obama Administration and Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Grinding to a Total and Humiliating Halt


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
1 October 09

The newly elected Fatah Central Committee—the one that was supposedly made up of young, reform-minded moderates but actually isn’t—has told Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas that he should absolutely not negotiate with Israel unless all building of apartments anywhere on the West Bank or in east Jerusalem comes to a complete halt.

That’s not going to happen.

This means there won’t be direct negotiations, totally contradicting President Barack Obama’s absolutely clear and “firm” statement at the UN that talks much, should, and will begin immediately.

It should be remembered that this whole construction on settlements freeze idea was started by Obama himself, thus giving the Palestinians an excuse not to talk. Israel refused (Pie in Face #1). Later he backed down a bit, saying that Israel should get something in exchange for the settlement freeze, but then Arab states refused (Pie in Face #2). So he backed down again, while pretending that somebody had offered to do something.

But while Israel is eager to negotiate (not because it expects anything will be achieved), the Palestinians flatly refuse (Pie in Face #3) and keep escalating their refusal.

Israel offers a compromise in which it makes real material concessions; Palestinians remain completely intransigent. Is there a pattern here?

Obama tried to solve the problem by working out some partial freeze with Israel, an idea to which the Israeli government has responded positively. But the Palestinians simply reject such a compromise. They don’t want a medium-sized unilateral Israeli concession but will only accept a very large unilateral Israeli concession, and then only as a basis for demanding more unilateral Israeli concessions.

So what are Obama’s options at this point?

Option 1: Go back to having a confrontation with Israel demanding it freeze construction and get nothing in return. That’s not going to happen.

Option 2: Criticize the Palestinian stand and pressure it (after all, the United States is providing all of its money or helping to raise it among allied countries) to go to talks. That’s not going to happen.

Option 3: Pretend everything is going well, have officials run around as if something is getting done, develop some new photo opportunities, and hope no one notices. Yep, that’s the one.

After nine months in office and after having declared it would hit the ground running on Israel-Palestinian issues and get peace very fast, the Obama Administration has achieved nothing. In fact, it has set back the process and is getting less done than the supposedly criminally passive Bush Administration.




Love of the Land: Obama Administration and Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Grinding to a Total and Humiliating Halt

Love of the Land: King Abdullah's imaginative inter-faith initiative

King Abdullah's imaginative inter-faith initiative


Melanie Phillips
The Spectator
1 October 09




In Arab News, we learn that Bava Jain, secretary-general of the World Council of Religious Leaders, has described as historic and bold the two-day international inter-faith conference which opened today in Geneva. The conference is the initiative of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who, says Bava Jain, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for an initiative which potentially


would have tremendous impact on world peace and stability if effective measures were taken to implement it.


The report tells us:


Delegates from 35 countries are taking part in the conference, which opens Wednesday. They include William Baker, president of Christians and Muslims for Peace in the US; David Rosen, director of inter-religious affairs at the American Jewish Committee; Pramjeet Singh Sarna, president of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib; Kuniaki Kuni, president of the Association of Shinto Temples in Japan; and Xue Cheng, vice chairman of the Buddhist Association of China.


Er...William Baker? Wikipedia tells us:


William Baker ... was expelled from Robert H. Schuller's Crystal Cathedral mission after exposure of his affiliations with extremistfar-right racist, antisemitic and Neo-Nazi groups, including chairmanship of the Neo-Nazi Populist Party.


Orange County Weekly reported in 2002:


... evidence supplied by the Anti-Defamation League shows that Baker delivered a 1983 speech to the racist Christian Patriot Defense League in Licking, Missouri, in which he made several references to [Willis] Carto’s neo-Nazi newspaper, Spotlight. A 23-page transcript of that rambling speech reveals a number of anti-Semitic remarks, including Baker's reference to Reverend Jerry Falwell as ‘Jerry Jewry.’ (Falwell is known to be friendly to Jews.) In the same speech, Baker described his disgust at traveling to New York City: ‘God help me. Why? ’Cause the first people I meet when I get off the plane are pushy, belligerent American Jews.’


... During the same period, Baker wrote and published Theft of a Nation, a 1982 book whose salient feature is its unrelenting pro-Arab, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish politics. Writing on contemporary Middle East politics, Baker stated that ‘true justice and real conciliation’ requires that ‘all Jews who entered Palestine during the British Mandate from 1917 to 1948 and after the establishment of the state of Israel should return to the various countries of their origin’ and that the ‘Zionist state of Israel . . . should be dismantled and eventually eliminated.’


Isn’t inter-faith dialogue wonderful?



Love of the Land: King Abdullah's imaginative inter-faith initiative

Love of the Land: A "dirty little secret"

A "dirty little secret"


Every time someone writes, speaks of ‘Palestinians’ a myth is reinforced

Moshe Dann
Ynet/Opinion
30 September 09

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Nakba (catastrophe) for Arabs, and the aggression by five well-armed Arab countries, assisting local Arab gangs and militias that had been attacking Jews for years, placed Jews in Israel and the state in mortal danger.

Fighting back, Israel eventually negotiated an armistice in 1949 that allowed a respite from open war, albeit not terrorism, and without peace. The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip; the Jordanians occupied Judea, Samaria and the eastern part of Jerusalem, including the Old City and Temple Mount; Syria continued to occupy the Golan Heights, from which it constantly shelled Israeli settlements; all trained and supplied terrorists who raided Israel. The UN did nothing.

Arabs who left homes and property in Israel and many from other countries who joined Arab armies and did not want to return, remained in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, most as "refugees" under the care of UNRWA.

This heterogeneous population was called "Arab refugees," not "Palestinians," because at the time there was no such group, or people.

One reason they were called "Arab refugees" was because there were many other refugees in Palestine, who were Jewish. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries streamed into Israel. UNRWA offered no aid, although Jewish refugees had lost everything and the newly established state had few resources.

It took a crafty Egyptian, Yasser Arafat, to create the PLO with his friends to promote the destruction of Israel and the return of Arab refugees. Arab countries saw them as convenient proxies in their war against Israel, to "liberate Palestine."

Except for Jordan, no Arab host country permitted the newcomers to obtain citizenship; as temporary residents, their civil and humanitarian rights were harshly restricted.

The designation "Palestinian" did not become widely accepted until after the war in 1967, in which Israel, in self-defense, captured areas that had been assigned to a Jewish State by the League of Nations and Mandate, and then occupied by Arab countries: Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem; the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, rich in Jewish history and archeology, and the Sinai Peninsula.

As the PLO launched mega-terrorist attacks around the world, "Palestinianism" became accepted, backed by the Arab League, Muslim and "non-aligned" countries, and the United Nations.

As the proportion of anti-Israel countries in the UN grew, "Palestinians" were given more and more recognition, support and legitimacy, unlike any other group.

And the fraud worked! It worked so well because the world's media accepted the Palestinians' self-definition and their cause. Even the Israeli media, politicians and jurists adopted this myth. Academics promoted "Palestinian archeology," "Palestinian society and culture." Every time someone writes or speaks of "Palestinians" it reinforces this myth.

‘Liberating Palestine’

Most major newspapers use only the term "West Bank" – a Jordanian reference from 1950 to distinguish the area from the "East Bank" – rather than its authentic names, Judea and Samaria, apparently to deny its Jewish history.

"Palestinian" came to mean Arabs who lived in Judea, Samaria and Gaza – as well as those in UNRWA-sponsored "refugee camps" in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians" living throughout the world. By UNRWA's unique and controversial definition, anyone who claims to live or have lived in Palestine, and all descendents, forever, are considered "Palestinian," with full rights and privileges.

Spread among 58 "refugee camps" (in many cases entire towns) UNRWA's over half-billion dollar budget supports about 1.5 million "refugees in camps" and 5 million "registered refugees;" the total population is expected to reach 7 or 8 million next year, and growing.

As Palestinian nationalism spread among Israeli Arabs, the term became an identity magnet for Arabs on both sides of the 1949 Armistice Line – the "Green Line," as well as those living in other countries. Today, "Palestinian" can be anyone who for whatever reason identifies as such, including their children, grandchildren, etc.

This amalgam of national identity is possible because "Palestinian" is not a separate, unique linguistic, cultural, ethnic, religious or racial group. Nor does this motley group, currently led by Fatah and Hamas terrorist organizations, aspire to a country with clearly defined borders. Their goal is not statehood, but exterminating the Jews, thereby "liberating Palestine."

The success of "Palestinianism" is a tribute to what money, influence and Jew-hatred will buy and attract. That Jewish and Israeli media and NGO's support Palestinianism stems from liberal ideals of helping those who are less fortunate, the underdog, and even a genuine, although misdirected desire to live in peace, a supreme Jewish value.

Although there's probably no way to prevent the notion of "Palestiniansm" from spreading, there's no reason to ignore it, and less to accept it. Arabs of Palestine are entitled to civil and human rights in the countries in which they have resided for generations. That there needs to be a second Arab Palestinian state, in addition to Jordan, which was carved out of Palestine and whose population is two-thirds "Palestinian," and whether such a state will resolve all the attendant problems is extremely doubtful.

That the State of Israel should commit suicide to accomplish this goal is unthinkable.

The author, a former assistant professor of History, is a writer and journalist living in Israel.

Love of the Land: A "dirty little secret"

Love of the Land: Sparks

Sparks


Yesha Views
Marc Prowisor
1 October 09

So where are the Goldstones now? Lately the Negev is enjoying the pleasure of Kassams and Mortars a few times a day, yet Goldstone and his ilk say nothing. The UN ignores these little “hindrances”, and the rest of the Human Rights Activists just keep their mouths shut. Do you know why??? Because not only do they not care, they do not like Israel, and guess what, most of them don’t like Jews being in Israel.

Violence is on the rise in Judea and Samaria also, but the lives of Jews in these regions do not deserve the same rights and protection as others. Indeed, actions against the Jewish populous are applauded in the halls of the UN. Organizations such as Brit Tzedek, Gush Shalom and J Street to name a few support violence against our people in the Jewish heartland, and there are claims that not just verbal support.

Over here in Israel, we read also the claims of how lifting the roadblocks are one of the major causes of this rise in violence, not true. The recent lifting of the roadblocks is causing a 500% rise in theft, weapons transfers, strengthening of the terror infrastructure. It has eased the lives of many Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not the cause of the increase in terror, it is helping, but it is not the cause or reason.

The reason is very simple, the Terrorists of Judea and Samaria want to kill Jews. They will continue to want to kill Jews, why not, this is what they are taught, and the world is not against it, as long as it is done in Israel. They are being incited in their Mosques, in their coffee shops, and most heinous, in their schools. One of the motives we are seeing is the feeble attempt of Fatah trying to gain strength outside of Ramallah, by renewing the “struggle”. You see, a “Palestinian” Campaign strategy includes how many Jews you will kill, simply put, kill more Jews, get more votes, and get more money. Let’s not forget how they are enjoying a new status and their new friends. This support they are enjoying in their fight against Israel from many nations, and “Leaders” is a strong catalyst in the increase of terror. As more and more Western nations are adopting a stronger Islamic presence and identity among their ranks, we will see this spread and grow, all over. So again, the reason for this increase in terror is not the removal of roadblocks.

I admit to even being a little comforted by the waking up of many Jews in America, as to the realizing of the goals of the Arabs, that in the destruction of Israel, as a Jewish State, and as a Country. Achminajad is also helping, his persistent ranting against Israel, his threats, his insanity is also scaring some more people into our corner. He has people waking up to the fact that many of Israel’s friends are only “fair weather friends”, and not really at our side. Strange isn’t it when there are reports of Arab Nations that claim they will permit Israel to fly over their territory to attack Iran, while the US, or Zbinew, claim they will stop Israeli jets from doing so. Most do not realize the reason the Arab nations want to stop Iran is that they are afraid that if he launches a nuclear attack on Israel, the winds will carry the “cloud” over to their countries, what would they say if Israel was located in Africa?

There is still a long way to go, but more and more of our people are waking up. If we could only get more of them out to see and understand the real picture, and the real face of our adversaries, we would have a flood on our hands, the good kind of flood. But that too will come.

Bibi’s speech touched many, whether his intentions are honorable or not is a separate issue, but we see how when Jewish strength and identity is spoken of, it reaches our core. When a “Jewish State” is mentioned, it reaches our soul and sparks are rekindled. It is these sparks that terrify our enemies, it is these sparks that can help stoke the fires of the continued Jewish presence in Israel, all of Israel.

We must continue as a people to rekindle these sparks, the sparks in all of us, as a people, as one people, wherever we are, until the fire returns to burn brightly in our midst. We are all we have and we must work together and continue to be strong in our land, in our Jewish Land, in all of our Jewish Land, it is, our right.

AM YISRAEL CHAI V’ KAYAM!



Love of the Land: Sparks

Love of the Land: Don't Establish An Investigative Panel

Don't Establish An Investigative Panel


Israel Harel
Haaretz
1 October 09

No committee headed by former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak should be established, nor should any other committee. It would evolve from an "investigative" committee into a commission of inquiry. And instead of concentrating on preparing the army for the coming battles, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and our senior officers would concentrate on defending their honor and innocence.

We should not delude ourselves: The campaign against Israel will continue even if a committee exonerates the Israel Defense Forces and the political leadership - even more so if it finds them at fault. After all, Aharon Barak will want to preserve his international reputation as a prophet and admonisher of Israel. Let's not dig our own grave.

I've spoken to officers. They understand that in addition to endangering their lives on the battlefield, they will have to give up trips and studies in certain countries - a negligible price for those with a sense of mission. On the other hand, they are angry at what is beginning to look like a ritual: facing a commission of inquiry after every campaign. If this absurdity does not stop we will not have a fighting army. After all, emasculating the IDF is the goal of Israel's enemies, both within and without.

They want to turn us into the leper among nations. There is a primeval fear of lepers. And fear gives rise to hatred. And the blood of lepers, certainly lepers who perpetrate crimes against humanity, is permitted. That's what happened in Europe throughout history and reached a climax during World War II. This service - official legal authorization that we are a nation that frequently sins against humanity - has been granted us by one of our own (those who agree with him, but don't dare say so, repeatedly emphasize that he is a "Zionist").

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion accused us of a worldwide conspiracy; now comes a Jewish judge and reveals that the truth is even more bitter: From the moment we returned to our homeland we have been committing far worse crimes. Controlling the banks and the world media and causing conflict among nations - even using the blood of Christian children for baking matzah - was only the tip of the iceberg. When the Jews run an army they reveal the full extent of their satanic nature. That's another reason why the independent Jewish entity must be disbanded.

And if the defamatory campaign does not succeed, there is the other option, the one being created in Bushehr and Qom. And to prepare the ground for that option we must expose the true face of the Jews. And that is what Richard Goldstone is doing.

An example of this preparing of the ground is what happened in Britain. The ordinary Englishman who reads in The Evening Standard that Israel's defense minister is wanted for crimes against humanity was reinforced in his awareness - after all, the delegitimization campaign did not begin yesterday - that everything he has been fed about the Jewish people is nothing compared to the harm this nation really does.

The plot to turn us into the lepers of the world is deeply etched in the consciousness of many nations, even those who pretend to carry the flag of justice and purity. What all those enlisted against us have in common - countries, non-governmental organizations and foundations that finance the hunt - is the desire to depict Israel as an impure, unprotected animal that may be hunted freely.

And then the reader of the popular press on the London Underground, the New York subway or the Paris Metro will react with indifference at best regarding the powerlessness of his government, which is not fighting to prevent the nuclearization of Iran. After all, so he is told, this arms race is directed only against Israel.

Love of the Land: Don't Establish An Investigative Panel

Love of the Land: Fundamentally Freund: A March For the Living

Fundamentally Freund: A March For the Living


Michael Freund
JPost
1 October 09

There is a dangerous and proficient killer on the loose, roaming across Israel and preying on the innocent.

With little regard for social, economic or cultural backgrounds, this faceless predator has claimed an astonishing number of victims, compiling a tally that would be the envy of any major terrorist group.

Yet unlike the struggle against our enemies, this is one war where each of us can actually do something to turn the tide against a daunting foe.

It is the battle against breast cancer, and the time to take action is now.

Today, October 1, marks the start of International Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Around the world, events will be held over the next few weeks to alert the public to the danger posed by this dreadful disease.

From the US to the Ukraine, organizers are gearing up to spread the word in an effort to promote early detection and prevention and cut the risks associated with breast cancer, which strikes both men and women with ruthless abandon.

Sure, no one really likes to contemplate or talk about disease. It is one of those terrifying things that we occasionally hear about but then delude ourselves into thinking that it cannot possibly strike close to home.

But the data suggests otherwise.

"According to the latest available statistics, breast cancer strikes one in eight Israeli women," Prof. Ben Corn, MD, who is Chairman of Radiation Oncology at the Tel Aviv Medical Center, told me.

He noted that, "in more than a third of the cases, the disease has spread beyond the breast by the time it is detected." As a result, a quarter of those hit by the disease die within two years of its discovery.

All told, about 4,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in Israel each year. That is an average of more than 10 per day, or about one every two hours! These numbers are simply startling.

NEXT TIME you are in synagogue or at the movie theater, just look around and consider this: the odds are that one out of every eight ladies in the room will at some point in their lives hear the devastating diagnosis that will wreak havoc on them and their families.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that prominent public figures such as former Education Minister Yuli Tamir and popular singer Sharon Haziz have been diagnosed with breast cancer, there is still very little public consciousness about it here in Israel.

Indeed, fewer than half of Israeli women over the age of 50 reportedly get a mammogram, leaving them dangerously exposed to the possibility of uncovering the disease only once it is too late.

And while just one in three breast lumps actually turns out to be malignant, it takes a biopsy to find that out.

That is what makes early detection so crucial. There is as yet no cure, so catching the cancer before it spreads, and getting proper treatment, still offers women the best chance of survival.

Moreover, there are also a range of preemptive actions that women can take, from adopting a healthier and more active lifestyle to reducing alcohol consumption to consulting with your physician, all of which can greatly reduce the risk of contracting this potentially fatal disease.

In other words, breast cancer can be contained or even overcome, but only if people wake up and do something about it.

THANKFULLY, A group of women in the Sharon region have decided to do just that. Under the slogan, "Awareness can save your life", a 4-kilometer Breast Cancer Awareness Walk, followed by a "happening" for the entire family, is slated to take place on Friday morning, October 16, at 9:15 am sharp in Park Ra'anana.

The goal is to rouse people to action, educate the public and inspire women to get themselves tested.

The march is taking place under the auspices of the non-profit Tishkofet organization, which assists people and their families throughout the country in coping with terminal illnesses, in cooperation with the Ra'anana municipality, the Maccabi and Clalit Health Funds and Meir and Tel Hashomer hospitals.

It will be a march for the living, a siren call to thousands of Israelis to start taking the threat of breast cancer seriously.

The walk is in memory of two very special women - Mindy Greenberg and Diane Taragin - both of whom lived in Ra'anana and put up a valiant fight against the disease.

No memorial could be more fitting than a large event which will save people's lives by motivating them to get tested.

It is therefore crucial that each and every one of us make an effort to be there and show our support. So go online to Tishkofet's website at www.tishkofet.co.il and register to take part. All proceeds from the event will go towards assisting breast cancer patients and their families.

Like many of you, I too was unaware of how widespread breast cancer is, or of the simple steps that can be taken to detect it, such as self-exams, mammograms and MRIs (for those at higher risk). This information can make an enormous difference in people's lives.

Our sages tell us in the Tosefta (Shabbat 9, 22) that "Nothing supersedes the saving of life." So it is incumbent upon each of us to overcome whatever hesitation or reluctance we might have to confront the issue of disease, and arm ourselves with all the facts.

Speak to your wife, your daughter, your sister or your mother-in-law, and tell them - please! - to go get tested. Follow up by speaking with your doctor about what you can do to change your lifestyle or your eating habits and those of your family.

And on October 16, make sure to come out to Park Ra'anana and join the Breast Cancer Awareness Walk.

Love of the Land: Fundamentally Freund: A March For the Living

Love of the Land: From the Desk of Moshe Feiglin: Manhigut Yehudit's Founding Principles: A Reality Check

From the Desk of Moshe Feiglin: Manhigut Yehudit's Founding Principles: A Reality Check

13 Tishrei, 5770
Sept. 30, '09


Just before Passover, 5757 (1997) twelve and a half years ago, the members of Manhigut Yehudit gathered to formulate the ten founding principles that would be a guiding light for our movement. At the time, Netanyahu had just begun his first term as prime minister. Nobody had yet considered joining the Likud. Now, twelve and a half years later, we can do a reality check and see if Manhigut Yehudit's founding principles are indeed in harmony with Israeli reality. (Click here for the full list of Manhigut Yehudit's Founding Principles).

1.
From Existence-Based Zionism To Destiny-Based Zionism
Those people who perceive subtleties are in for a pleasant surprise. Israel has begun to abandon its "existence" claims in favor of previously unheard-of claims such as "The Holocaust is not the reason for the existence of the State of Israel." In the past, practically the only place to find a sentence like that would have been in a Manhigut Yehudit speech or publication. But little by little, this claim is becoming a plank in Israel's policies.

The Yesha Council leaders demonstrating against the building freeze from their protest tent in Jerusalem are still afraid to raise their heads above human-rights claims of natural growth or the tried and true security claims. Unfortunately, the Yesha Council is still stuck in Existence-Based Zionism. But in his speech at the United Nations, PM Netanyahu needed to rely on more than mere existence. From his attack against Holocaust denial he went on to talk about the inheritance of our forefathers. True, for Netanyahu Jewish destiny is an unknown. Furthermore, his talk of the rightful inheritance of our forefathers becomes grotesque when in the same breath he offers the Land of our Forefathers to a non-nation. Nonetheless, the very fact that the prime minister resorted to a plane beyond Existential Zionism is important progress. Manhigut Yehudit can rightfully take credit for inserting this concept into Israel's political lexicon.

2.
Jewish Orientation for the State of Israel
Suddenly, everybody is talking about a Jewish state. Suddenly, everybody notices that our very existence as a Jewish state is not a given. Suddenly, everybody understands that the question is not if we recognize the need for a "Palestinian state," but rather if the "Palestinians" and the rest of the world recognize the legitimacy of and need for the existence of a Jewish state. After years of attempts to distance the State of Israel from its Jewish character and after years of attempting to build a state of all its citizens, the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state has become a fundamental issue - so much so that the fact that the US president said the magic words "Jewish state" in his speech at the UN was portrayed as a major achievement.

Netanyahu has appointed former Chief Justice Aharon Barak to pen Israel's formal response to the Goldstone report. But the former Chief Justice has only recently declared that he sees Israel as a state of all its citizens. In other words, he is not interested in a Jewish state. By virtue of that perspective, he does not have and cannot have an answer to the report that presents Israel's soldiers as war criminals. What can he possibly say? That Israel acted within the framework of self-defense for robbers?

But even in this case, we can and should look at the glass that is half full. Despite the confusion and dissonance, we are witnessing substantial progress. Not because people necessarily realize how much Manhigut Yehudit has influenced Israeli society. Simply because Israeli society has begun to adopt Manhigut Yehudit's Founding Principles and they are seeping deep into our collective psyche.

Israeli society is in the process of profound change. The only leftists that remain are those for whom being Left is a business. The vast majority of Israelis fasted this past Yom Kippur. The artists - the sensitive weathervanes of societal change - have switched direction and are using their creative talents to express their connection to Judaism. Manhigut Yehudit did not create this revolution. But it is certainly a catalyst for this renaissance and highlights its significance on a national level.

In the short term, it could be that this process will hamper our progress in the political arena. Suddenly, there is no opponent from the Left because Meretz, Kadimah and Labor are rapidly losing their significance. Netanyahu's new mode of public relations may convince many that we have reached our ultimate goal.

But this is true only in the short term. In the longer term, the process that we are witnessing with wide-eyed amazement is vital for the changing of the guard (Founding Principle #5). If, until not long ago, we thought that the changing of the guard and the establishment of authentic Jewish leadership for the State of Israel would necessarily be the product of a head-on collision with the "old guard", the newly developing dialectic may just save us from this unsavory scenario.

Two-poled Zionism (Left/Right) is slowly being replaced by Zionism informed by one consciousness - Zionism developing from existence to destiny. This new form of Zionism is positioned to herald a harmonious state in which Israeli society as a whole will steadily progress toward the goal of Destiny-Based Zionism. Clearly, this national consciousness will require leadership hewed from Jewish foundations and committed to the historic destiny of the Nation of Israel. In short - Jewish leadership.

This is completely in line with our fifth Founding Principle:

Changing of the Guard
The Zionist consciousness that realized the first stage of the Return to Zion is incapable of dealing with the problems facing the State of Israel. It has reached its end. Manhigut Yehudit has deep and genuine appreciation for Zionism and the dedication of its pioneers. It identifies with their positive intentions and desires to continue their positive actions. As such, Manhigut Yehudit strives to create a deep change in the national consciousness - a fundamental, spiritual and ethical change. A transformation to belief-based consciousness is the only way to continue the historical process of the Return to Zion.

May it be G-d's will!



Love of the Land: From the Desk of Moshe Feiglin: Manhigut Yehudit's Founding Principles: A Reality Check
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...