Sabbath music video
Let's go to the videotape.
Shabbat Shalom everyone.
Israel Matzav: Sabbath music video
Israeli soldier Avi Bieber, who became famous for refusing to uproot Jews from Gaza in 2005, says he was not allowed to fight in the Second Lebanon War a year later. Interviewed by Our Land of Israel, Bieber - who is currently the deputy chairman of the student union at Kinneret College - he called the officer of his city and asked to be inducted during the war, but the army did not return his call.
Bieber said he was told by a nurse at Hadassah Hospital that hundreds of soldiers required psychological treatment because of the Disengagement from Gaza. He also said he would be in favor of a law allowing soldiers not to carry out orders to which they had ideological arguments.
Consider:
When Richard Goldstone came to Washington, in his failed, desperate attempt to stop Congress from denouncing his report, the insiders who shepherded the former South African judge through the halls of power were reportedly Mike Amitay, an employee of Soros’ Open Society Policy Center, a 501(c)(4) lobby, and Daniel Levy, employed by the Soros-funded New America Foundation. Amitay has publicly distanced himself from the views of his father, who once headed AIPAC, and has targeted Dennis Ross for not being soft enough on Iran, as Noah Pollak reported here. When Goldstone tried to fight the Congressional resolution, he sent a detailed memo to the Foreign Affairs Committee Chair, Rep. Howard Berman. A check of the electronic file’s “properties,” as Michael Goldfarb revealed, lists the author as none other than Morton H. Halperin, a senior adviser and key player at Soros’s Open Society Institute, who also serves on the J Street advisory council. (J Street is an initiative in which Soros reportedly played a major behind-the-scenes role, but then stepped into the shadows over concerns that his support for controversial far-left and anti-Israel causes would become a liability for the new group. Human Rights Watch, which, as NGO Monitor reported, was funded by George Soros in 2007-8 to to the tune of $2,353,895 , has been the leading organization lobbying for adoption of the Goldstone Report, in op-eds, letter campaigns, and various other appeals. Our friends at the Democracy Coalition Project, who have published some quotable reports on UN issues (though often tainted by excessive apologetics for the Human Rights Council), mobilized with peculiar zeal to defend the Goldstone Report, signing numerous appeals and filling my inbox with passionate emails on its behalf. The odd thing was that I never before saw the DCP lobby specifically for the Palestinian agenda. The group began as an initiative of Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Morton Halperin remains a key player on their board of directors.
Unitarians listen to the Inner Voice and so they have no creed that they all stand up and recite in unison, and that's their perfect right, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong to rewrite "Silent Night." If you don't believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn "Silent Night" and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism, and we Christians have stood for it long enough. And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write "Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we'll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah"? No, we didn't.
Christmas is a Christian holiday - if you're not in the club, then buzz off. Celebrate Yule instead or dance around in druid robes for the solstice. Go light a big log, go wassailing and falalaing until you fall down, eat figgy pudding until you puke, but don't mess with the Messiah.
In America Jewish composers are in fact responsible for many extremely popular Christmas songs. One might reasonably ask why. I would guess that the outsider's perspective fostered a kind of yearning and appreciation. Both the yearning and appreciation carry an appeal to the wider American audience, expressing the feelings of the audience in a peculiarly congenial manner. (Incidentally, Jeffrey Goldberg has now told "the true story of Orrin Hatch's Hanukkah song." Senator Hatch has composed a Hanukkah song with an outsider's admiring perspective on the Jewish holiday.)
Though unmentioned by him, "White Christmas" is a prime example of the phenomenon Keillor decries. Composed by Irving Berlin, it is the most popular record ever in the version of the song recorded by Bing Crosby. Gary Giddins notes in Bing Crosby: A Pocketful of Dreams, that Crosby's record of the song made the American pop charts twenty times, every year but one between 1942 and 1962. It must have spoiled many of Keillor's Christmases.
Keillor alludes specifically to two songs by Jewish composers in the passage above. The first is "Rudolph, the Red Nose Reindeer," by Johnny Marks. Marks wrote three of the most popular Christmas songs of all time. The story of "Rudolph" originates in a poem about a red-nosed reindeer named Rudolph written by Marks's brother-in-law, Robert May. Nate Bloom recounts that the poem became popular as a Montgomery Ward giveaway and Marks turned it into a song. When Gene Autry succumbed to Marks' entreaties to record it, the song became a hit of monumental proportions in 1949.
The second song to which Keilor alludes is "The Christmas Song," by Bob Wells and Mel Torme. This song is an evergreen. Unlike "Rudolph," it hasn't dated, or hasn't dated much. I can't imagine what about it might rub Keillor the wrong way. Is it okay for Jews to wish their Christian friends "merry Christmas"?
I have long felt bad about the injury Jews have inflicted on Christmas by leading the charge to limit public celebration of this great religious holiday. Here we are, living in a country whose Christians have treated us with unprecedented kindness, tolerance, and fellowship, and we show our thanks by forcing them to remove the most meaningful aspects of their most important holiday from the public square.
This year, however, I was able to find solace in Garrison Keillor's rant about how Jews have injured Christmas by writing "trashy" Christmas songs. I had not focused, until I read Keillor's bizarre column and Scott's response, on the fact that Jews have contributed songs like "White Christmas"," Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," and other staples of this "most wonderful time of the year." These songs may annoy Keillor, but they have pleased millions of American Christians of all ages. Thus, we Jews have contributed more to Christmas than ugly litigation.
A dispute is rumbling between Israel and the US Consulate in Jerusalem after a US diplomatic car allegedly tried running over a Defense Ministry security guard recently at an IDF checkpoint in the West Bank. The car had been stopped after the occupants refused to present identification papers.
...
In January 2008, the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria filed complaints with the Foreign Ministry after both US Security Coordinator Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton and then-consul-general Jacob Walles refused to roll down their windows or open their car doors and show identification papers at a checkpoint.
However, Israel's ire reached a new level after an incident on November 13 in which a five-car convoy of consulate vehicles with diplomatic plates arrived at the Gilboa crossing.
According to a detailed official Israel Police description of the incident obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, the drivers refused to identify themselves or open a window or door. The drivers, according to the report, purposely blocked the crossing, tried running over one of the Israeli security guards stationed there and made indecent gestures at female guards.
The entire incident was documented by cameras at the crossing.
Following the incident, the head of the police's Security Department, Lt.-Cmdr. Meir Ben-Yishai, convened a meeting on November 18 at police headquarters in Jerusalem with the regional security officer at the consulate, Tim Laas. Also present were officials from the Defense Ministry and the Foreign Ministry, and the regional security officer at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, Dan Power.
According to a protocol of the meeting, obtained by the Post, Ben-Yishai said he assumed the drivers of the consulate vehicles had received permission to act the way they had. He said that in the future, if a diplomatic car did not stop and identify its passengers "immediately," it would not be allowed to pass the checkpoint.
Ben-Yishai described additional violations by consulate workers, and referred to at least one case in which a female Palestinian without appropriate documentation was found in a diplomatic car. Defense officials told the Post that there had been other similar cases in the past.
"We view this as an attempt to illegally transfer someone," Ben-Yishai said, according to the official police protocol.
Ben-Yishai also said the drivers of the cars, from east Jerusalem, hid their Israeli identity cards and put stickers over their names on their consulate-issued identity cards, since, as they claimed, "they are in a diplomatic vehicle and cannot be touched."
He added that police had filed a complaint with the Foreign Ministry and were conducting their own investigation to identify the driver who had tried running over the Israeli security guard.
While Power apologized for the incident and tried smoothing things over, Laas angered Ben-Yishai, according to the protocol, when he said it was unacceptable for "simple guards" to inspect senior diplomats.
Laas said the communication needed to be between the guard and the driver, since "we can't know who the guard is."
This was understood by those present as indicating his lack of trust in Israeli guards.
Prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Ghajar was considered part of Syria and its residents were counted in the 1960 census.[3] When Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967, Ghajar remained a no-man's land for two and a half months. The villagers petitioned the Golan's Israeli governor to be annexed to Israel because they saw themselves as part of the Golan Heights.[4] Israel agreed to include Ghajar in its occupied territory and the residents accepted living under Israeli rule.[5] In 1981, most villagers accepted Israeli citizenship under the Golan Heights Law [which annexed the Golan Heights to Israel. CiJ].Except that the residents were never really part of Lebanon:
After Operation Litani in 1978, Israel turned over its positions inside Lebanon to the South Lebanon Army and inaugurated its Good Fence policy. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created after the incursion, following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 425 in March 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, restore international peace and security, and help the government of Lebanon restore its effective authority in the area.[6] Ghajar expanded northward into Lebanese territory, subsuming the Wazzani settlement north of the border.[2]
...
In June 1982,... Israel launched Operation Peace for Galilee.[10] [From June 1982 until 2000, the IDF maintained a presence in Lebanon south of the Litani River - roughly 25 miles from the border. CiJ] In 2000, following the campaign promise and election of Ehud Barak as Prime Minister, Israel withdrew their troops from Lebanon. In an attempt to demarcate permanent borders between Israel and Lebanon, the United Nations drew up what became known as the Blue Line [see the map below. CiJ]. Due to Ghajar's location, wedged between Lebanon and the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, the northern half of the village came under Lebanese control and the southern part remained under Israeli control.[11]This arrangement created much resentment among the residents, who see themselves as Syrian.[12]
Despite the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, tension mounted as Hezbollah made repeated attempts to kidnap Israel soldiers in the Ghajar area.[13] In 2005, Hezbollah launched a rocket attack on Ghajar and infiltrated it, but withdrew after being repelled by the Israelis.[2] Following another attack in July 2006, Israel invaded southern Lebanon and re-occupied the northern half of Ghajar during the 2006 Lebanon War. Following a month of intense fighting, UNSC Resolution 1701 was unanimously approved to resolve the conflict, and it was accepted by combatants on both sides. Among other things, the resolution demanded the full cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the disarming of Hezbollah, the deployment of Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers, and the establishment of full control by the government of Lebanon.Here's what I have in my notes about the IDF spokesperson's presentation about Ghajar plus what I remember (silly me - I had an MP-3 in my pocket and forgot to use it!).
...
The UN has physically marked the recognized border and Israeli soldiers remain on the Lebanese side of Ghajar despite the decision of the Israeli cabinet on December 3, 2006, to hand it over to UNIFIL. Israel says that the Lebanese army rejected a UN-brokered proposal in which the Lebanese Army would protect the vicinity north of the village, while UNIFIL would be deployed in the village itself; this type of arrangement would be unique for UNIFIL in populated areas. A perimeter fence has been built along the northern edge of the village in Lebanese territory up to 800 meters north of the Blue Line. UNIFIL military observers patrol the area continuously.[15]
In its October 2007 report on the implementation of the resolution, the United Nations issued a report stating that discussions on the duration of temporary security arrangements for northern Ghajar remained deadlocked. Israel remains in control north of the Blue Line and the small adjacent area inside Lebanese territory, although it does not maintain a permanent military presence there. The Lebanese Armed Forces patrol the road outside the perimeter fence. The report notes “so long as the Israel Defense Forces remain in northern Ghajar, Israel will not have completed its withdrawal from southern Lebanon in accordance with its obligations under resolution 1701 (2006)." It further notes: "Failure to make progress on this issue could become a source of tension and carry the potential for incidents in the future."[16]
Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara [Likud. CiJ] has a Turkish map from World War I showing that the northern village of Rajar must not be divided, but must rather remain totally Israeli.The story goes on to explain how the village does not want to be divided between Israel and Lebanon.
...
Kara, a Druze supporter of Jewish rights and claims to the Land of Israel, says the newly-discovered map shows that there was a mistake in the Sykes-Picot agreement map of 1916. The agreement was made between the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of Imperial Russia, defining their respective spheres of influence and control in the Middle East after the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire. Its terms were negotiated by French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes. The official map mistakenly has the Druze village of Rajar as half Syrian and half Lebanese.
However, Kara’s map shows that Rajar - population 2,200 - was in fact totally Syrian, and not Lebanese. The error in the Sykes-Picot map was caused when the original was traced over, and a slight movement caused the line to be drawn through, and not aside, Rajar.
The implications of this are that Rajar is part of the Golan Heights, the area that was annexed to Israel in 1981. As such, its northern half need not be “returned” to Lebanon, as demanded by Hizbullah.
The media watchdog organization Honest Reporting has awarded a Swedish journalist its 2009 Dishonest Reporter Award for the most skewed and biased coverage of the Middle East conflict.There were other awards too.
Donald Bostrom “touched a nerve in readers in ways that few journalists ever do,” declared the organization. Writing in the Aftonbladet, the largest daily newspaper in Sweden, Bostrom headlined his two-page spread in the cultural section, “They Plunder the Organs of Our Sons.” The article quoted Palestinian Authority Arabs who claimed that IDF soldiers kidnapped young men from Judea, Samaria and Gaza and later returned their bodies, minus their organs.
Bostrom admitted to having failed to independently verify the claims of his sources, specifically of the family of Bilal Ahmed Ghanem, who died in 1992. “I was [present] during the interview that night, I was a witness. It concerns me to the extent that I want it to be investigated… But whether it’s true or not – I have no idea, I have no clue,” he said.
Arabic-speaking Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh tracked down the family himself, said Honest Reporting – and the family denied ever having told Bostrom their son was missing organs. “The mother denied that she had told any foreign journalist that her son’s organs had been stolen. However, she said that now she does not rule out the possibility that Israel was harvesting organs of Palestinians…” Toameh wrote.
The editor of the Aftonbladet, Jan Helin, backed his reporter and accused Israel of a cover-up, even though it is medically impossible to harvest organs from a body that sustained gunshot wounds in the abdomen and chest, as Bostrom reported that Ghanem did.
The Swedish government refused to condemn the article, insisting that journalists had the right to “free speech.”
Netanyahu told Livni that a national unity government would be based in "peace and security," as the prime minister outlined in his Bar Ilan speech and that today "represent broad national consensus."
Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar called on Livni and the Kadima party "to show national responsibility" and acquiesce to the prime minister's invitation in order to better face "heavy national, social and security challenges."
In an interview with Haaretz in Jerusalem, where Rosenthal was the administration's envoy to the Foreign Ministry's Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, Rosenthal, who once served on J street's board of directors, said she opposes blurring the lines between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel.
"It is not 1939," she said. "We have the state of Israel. We have laws in countries that are holding people accountable."
While the U.S. administration embraced J Street, which lends its unqualified support to U.S. President Barack Obama, the Israeli government turned a cold shoulder to the group. Obama's national security adviser, General James Jones, gave the keynote speech at the conference, while Israel sent a low-level official, claiming that J Street works against Israel's interests.
Rosenthal, who also served on the board of directors of left-wing group Americans for Peace Now, said she believed Oren "would have learned a lot" if he had participated in J Street's conference.
"I came away realizing what a generational divide there is and I don't know how it is in Israel. Young people want to be part of the discussion, they feel they have fresh ideas and they feel that we have to end the stalemate," she said.
Rosenthal strongly believes that new and different voices need to be heard regarding Israel in the American Jewish community.
"We need to have as many people coming together to try and put an end to this crisis, the matzav [situation] can not continue - it's unacceptable and that's why I always paid my membership to AIPAC, but I have always paid my membership to Americans for Peace Now - because they all need to be supported and they all need to be at the table."
"We may disagree on different paths to get there - but we need to at least admit that peace is the goal and security is the goal," she said.
"I was surprised to see an official of the American government commenting on the positions taken by Ambassador Oren," said Alan Solow, who is a long-time supporter of US President Barack Obama, is considered close to the administration, and is the chairman of the New York-based Conference of Presidents.
Rosenthal's comments "go beyond her responsibilities," he said, and reflected only her "personal feelings."
"I've had any number of conversations with people in the administration who interact regularly with Ambassador Oren, and they have spoken very highly of him. The comments are especially inappropriate given the fact that the administration is actively involved in trying to advance the peace process and its relationship with Israel on a variety of fronts," he added.
Josh Block, a spokesman for AIPAC, the largest Israel advocacy group in Washington, said "AIPAC totally agrees with the sentiment expressed by Alan Solow and the Conference of Presidents, and those views are widely held by members of the Conference."
A senior Jewish official in Washington who asked to remain anonymous called the Rosenthal interview, published in Haaretz on Thursday, "a very troubling occurrence. I can't recall a circumstance in which an American diplomat criticized an ambassador of any country in such a significant way."
The official said news reports that Jewish leaders are calling the White House to protest the interview "are accurate."
Another senior Jewish official who asked not to be named called her comments "unfair to [Oren]."
Terrorism analysts in Washington need to be asking: Under what circumstances might Iran decide to up the ante and transfer WMD technology to terrorist organizations?
Diplomats typically dismiss the possibility. They acknowledge that this would be a terrible thing, but express doubt that Iran would take such a drastic step for two reasons.
First, they argue that Tehran itself is uncomfortable at the prospect of terrorists acquiring such weapons. Second, they argue that the Iranian leadership understands that if a nuclear weapon is transferred to al-Qaeda and used to attack the United States or any of its allies, the retaliation would be overwhelming.
To be sure, analysts should not underestimate the importance of American power as a deterrent. But it is equally important to understand that, with Iran, deterrence has its limits. No nation today has as extensive a record of supporting terrorism as Iran, and Western policies in place until now have utterly failed to deter Iran from facilitating terrorism using conventional weapons.
U.S. deterrence has been eroded by Iran's perception of American weakness, and by the fact that the Iranian regime has been able to foment terrorism and violence against the United States and the West for more than 30 years and get away with it. Deterrence is further weakened by the instability of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who seems not to fear conflict with the West.
There are untold numbers of Iranian shipments that get through. The question that analysts must now answer is: could a nuclear weapon get through, too?
The late Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, took this possibility seriously. Under the right circumstances, Tehran might attempt to transfer WMD to Hezbollah, or perhaps other terror groups, such as Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In interviews with The Washington Times and The New York Times not long before his death in 2007, Leventhal said it was not beyond the realm of possibility that Hezbollah could try to smuggle a crude nuclear device via a ship or truck and deliver it to a highly populated Israeli city. According to Leventhal, if the fissile device functioned poorly, it would result in an explosion with the power of 1,000 tons of TNT, resulting in radiation contamination and a "catastrophic" number of casualties. If such a device functioned properly, it could result in an explosion with the power of 15,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT—roughly equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945.
Today, the Obama administration's treatment of US allies and enemies alike bears far more resemblance to the Eisenhower administration's policies than to those of the Kennedy administration. And in turn, the administration's behavior presents allied governments with options reminiscent to those they faced in 1956.
To the extent that Debouzy's article represents a significant thought stream in France and perhaps in Britain, it tells us three important things. First, it tells us that a significant constituency in Europe believes the time has come to act militarily against Iran's nuclear installations. Second it tells us that influential voices in France have lost patience with Obama. Sarkozy himself all but accused Obama of living in Fantasy Land at the UN Security Council meeting four months ago, in light of Obama's support for global nuclear disarmament and his cavalier attitude towards Iran's nuclear program.
Finally, by including Israel in a theoretical military alliance against Iran, Debouzy's article suggests that in spite of its anti-Israel positions on issues related to the Palestinians, France may be willing to assist Israel if Netanyahu decides to attack Iran's nuclear installations. That is, his article lends the impression that if Israel is willing to act boldly, it may not have to act alone.
THE LAST time that Israel acted militarily with others without US support was during the Suez Crisis. Debouzy's suggestion of French support for an Israeli strike against Iran should provoke our leaders to reconsider the lessons of that campaign.
...
Despite Nasser's escalating ties with the Soviet Union, the Eisenhower administration opposed ejecting him from the Suez Canal for a host of reasons. The US wished to please its Saudi ally which, like Egypt, sought to weaken the British-allied Hashemite regimes in Iraq and Jordan. The US wished to quash Britain and France's residual post-war capacities to act without US support as Washington solidified its position as the unquestioned leader of the Western alliance against the Soviet Union. Washington was politically inconvenienced by the need to support the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt as it condemned the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Finally, the Eisenhower administration opposed a strong Israel.
...
America's brutal reaction caused many Israeli analysts to conclude that Israel must never again go to war without US permission. And from David Ben-Gurion on, all Israeli leaders have given the US a de facto veto over nearly all of Israel's military moves.
While Israel's fear of angering America is understandable, it is far from clear that its interests were ever served by this policy. The fact is, while Israel was forced to withdraw from Sinai, the benefit it gained from the Suez Campaign still far outweighed the cost. Through the war, Israel secured its maritime rights in the Suez Canal and weakened significantly Egypt's regular and irregular forces in Sinai and Gaza.
What is clear is that 53 years ago it made no sense to get into an open conflict with Dwight Eisenhower. As the former Allied commander in Europe, Eisenhower's strategic credentials were unassailable both at home and abroad. Then, too, in 1956 the US was enjoying unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. Politically - at home and abroad - Eisenhower was immune to criticism.
Obama is no Eisenhower. The US is suffering its worst economic decline since the Great Depression. After just 11 months in office, Obama's approval ratings have sunk to 50 percent. His lack of credibility in foreign affairs came though clearly this month when a mere 26% of Americans said they believe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time, Israel has never faced a threat as grave as that of a nuclear-armed Iran. There can be little doubt that if Ben-Gurion and Eisenhower were in charge today, Ben-Gurion wouldn't hesitate to again defy Eisenhower and attack Iran - with or without France and Britain. Certainly, Netanyahu cannot justify placing Israel's fate in Obama's hands.
"This sounds like the kind of travel a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee would -- and should -- undertake," said a White House official, adding it would be at Sen. Kerry's own behest.
It's unclear whether Iran would welcome the visit, and it would be controversial within both countries. The Iranian government has rebuffed other recent White House efforts to establish a direct dialogue.
The Obama administration hasn't decided whether to make Sen. Kerry its official representative if he goes, but as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Kerry can visit if the White House and Tehran both approve.
Many opponents of Tehran's regime oppose such a visit, fearing it would lend legitimacy to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a time when his government is under continuing pressure from protests and opposition figures. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets again this week to voice their opposition to the government following the death of a reformist cleric.
"We've eschewed high-level visits to Iran for the last 30 years. I think now -- when the Iranian regime's fate is less certain than ever -- is not the best time to begin," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"The wrong message would be sent to the Iranian people by such a high-level visit: The U.S. loves dictatorial regimes," said Hossein Askari, a professor at George Washington University and former adviser to Iranian governments.
"Engagement" with America's enemies is a cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy, such as it is. In the pursuit of engagement with Iran Obama has all but prostrated himself. In return he has received Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated thumb in his eye.
(IsraelNN.com) The Temple Institute in Jerusalem announced Friday the completion of a model of the biblical altar which G-d, through Moses, commanded the nation of Israel to build at the Mount of Eval (Ebal) overlooking Shechem:
“And there you shall build an altar unto Hashem your God, an altar of stones: you shall lift up no iron tool upon them. You shall build the altar of Hashem your G-d of unhewn stones.” (Dvarim / Deuteronomy 27:5,6).
I don't mean to seem hardhearted. But I am frankly completely jaded--and made disbelieving--with the on-schedule, almost once-a-week story about the crisis in Gaza. Around Christmas, they are simply de rigeur.
Here's a predictable one in the viciously anti-Israel, truly viciously anti-Israel, Financial Times. It is by Tobias Buck, who, while he can write these in his sleep, wrote this one just for Christmas. (Never mind that there are only about 2,500 Christians still living in Gaza, some having been killed by peaceful Muslims, the others simply being scared the b'Jesus out of the Strip by them. Please forgive my timely reference to the prince of peace.)
No, I am not claiming that life in Gaza is sweet. But life in Gaza has never been sweet. (And, please, no allusions to Aldous Huxley's Eyeless in Gaza, which is about upper-class Brits in Mexico.) Also not when Gaza was under the Turks or the British Mandate or the Egyptians. Now that Gaza is under the boot of Hamas, you can imagine--and, in fact, deep inside you know--what goes for governing. I am also sure that Israeli restrictions at the combustible frontier do not make things easier. Of course, there is the border with Egypt, which nothing and no one crosses legally. Why doesn't the F.T. bitch about Cairo's cruelty to its ex-subjects?
As it happens, there is an uncannily timely testimony to the Gaza misery in Palestine Today, a Gaza publication. Surprise!
Jerusalem |
Lisbon |