Sunday, 28 March 2010

Chester Chronicles-A Passover Greeting

A Passover Greeting

Politics and Torah are literally worlds apart, they are made of different material and don’t easily coexist. True, one can always find something in Torah study that will bear on any subject—and yet, politics are profane, the Torah is sacred. We experience a measure of timelessness, a hint of eternity, when we study; we also gain illumination from Torah study, it explains difficult, intractable, even tragic earthly realities. Why dilute that pure light?

When the Jews are in danger, we are commanded to stop everything else in order to save even one life. Yes—one can even violate Shabbat in order to do so. Today, both the Jews and all humanity are in danger. What might the Pesach story have to teach us?

Like other groups, the Jews have always been in danger, have had to flee many Egypts, all the places of sorrow and danger, the many “narrow straits.” Unlike many other groups, the Jews have actually done so, we’ve gotten out—at least a remnant always has. Down the centuries, Jews keep “getting out.”

Sometimes, the Jews have had Jewish redeemers; sometimes our redeemers have been non-Jews. In our Pesach story, Moses, certainly born a Jew, was adopted and reared in Pharaoh’s palace, by Pharaoh’s courageous daughter. She reared him as an Egyptian prince, which partly explains why he was so easily able to enter Pharaoh’s inner sanctum, over and over again. No one dared stop him.

"Moses" by Marc Chagall (Left to right: Batya, daughter of Pharaoh; Miriam with baby Moses; Yocheved)

But let’s not forget that the Egyptian midwives and Moses’ mother, Yocheved, absolutely refused to follow Pharaoh’s orders. They committed civil disobedience by refusing to kill him, or other Jewish male infants. They didn’t know which one might someday become their leader. In fact, Yocheved carefully, lovingly, hopefully, prepared a basket for Moses, tucked him in, averted her own face, but sent her daughter Miriam to watch after the precious mini-Ark basket’s ebb and flow. At the final hour, she did not give up hope.

Moses himself was again saved, this time from the consequences of God’s anger, by his Midianite wife, Zipporah, Yitro’s daughter, and the mother of Moses’ only known children.

Why did Moses flee Egypt? The two Hebrew slaves whom Moses found hitting each other did not want Moses to judge them or stop them and threatened to inform on him to Pharaoh. He feared that the Jewish slaves would turn him in! In fact, the matter of his having killed the Egyptian taskmaster was already known to Pharaoh; someone had already turned him in. Due to “kotzer ruach,” the shortness of spirit which slavery exacts exceedingly well, the slaves are never able to redeem themselves, to work together, to rebel effectively on their own.

Crushed, embittered, dispirited, without an illusion left, the Jews eventually “cried out,” they prayed to God and God remembered our covenant and understood our predicament. This happens rather late in the day.

"The Parting of the Red Sea" by Arnold Friberg, commissioned for Cecil B. DeMille's epic motion picture "The Ten Commandments."

Let me stop and draw some possible parallels.

Once again, the Jews are facing enormous danger. This time, Pharaoh is not merely the ruler of one nation but is, rather, a global demon, a world-wide, many-faced Amalek. Therefore, we must understand that our redeemers may be both Jewish and non-Jewish, both male and female.

Facing down global jihad, will require more than just Jews, many of whom do not see jihad as a threat, or as a threat to Israel, or to the West, or even to themselves. The mighty and miraculous Israel cannot face down jihad alone. Those who will stand against jihad and against the demonization of Judaism and Israel will be—already are—Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, secularists, and a precious handful of Muslims and ex-Muslims.

Once again, the heroes who have been the first to stand up and sound the alarm have placed themselves at risk—have risked everything to do so. Some have been forced to flee their own safe places, even their perches of privilege. No matter. God is on their side.

Taken from the Sarajevo Haggadah, a 14th century Spanish Haggadah which was rescued from the Nazis by a Muslim cleric.

Finally, as ever, perhaps it is also time for the Jews to cry out, to pray, to celebrate Passover with all our hearts, our minds, and our souls. I hope that we try to include our blessed supporters at our tables.

Chag Pesach Sameach to one and all.

Phyllis Chesler



Chester Chronicles - A Passover Greeting

House Majority to Clinton: Calm Down on Israel - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

House Majority to Clinton: Calm Down on Israel - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Ministers, MKs Encourage Netanyahu on Jerusalem - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Ministers, MKs Encourage Netanyahu on Jerusalem - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

ZOA: Clinton Owes New Yorkers An Apology - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

ZOA: Clinton Owes New Yorkers An Apology - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Abbas Rejects Obama%u2019s Peace Talks and Israeli Concessions - A7 Exclusive Features - Israel News - Israel National News

Abbas Rejects Obama%u2019s Peace Talks and Israeli Concessions - A7 Exclusive Features - Israel News - Israel National News

IDF Prepares for Large-Scale Missile Attack - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

IDF Prepares for Large-Scale Missile Attack - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Two IDF Soldiers Killed in Gaza Incident - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Two IDF Soldiers Killed in Gaza Incident - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Home of IDF Soldier Killed in Gaza Set to Be Demolished - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Home of IDF Soldier Killed in Gaza Set to Be Demolished - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Israel Matzav: As long as there's no difference between Fatah and Hamas anyway

As long as there's no difference between Fatah and Hamas anyway

This is pretty amazing. Ephraim HaLevy, a former Mossad director who has gone Leftist, argues that since there is no real difference between Fatah and Hamas anyway, we may as well negotiate with Hamas.

For all their recent disagreements, Israel and the United States share a common view of the Palestinians. They have jointly affirmed their resolve to coax the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) to the negotiating table, while ignoring Hamas. This is a policy that has now lasted close to four years—with, by and large, the support of the international community. Hamas, it is commonly agreed, will only make an acceptable partner for negotiation if it undergoes an ideological transformation, a transformation that is very unlikely to ever occur.

But now might be the right time to reconsider this policy, especially in light of the recent behavior of the PA. To take one recent example: When the Israeli cabinet recently designated two sites in Hebron and Bethlehem to be preserved as national heritage landmarks, the PA joined Hamas in issuing inflammatory statements exhorting the populace to demonstrate against the Jewish appropriation of Muslim holy sites. Stone throwing and violence quickly ensued. Abu Mazen, the self-styled moderate president of the PA, provocatively warned of an impending religious war. Only a stern warning sent by Israeli security authorities brought the “moderate” Palestinian leadership to its senses. And even then, it was only the Israelis who were capable of becalming Jerusalem and the West Bank, with sustained and daily operations in Palestinian-controlled areas. In a time of crisis, the shortcomings of the ruling Palestinians were exposed.

It can be difficult these days to distinguish the PA from its Hamas rivals in the West Bank. The festive inauguration of the Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City brought nearly identical statements from the two groups. Just like the Hamas leader Khaled Meshal, key members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and aides to Abu Mazen argued that the reconstruction of this synagogue posed a serious threat to the Al Aqsa mosque. It all raises the question: If the Palestinians in the West Bank won’t make for good partners, then what?

...

Before President Obama and Premier Netanyahu proceed to negotiate with their dispirited Palestinian interlocutors, why not reconsider the options? Bringing Hamas to the table could relieve pressure on the Palestinians—who would no longer need to worry about the Islamists attacking their credibility. It might create space for a less ideological approach to peacemaking, and it might allow for the negotiation of a more achievable agreement with Israel. Why not hammer out a temporary arrangement between the three sides that would, say, extend for 25 years with a clause for renewal? Such an agreement would make for a practical second-best outcome--a durable interim understanding.

Why not? Because Hamas is demanding real assets, i.e. territory in return for this temporary arrangement. Because contrary to what the White House believes, there is no 'fierce moral urgency' to take enormous suicidal risks for a peace treaty today - we can wait and see if a real partner emerges.

At the moment, the status quo is still better than any of the other options.

Israel Matzav: As long as there's no difference between Fatah and Hamas anyway

Israel Matzav: The 1948 issues

The 1948 issues

If any of you still believes that there would be peace in the Middle East if only Israel would withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines, please consider this article by Caroline Glick about the Negev and the Galilee and how the only effective response has come from private initiative and not from the Israeli government.

This classic by Steven Plaut (written long before the 2004 date on it) should put things in perspective for you.

Israel Matzav: The 1948 issues

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu alienating the American Jewish community?

Netanyahu alienating the American Jewish community?

Given the ovations that Prime Minister Netanyahu got at AIPAC, I find it hard to give this article much credibility, but I'm not in the US right now, so I'm throwing this out to those of you who are to support or refute:

BUT, HE is also alienating another staunch supporter of the State of Israel – the American Jewish community. As I conclude my travels in the States, I have not found one Jew here who understands why Netanyahu’s government would commit such a foolish act. American Jews are sorely embarrassed, as Israel has raised the ugly specter of “dual loyalty.” In addition to appearing before American Jewish audiences, I also spoke to non-Jewish forums, presenting a balanced understanding of the Middle East conflict and decrying the double standards that are unfairly applied to Israel.

I specifically addressed the latest Presbyterian onslaught with its prejudicial call for a boycott and divestment. Coming from the human rights world, supposedly liberal Christians, critical of Israel, were inclined to give me a sympathetic ear. Without exaggerating my influence, I believe that in many cases I succeeded in opening their eyes to the complexities of the conflict, pointing out that there are two narratives that dominate the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians.

And here comes good old Bibi with his declaration of further settlement building. There was no way I could put this latest “slap in the face” to America in a positive light. Netanyahu is simply not considered a credible partner to peace, no matter how much he tries to sweet-talk the American administration.

I was reluctant to tell my audiences, particularly the non-Jewish ones, that America should call Israel on the carpet – not by expressions of admonition that have little or no impact, but rather by bold actions.

I should probably throw in two caveats: The writer, David Forman, is an uber-Leftist, and I don't believe that Israel's support from the US is dependent on the Jewish community anymore anyway. I believe that most of our support these days is coming from Christians, who may well be far more inclined to support Netanyahu's position.

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu alienating the American Jewish community?

Love of the Land: Israel Won’t Be Bullied by Obama, But Bibi’s Tactic Could Fail as Well

Israel Won’t Be Bullied by Obama, But Bibi’s Tactic Could Fail as Well

Israel is thoroughly united against Obama, but Netanyahu's willingness to categorize parts of Israel as having less status than Jerusalem is dangerous.


Moshe Dann
Pajamamedia.com
27 March '10

Harsh condemnations of Israel for building in areas of Jerusalem acquired after the Six Day War in 1967 have backfired. If President Obama thought that he would move negotiations ahead and force Israel to make more concessions, he caused the exact opposite situation. Israelis have united in support of Prime Minister Netanyahu, while Arab Palestinian leaders have, on cue, stepped back.

Equating the issue of where and when Jewish communities can be built within the land of Israel with the issue of “settlements” was a mistake — it gave Israel an easy position to defend, especially domestically. Opposing the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem is not a change in the American position; Obama has made U.S. policy on Jerusalem consistent with that in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Golan Heights. In so doing, however, he has rallied Israelis, Jews, and Zionists around the world.

The premise of Obama’s demand that Israel stop all construction in all areas conquered by Israel in 1967 is logical: if Israel has violated international law by “illegally occupying Palestinian land,” then there are no differences between one area and another. But PM Netanyahu distinguishes between Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria, hinting that he’s open to more withdrawals.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Israel Won’t Be Bullied by Obama, But Bibi’s Tactic Could Fail as Well

Elder of Ziyon: "Operation Luring Idiots"

"Operation Luring Idiots"

The fatal exchange of gunfire in Gaza on Friday between IDF troops and Islamic Jihad/Hamas terrorists was a named operation, according to a number of Arabic sources.

While IDF sources deny that there was an ambush, Hamas claims that it was an ambush operation.

The Arabic media is calling it "Operation Luring Idiots." Which makes it appear that the goal was indeed to kidnap Israeli soldiers.


Elder of Ziyon: "Operation Luring Idiots"

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video

Our rabbis tell us b'Nissan nigalu u'b'Nissan asidin l'hi'gael (the Jews were redeemed from Egypt in the month of Nissan and they will be redeemed in Nissan in the future). It's Nissan now. Pesach (Passover) starts with the seder on Monday night - probably the high point in the Jewish year.

After the last week's events here's a song asking God to watch over and remember us. There's still time for the Messiah to come and the Pesach sacrifice to be brought on Monday in a rebuilt Temple. We have to want it to happen badly enough.

Here's Mordechai Ben David from an apartment overlooking the Temple Mount.

Let's go to the videotape. The words (in Hebrew, English and Spanish - I did a little bit of editing on the English) follow.



Habeit

Elohím Tzebaót shúb ná
[Elokim of Hosts, please return;]
[Elokim de los Ejércitos, vuelve ahora]

habbét mishamáin ur-é, ufkód guéfen zót
[look down from heaven, and watch and remember this vine]
[mira desde el cielo, y observa y acuérdate de esta vid]

Vejanná ahér - nateá ieminéja, veál-bén immátzta láj.
[And remember, the base ( "Land of Yisrael") on which Thy right hand planted, and the Son ( "People of Yisrael") you took as yours.]
[Y acuerdate de la base("Tierra de Yisrael") sobre la que Tu diestra la plantó, y del vástago("Pueblo de Yisrael") que consolidaste para Ti.]

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Israel Matzav: Political correctness at the Washington Post

Political correctness at the Washington Post

This is from an article in Thursday's Washington Post.

As Obama met with Netanyahu, news leaked in Israel that approval had been given to construct 20 additional housing units in East Jerusalem, in the Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. The United States had previously objected to the project, which would be built on the site of the Shepherd Hotel, the former home of the late Haj Amin Husseini, a former mufti, or Islamic law scholar, of Jerusalem. It is now owned by Florida developer Irving Moskovitz.

I wonder who wrote that line. Perhaps it was dictated by someone in the State Department.

More here (including an explanation of the picture for those who have never seen it before).


Israel Matzav: Political correctness at the Washington Post

Israel Matzav: Paper peace

Paper peace

Elliott Abrams has a lengthy article in next week's Weekly Standard about the 'peace process' and all the ways the Obama administration has blown it (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). I urge you to read the whole thing (yes, I know, five screens is a lot to read!). Here are some highlights.

Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, 17 years of efforts under three American presidents and six Israeli prime ministers have taught five clear lessons. Each of them is being ignored by President Obama, which is why his own particular “peace process” has so greatly harmed real efforts at peace. Today the only factor uniting Palestinian, Israeli, and Arab leaders is distrust of the quality, sagacity, and reliability of American leadership in the region.

...

3. Israeli withdrawals do not lead to peace unless law and order can be maintained by responsible security forces.

Israelis learned this the hard way in South Lebanon and Gaza, and it is unquestionably the greatest factor leading them to oppose a similar withdrawal from the West Bank. The Labor party leader Ehud Barak is not viewed in Israel as a hardliner; when he was prime minister he offered Arafat a dramatic peace proposal in 2000. But when, as defense minister, he met with President Bush in 2008 he handed over, and raised repeatedly in later meetings with Secretary Rice, a list of Israel’s security needs in the West Bank. He and Netanyahu (and the vast majority of Israelis) are of one mind on this: Terrorism from Gaza is a security challenge for Israel, but terrorism from the West Bank threatens Israel’s survival. There has been considerable progress in training Palestinian security forces, but no one believes they can yet maintain order without the presence of the IDF and Shin Bet. Those who say, as George Mitchell—Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East—and the Quartet have, that there can be a peace deal in 24 months are saying that fundamental security issues can be finessed or forgotten. Of course they can if your goal is a piece of paper—or, perhaps better put, a paper peace. If you want a real and lasting peace, you must have the answer to the question: What will fill the vacuum when Israeli forces leave? Today the answer is chaos or Hamas, and any prediction that in 24 months these matters will be resolved shows a lack of seriousness. Palestinians who value law and order and seek to build a decent society, as well as Jordanians who worry what forces will be across the river from them, cannot be so cavalier. This brings us back to lesson one: If the United States is intent on a deal in 24 months no matter what, Israelis will understand that we are not going to protect their security and that we’ll complain when they assert the need to do it themselves.

It's not just about who will fill the vacuum - it's about whether they can be counted on going forward. Even if Fatah's forces were capable of handling Hamas (which they are not), Israelis cannot and do not trust Fatah. It's unfortunate that for the last 17 years, one Israeli government after another has gone around convincing the World that Fatah wants peace. But the truth - as most Israelis know - is exactly the opposite, and this is why the issues coming out now are what is referred to as the "1948 issues" and not the "1967 issues." Fatah and Hamas differ only on tactics. Both of them wish to destroy us. They aren't willing to accept any State of Israel of any size.

4. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not the center of world, Arab, or Muslim politics.

George Mitchell once acknowledged that when he talks to Arab leaders they raise Iran first, but no one in the administration wants to allow mere facts to interfere with their ideology. George W. Bush was as close as any American president ever has been to Israel, but had excellent relations with the Moroccan, Algerian, Emirati, Omani, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Jordanian rulers—all except the Egyptians, who were annoyed that he thought they should have free elections. Paying attention to what Arab political leaders say publicly about Israel is foolish, for their real views consist of tough-minded assessments of the balance of power in the region. What they want most of all is calm; they do not want their streets riled up by Israeli-Palestinian violence. Palestinians are not at the center of their hearts or they would visit the West Bank and bring plenty of cash with them. What preoccupies them is survival and Iran. If they take any lesson from the current coldness between the United States and Israel, it is that the United States is not a reliable ally. If we can ditch Israel, they know we can far more easily ditch them.

The most perverse misunderstanding along these lines is the thought that supporting Israel is risking American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the war on terror....

Israelis listening to official American remarks hear an amateurish interpretation of Arab politics, which as Lee Smith reminded us in his recent book (quoting bin Laden himself) is basically about backing the strong horse. Arab leaders want to know what we will do to stop Iran; they want to know if their ally in Washington is going to be the top power in the region. Israelis wonder where the “uh oh, this will make Islamic extremists angry” argument stops. Does anyone think al Qaeda or the Taliban would be mollified by a settlement freeze? The Islamists are not interested in “1967 issues” related to Israel’s size, but in “1948 issues” related to Israel’s existence. If henceforth we mean to engage such people rather than to defeat them, Israel’s existence—not its settlement policy—comes into play.

Now that's an angle I hadn't thought much about, but it's true. It reminds me of a story of a certain private school that forced out its principal after 30 years, telling him that it was time to retire. The principal lived for 15 years or so after retirement; there was certainly no reason to force him out at the time. I remember my father saying to me regarding this school, "would you want to take a job whose previous holder was forced out after 30 years having done nothing wrong?" If the US can dump Israel, is there anyone they can't dump? (They've already dumped the UK under Obama, and that may even be a stronger argument). What kind of alliances are you going to have if no one trusts you?

By the way, I'm not convinced al-Qaeda and the Taliban are interested in Israel's existence at all. They're looking to destroy America much more than they're looking to destroy Israel.

If this is not the Obama view of the world, the administration should say so quickly and very clearly. Otherwise his administration can fairly be said to be revisiting our own “1948 issues.” The argument that Israel would be a great burden and ruin our place in the Arab world was proffered then by George Marshall—and rejected by Harry Truman. In his memoirs, Clark Clifford wrote at length about the State Department’s efforts to stop -Truman from recognizing the new State of Israel. Clifford quoted Marshall’s deputy Robert Lovett as saying on May 14, 1948—the day Israel declared its independence and Truman offered recognition—“There will be a tremendous reaction in the Arab world. We might lose the effects of many years of hard work with the Arabs. We will lose our position with Arab leaders. It will put our diplomatic missions and consular representatives in personal jeopardy.” After 60 years of American leadership and military dominance in the Middle East, it should be as disturbing to Americans—not least to Democrats who venerate -Truman—as it is to Israelis that traces of this approach are emerging again in Washington.

Netanyahu answered these poor arguments in his address to AIPAC:

Our soldiers and your soldiers fight against fanatic enemies that loathe our common values. In the eyes of these fanatics, we are you and you are us. To them, the only difference is that you are big and we are small, you are the Great Satan and we are the Little Satan.

Here's the bigger problem: There are three more years of Obama left. What pieces are going to be left to pick up by the time this administration ends (assuming he is not re-elected)?

Read the whole thing.


Israel Matzav: Paper peace

Love of the Land: The taboo on Israeli chauvinism

The taboo on Israeli chauvinism


Sarah Honig
Another Tack/JPost
26 March '10

Those Israelis not shunned in the media and on campuses abroad are predominantly left-wing trashers of their own country.

Truth is often an unwelcome guest. Truth can be unpopular. Truth can disconcert. Truth can be bad for business. Truth can be counterproductive for certain reputations – even for the reputation of professionals whose status is ostensibly derived from their dedication to seeking truth.

Truth can be denied even when solidly backed by history. In our postmodern moral-relativist environment no truths exist, only self-serving narratives, claims and counterclaims. Hence truth can be spurned as a biased assertion aimed at furthering someone’s narrow interests. This is all the more insidious because it’s so fashionable.

It’s simplistic to dismiss any fact as an expedient and calculated misrepresentation. This isn’t just intellectual indolence. It’s also intellectual anarchy. Everything can be willy-nilly turned upside down. With nothing rooted to actual sequences of events, liars are liberated. Falsehoods are granted equal standing with truth. Frequently they even gain ascendency and are paraded as unquestionable. Values are devalued. Good and evil are interchangeable. Anything goes.

MY ABOVE ruminations were inspired by twin events. An opinion piece I wrote for an Australian newspaper elicited a deluge of noxious e-mails sent to my private mailbox. In these my ancestors and I were dispatched to the lowest levels of hell and my offspring and I were threatened with torture and death.

Yet somehow worse, because it didn’t come from the loony fringe, was a very polite letter sent by a highly respectable German magazine editor to an acquaintance (also German) who suggested the periodical print his translated version of my column “A good cop goes to Auschwitz” (January 20). The column revisited the World War II avid Arab collaboration with the Nazis (in the wake of MK Muhammad Barakei’s provocative participation at the Auschwitz liberation memorial).

It was flatly rejected on the grounds that it’s “too pro-Israel” and “too massively partisan.” The editor judged it unsuitable, saying it raises “the specter of chauvinism” (in its original sense of ultra-nationalism, before it was hijacked by gender polemics).

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: The taboo on Israeli chauvinism

Saturday, 27 March 2010

Israel Matzav: Where is the press?

Where is the press?

Why wasn't the press allowed at President Obama's meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Let's go to the videotape.



That was apparently a Republican party video. Unfortunately, some of the comments on it at YouTube are appalling.

Israel Matzav: Where is the press?

Love of the Land: Bibi’s Predicament

Bibi’s Predicament


Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
27 March '10

(While I'm sure I'll be posting additional thoughts on this, there is quite a consensus that this is not a passing phenomenon but something both dangerous and with malice. We're going to need to reach inside and find some real strengths we haven't had to use lately, a lot of effort, a lot of tefilot. Y.)

It should be clear by now that President Obama intends to pursue the “peace process” in the same way that he pursued health care — by ramming it down his opponent’s throat, in this case, Israel’s.

According to news reports, Obama has presented Bibi with a long list of demands, acquiescence to which would “resolve” the immediate Obama-created crisis and “allow” a move toward proximity talks (never mind that Israel has always been willing to hold direct talks). Obama thus places Bibi on the horns of an impossible dilemma: Both accepting and rejecting the demands carries immense costs.

Accepting the demands would be humiliating to Bibi. He would have to roll over and — in front of a global audience – expose his stomach to Obama like a defeated dog. This would surely please our thuggish president, but it would carry severe costs for Netanyahu: 1) He would be vilified in Israel and his domestic position imperiled. 2) Even if he wanted to roll, his government may not allow it; one or several of his coalition partners may abandon him. At a moment of critical national-security threats, the government might descend into crisis. Bibi knows that to allow this to happen in the decisive phase of the Iranian nuclear standoff would be supremely dangerous. And 3) Obama’s vindictive and outlandish behavior raises legitimate Israeli suspicions that the “proximity talks” would actually be a trap — and therefore Israel should reject the immediate demands as a way of forestalling the next round of bullying. Let us recall that just four months ago, the administration hailed the settlement freeze as an unprecedented concession; today Obama pretends that he never made the agreement.

(Read full post)


Love of the Land: Bibi’s Predicament

Love of the Land: Israel's Unwavering Guardsmen

Israel's Unwavering Guardsmen


Caroline Glick
Carolineglick.com
26 March '10

As the local and international press corps converged on Jerusalem's Old City to cover the Arab riots at the Temple Mount two weeks ago, little mention was made of the fact that Jerusalem was not the only flashpoint. In Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israeli Arab rioters supported by far-left protesters stoned buses. Israeli Arabs firebombed motorists on Highway 443 and on the roads to Beersheba. In the North, cars were stoned.

These little-reported attacks are the consequence of one of the most dangerous emerging threats to Israel's national survival: the rapidly escalating radicalization of Israel's Arab citizens.

Over the past decade and at a frenzied pace since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, acting at least partially at the direction of the Israeli Islamic Movement and with the active support of the far left, Israeli Arabs and Beduin have launched a massive assault on the state. The relevant national authorities including the courts, the state prosecution, the police, the IDF, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Lands Authority and the Ministry of Interior have failed to defend against it.

Firebombing Jewish-owned vehicles is small potatoes in comparison to developments at the center of mass of the Israeli Arab onslaught: state land. Over the past decade, Israeli Arabs have seized millions of dunams of state land.

The dimensions of this phenomenon were spelled out in last year's State Comptroller's Report. While the local and international Left pillories Israel when the state tries to demolish a handful of the thousands of illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem, what goes unmentioned is that by the end of 2007 there were more than 100,000 illegally built structures in Israel. The overwhelming majority were constructed on state land seized by Arab land thieves in the Negev and the Galilee. By the end of 2009, the number of illegal buildings grew to an estimated 150,000. The scope of the theft is so vast that the Comptroller's Report referred to it as a "national scourge."

(Read full article)

If you were inspired by the story of the New Israeli Guardsmen (Hashomer Hahadash) and would like to support their efforts, here is the information you need to contribute.

Love of the Land: Israel's Unwavering Guardsmen

Love of the Land: Biden's knee-slapper

Biden's knee-slapper


Soccer Dad
25 March '10

Stand up comedian: Vice President Biden (h/t The Muqata last week):

"I just got back from five days in the Middle East," Biden said. "I love to travel, but it's great to be back to a place where a boom in housing construction is actually a good thing," he said. Israel announced during Biden's visit that it had approved construction of 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem, a move which the U.S. called an "insult" due to its timing. (Haaretz)

Israelly Cool observed:

That's really funny, especially to those who have lost their homes and may stand to lose their homes in future thanks to the US pressure on Israel.


And then there's the larger issue of what the administration is trying to accomplish. Israel Matzav wrote two weeks ago:

Because Jerusalem rent is so expensive, young families are trying to move out of the city. But the places that are cheaper that would be attractive to ultra-Orthodox families who would like to be near Jerusalem - Kiryat Sefer and Beitar Ilit - are over the 'green line' where the government has implemented a 'settlement freeze.' So they are looking for solutions in Jerusalem.

People have to live somewhere. Unfortunately, most of the 'international community' would rather that we just leave.


(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Biden's knee-slapper

Love of the Land: Obama’s Humiliation of Israel May Only Be Getting Started

Obama’s Humiliation of Israel May Only Be Getting Started


Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
26 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

After days of a news blackout about the details of the meeting on Tuesday between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Britain’s Telegraph has broken a story with details about what can only be described as an attempt to humiliate the Israeli.

According to the Telegraph’s account, the meeting began with the president presenting a list of 13 demands to Netanyahu. These included a complete freeze on Jewish building in eastern Jerusalem. When Netanyahu did not immediately accede to this diktat, Obama left him saying he was going to go eat dinner with his wife and daughters. Netanyahu and his party were left to wait for over an hour for Obama’s return. The paper claims that as Obama left, he told the prime minister to consider “the error of his ways.” Yediot Ahronot reported that Obama merely said, “I’m still around. Let me know if there is anything new.” A second brief meeting followed, which apparently consisted of the president restating his demands. As a punishment for Netanyahu’s failure to immediately bend to Obama’s ultimatum, there was no joint statement issued about the meeting and no press coverage of the visit. Friday’s Ma’ariv describes the scene thusly: “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.”

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Obama wants an answer to his demands by Saturday so he can then present them to a meeting of the Arab League going on in Libya so that ineffectual body can endorse the so-called proximity talks in which the Palestinian Authority refuses to directly negotiate with Israel.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Obama’s Humiliation of Israel May Only Be Getting Started

Love of the Land: Analysis: The Legacy of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

Analysis: The Legacy of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh


Jonathan Spyer
GLORIA Center
26 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

Wherever departed Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is now, he is presumably (I don't share this presumption. Y.) enjoying the considerable trouble the nature of his exit is causing his Israeli enemies.

The British decision to expel an unnamed Israeli diplomat following the conclusion of an investigation into the alleged use by Israel of cloned British passports in an assassination operation probably does not signal the onset of a general crisis in relations between London and Jerusalem. Still, it is not an everyday act, and the language used by the foreign secretary in announcing the expulsion was notably harsh.

This affair has so far traveled along similar lines to the last major set-to between the UK and Israel over the issue of Israeli intelligence activities overseas. In 1986, a number of forged British passports were discovered in an Israeli diplomatic pouch in West Germany. This incident was followed a year later by the apprehending of a Palestinian employed as a double agent by Israeli intelligence, together with a cache of weapons, in a northern English town. The result was the expulsion from Britain of Arie Regev, an official at the Israeli Embassy. Regev was widely regarded as the chief of the Mossad station in the UK.

Then, as now, the anger of senior British officials was real, not feigned. And the public revelations of the events meant that a response of a public nature was also inevitable. But the substantive response was a managed one. Cooperation between Israeli and British intelligence services suffered for a while. But channels of communication stayed open via Washington. Information of really crucial importance continued to be shared.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Analysis: The Legacy of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

Love of the Land: Novel on exodus from 1956 Egypt and Hungary

Novel on exodus from 1956 Egypt and Hungary


Jewish immigrants from Port Said arriving
in Israel in 1958 (Jewish Agency)

Bataween
Point of No Return
26 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

A new novel examines the parallel dislocation in two Jewish refugee stories of 1956, and their resettlement in Israel: one from Egypt and one from Hungary. Adam Kirsch reviews Haim Sabato's novel, 'From the Four Winds', in The Tablet:

It is billed as a work of fiction, but for its first few chapters, From the Four Winds, the new book by the Israeli rabbi and novelist Haim Sabato, reads like a memoir. Sabato begins conversationally, recounting his early memories as a young immigrant to Jerusalem in the late 1950s. In a kind of modern-day Exodus, the Jews of Egypt were expelled after the 1956 Sinai War, and they made their way to Israel by roundabout stages, passing through Italy and Greece along the way. When the Sabatos arrived, they were assigned to a housing project in a new neighborhood in West Jerusalem, which the novelist refers to by its traditional name of Beit Mazmil, though by the time he lived there it had already been renamed Kiryat HaYovel.

The hardships of the Mizrahi immigrants to Israel are more widely known today than they once were, though for American Jews, who are mostly of Ashkenazi descent, the early history of the Jewish state is still more often viewed through the eyes of Eastern European pioneers. Sabato introduces us to this hardscrabble immigrants’ world through the eyes of the child he then was, never certain that he really understood the folkways of his new country. For instance, he is bewildered by the enthusiasm of his fellow second-graders, mostly native Israelis, who are planning their Purim costumes:

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Novel on exodus from 1956 Egypt and Hungary

Love of the Land: UN propagates Israeli organ theft allegation

UN propagates Israeli organ theft allegation


Just Journalism
26 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

The International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), a Libyan-founded non-governmental organization, has submitted a document to the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council--the body that commissioned the Goldstone Report, which alleged Israel was guilty of war crimes in Gaza--to investigate allegations that 'Israeli physicians, Medical Centres, rabbis and the Israeli army' may be stealing the organs of 'dead, kidnapped and killed' Palestinians for sale on the black market. The document has been circulated by the Human Rights Council as Agenda item 7 for the body’s thirteenth session (A/HRC/13/NGO/23), and although it has been covered by the Jerusalem Post and Canada’s National Post, no British media outlet has so far reported on it.

EAFORD was accredited as an NGO by the UN in 1981, and its focus, judging by its website and publications, is on equating Zionism with racism and South African apartheid.

Its present submission had been screened for publication by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a post currently held by Navanethem Pillay, and granted the certified logo of the United Nations.

By way of introduction, EAFORD accuses Israel of 'ethnic cleansing and massacres' against the Palestinians, 'occupy[ing] the rest of Palestine,' creating 'largest open-air prison in the world,' whose 'consequences amount to an act of siege and economic genocide.'

EAFORD then proceeds to state the following:

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: UN propagates Israeli organ theft allegation

Love of the Land: Rachel Corrie Wasn’t the Only ISM Member Playing Chicken with a Bulldozer That Day

Rachel Corrie Wasn’t the Only ISM Member Playing Chicken with a Bulldozer That Day


Lenny Ben-David
I*Consult
25 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

At least two of her colleagues had placed themselves under the tractor's maw on that day in 2003. Russian roulette was apparently the group's strategy.

G-d, sometimes we Israelis are idiots. Leave aside the colossal fashla (you call it a snafu) of the ill-timed announcement of the expansion of the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood that sent the Obama administration into a hissy fit. What we’re doing with the latest “lawfare” case against Israel, the trial brought by Rachel Corrie’s parents, is another beaut.

In March 2003, a young American woman named Rachel Corrie was crushed and killed by an IDF bulldozer in Gaza. And now her parents are in Israel, suing Israel. Last week, the Israeli newspaper Yediot portrayed her as a saintly martyr and featured a false photo of the incident, taken at a different time and with a different bulldozer. The anchor of Israel Radio’s morning commute show rebuked Israel’s actions, and the Israeli YES cable network presented Rachel, a two-hour paean to Corrie and an indictment of Israel.

We’re nuts.

We overlook the fact that Corrie’s death took place in the midst of the “intifada” terrorist onslaught against Israel and that she was working for a Palestinian-led organization as the first line of defense against Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield to stop terrorist suicide bombers. Just ten days before Corrie’s death, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a bus in Haifa, a few miles from the courthouse where the Corrie parents are suing Israel. Seventeen Israelis died in the attack, many of them teenagers.

Today, the parents of the dead are outraged by the attention Rachel Corrie is getting and by the chutzpah of the Corries embracing Israeli courts to rail against the country Rachel Corrie loathed.


(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Rachel Corrie Wasn’t the Only ISM Member Playing Chicken with a Bulldozer That Day

Love of the Land: Obama’s Disgraceful Conduct Toward Israel

Obama’s Disgraceful Conduct Toward Israel


P. David Hornik
Frontpagemag.com
26 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

On Wednesday night in Washington Israeli and American officials worked feverishly—but failed—to produce a document stating Israel’s commitments regarding proximity talks with the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. was reportedly supposed to take the document to the Palestinians and then to the Arab League meeting in Tripoli, Libya, this weekend.

Days earlier Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had outlined such commitments in a letter to secretary of state Hillary Clinton. It was deemed insufficient and, in Washington, President Barack Obama sent Netanyahu and his accompanying officials back to the drawing board. According to one report, Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman advised Netanyahu not to sign any such document that night, and to wait to return home and discuss the matter with the Israeli inner cabinet.

The commitments Obama seeks are variously reported to be: some sort of Israeli undertaking about a construction moratorium in the West Bank (where one is already in place) and East Jerusalem; a promise to engage in such final-status issues as refugees, borders, and Jerusalem in the proximity talks; and “gestures” to the Palestinian Authority such as the removal of additional checkpoints and the freeing of Palestinian security prisoners.

The pressures Obama directed at Netanyahu were severe, in one account even inducing a “panic” reaction in the Israeli leader. The total media blackout that accompanied their meeting led the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl to comment that “Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arm’s length.” Obama was further riled by news about an approval to build 20 apartments for Jews in a compound in East Jerusalem owned by an American Jewish millionaire since 1985—situated in a mostly-Arab neighborhood.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Obama’s Disgraceful Conduct Toward Israel

RubinReports: Some Truths About America’s Anti-Racist History: Portraying the Japanese in World War Two Films

Some Truths About America’s Anti-Racist History: Portraying the Japanese in World War Two Films

By Barry Rubin

This year, my son—who is attending the fourth grade at an American public school—has been subjected to an unending barrage of anti-Americanism, especially around the issue of racism. For some reason the main focus is alleged American racism toward the Japanese in World War Two. In addition, literally not a single positive word has been spoken about America during the entire school year.

At the same time, I have been watching a number of American films about the Pacific theatre during World War Two, not seeking them out but merely because they have been shown on television. The controversy over Tom Hanks’s statement and his new series on that war has added to the interest.

One thing very clear to me is that American films about the Pacific theatre are remarkably free of vicious or “racialist” incitement. On the contrary, it is remarkable how restrained they are. In many films that focus on combat—say, “Wake Island” or “They Were Expendable,” among them--there little talk about the Japanese at all, much less any demonizing of them. They are an enemy who is being fought and, if possible, killed, but there is no racialist message.

Another film, “Bataan,” (1943) showsout Americans and Filipinos fighting together in the early days of the war. The two allies are seen interacting on a basis of equality. Remember that Japanese are not a race and World War Two American stereotypes of other Asians—especially Filipinos and Chinese—are quite sympathetic. About the only characterization of the Japanese in this film is that while hated as foes the American soldiers describe them as very brave and skilled soldiers.

In “Thirty Seconds over Tokyo,” about the first American air raid on Japan, led by Colonel Jimmy Doolittle, there is one remarkable exchange in which a flier says that Americans should not be prejudiced against the Japanese people as a whole. He says that his family employed a Japanese gardener who was a pretty nice guy. While today this might be portrayed as patronizing, the context was that Japanese were human beings like everyone else.

Incidentally, when the plane crews crash land in China, their lives are saved by heroic Chinese, shown as defending themselves against Japanese aggression. They risk their own lives and give of their few possessions to help save Americans. Asians are thus portrayed very favorably.

If you want to see a film that expresses the American self-conception at the time, try "The Human Comedy" (1943), written by the Armenian-American Californian William Saroyan. Many now consider the film embarrassingly sentimental and corny. But it is actually quite noble. (I'd love to see this film being shown as representative of how Americans thought--or at least the standard they set for themselves--during those days.

Mickey Rooney plays a boy working at the telegraph office in a California town who watches his brother go off to war. But he has to deliver telegrams telling families that their sons are killed, wounded, or missing. There is a moving scene when he has to do so to a Mexican-American family (treated very sympathetically) and a truly remarkable one when his boss is driving through the park past all the different ethnic versions of July 4 celebrations, pointing them out as examples of American pluralism. I believe that in a scene of American soldiers heading east on a troop train, there are a couple of Asian-Americans in uniform, though no one remarks on the fact. This film should be mandatory viewing for public school students today to know that their ancestors weren’t neo-Nazi skinheads.

Especially interesting is the 1944 film, “Destination Tokyo.” It’s about an American submarine crew given a mission to sneak into Tokyo Bay with a Japanese-speaking American officer to gather intelligence for the raid mentioned above. So how did this wartime movie, chosen pretty much at random, deal with the Japanese? Is it an example of American racism and chauvinism, like schoolkids are taught nowadays?

There are two scenes in which the Japanese come up and they are both pretty remarkable. Remember the war was at its height when this film was made. In the first scene, the submarine is passing through the Aleutian islands when it is attacked by two Japanese planes. It shoots both of them down—perhaps an unreasonable amount of heroics but necessary to the plot since the mission would have to be cancelled if they are spotted.

One of the Japanese pilots parachutes and the captain orders him to be taken aboard for questioning. I think this is most unrealistic since they couldn’t go on a long mission with a Japanese officer on board. If it had happened in real life, they probably would have done nothing and he would have been dead of hypothermia in those icy waters within a few minutes.

But following orders, Mike, one of the most popular crew members, tries to pull him aboard. The pilot stabs him to death and is immediately machinegunned. This is not unrealistic since Japanese soldiers—especially officers—rarely surrendered and did use such tactics on many occasions.

At any rate, this could have been the basis for a real hate-Japanese diatribe. Instead, though, the speeches made by a crew member and by the captain (played by Cary Grant) to the crew are remarkable.

One crewman, who has earlier made clear his ethnic pride in being a Greek, to which he then proudly adds, "Greek American," (in the kind of American pluralist statement so common in wartime files), doesn’t attend the funeral. The other crew members are angry at him but he explains that he doesn’t think he’s earned the right to do so because he hasn’t made any contribution to avenging those already dead. Back in Greece, he recounts, his uncle, a professor, was killed by the Nazis:

“Because he had brains. Because everybody’s got to be their slave and those who won’t, like my uncle, they kill….So I don’t forget my uncle. I read where an American flier gets killed and I think of my uncle. I see pictures of little Chinese kids getting bombed and I think of my uncle. I hear about a Russian guerrilla getting hanged and I think about my uncle. And I see Mike lying in there dead from a Jap killer and I think of my uncle.”

Again, many would see this as contrived and mawkish but it is hardly a chauvinistic American rant. His inclusion of the Chinese, who like the Japanese are Asians, makes it pretty PC by any standards. It also points out once again the very strong pro-Chinese feeling in the United States at the time. Overall, it wasn't a bad way to explain the war in both terms of freedom and human connections.

A short time later, the captain says:

“Mike was with me on my first patrol. I was his friend. I know his family….I remember Mike’s pride when he bought his first roller skates for his little five-year-old boy….Well that Jap got a present, too, when he was five, a dagger….The Japs have a ceremony that goes with it….At thirteen he can put a machine-gun together blindfolded . So as I see it, that Jap was started on the road twenty years ago to putting a knife in Mike’s back. There are lots of Mikes dying now, and lots more will die. Until we put a stop to a system that puts knives in the hands of five-year-old children. You know, if Mike were here to put it into words right now that’s just about what he died for: more roller-skates in this world, including some for the next generation of Japanese kids because that’s the kind of a man Mike was.”

This isn’t a sophisticated lecture on the samurai class. The machine-gun part is silly, of course. But what does the speech say? That a terrible system in Japan has created people who inevitably act in a certain way and that this system must be democratized, not only for America’s sake but for that of the Japanese as well so that they can enjoy a better life.

This is a remarkable prophecy of the post-war American occupation policy and successful transformation of Japan. Such sentiments are the opposite of a racist interpretation, which sees such behavior as innate and certainly doesn’t care about the lives of the enemy. One can’t help thinking of parallels in a system which teaches children to become suicide bombers today, programming them to hate and to want to commit genocide.

Yet there is even more here. While racism--mainly against those of African descent--was long a terrible feature of American life, there are powerful counter-ideas also in American history. Americans believed that people were not merely the outcome of innate, genetic determinism. What better description of the American world view is there to say that a peasant, the descendant of generations of peasants, could get off the boat and become a prosperous and respected citizen? And there would be little or no prejudice against the children of those immigrants because of their background.

True, each new wave of immigrants was hazed, and those from Africa faced by far the longest and greatest mistreatment. Yet ultimately it was because racism was contrary to the American system and world view that it could not survive.

Returning to the film, in a later scene, the captain asks the intelligence officer about Japanese society. While the conversation may not be accurate, it is also explicitly anti-racialist. The officer explains that there was a democratic movement in Japan but the leaders were assassinated. The people have no power and are downtrodden, “No unions, no free press, nothing.” Most of them “believe what they’re told. They’ve been sold a swindle and they accept it.” it is explained that Japanese people live in appalling poverty in a way that stirs sympathy for them and that “females are useful there only to work and have children.”

Again, it is not that the Japanese are innately evil or inferior but merely that the people have been deprived of rights. They, too, are victims. There were heroic Japanese who wanted democracy but they were repressed. Note also that the oppression of women is an important issue, like today, in the mix which is said to make for an authoritarian society.

Of course, this is the Hollywood version of events, not what was going on in the field. But that’s precisely the point. This was the kind of thing Americans in their millions were being told: hate the Japanese as an enemy but not as a people or as a “race.” And, again, a very clear differentiation was being made among Asians based on nationality.

I’m not saying that these films are great art necessarily or accurate about how the war was fought. But inasmuch as there is an ideological statement in them, it is something Americans today can be proud of and it is also evidence that the rewriting of American history into a series of hate crimes is a lie.


RubinReports: Some Truths About America’s Anti-Racist History: Portraying the Japanese in World War Two Films

RubinReports: Has the Obama Administration, against U.S. interests, declared diplomatic war on Israel?

Has the Obama Administration, against U.S. interests, declared diplomatic war on Israel?

As things heat up in the Middle East, with major developments daily, please be subscriber 9,740

By Barry Rubin

Has the Obama Administration, against U.S. interests, declared diplomatic war on Israel?

Up to now my view has been that the U.S. government didn’t want a crisis but merely sought to get indirect negotiations going between Israel and Palestinians in order to look good.

Even assuming this limited goal, the technique was to keep getting concessions from Israel without asking the PA to do or give anything has been foolish, but at least it was a generally rational strategy.

But now it has become reasonable to ask whether the Obama White House is running amuck on Israel, whether it is pushing friction so far out of proportion that it is starting to seem a vendetta based on hostility and ideology. And if that's true, there is little Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or any Israeli leader can do to fix the problem.

A partial explanation of such behavior can be called, to borrow a phrase from the health law debate, a "single-payer option" as its Middle East strategy. That is, the administration seems to envision Israel paying for everything: supposedly to get the Palestinian Authority (PA) to talks, do away with any Islamist desire to carry out terrorism or revolution, keep Iraq quiet, make Afghanistan stable, and solve just about any other global problem.

What makes this U.S. tactic even more absurd is doing so at the very moment when it is coddling Syria and losing the battle for anything but the most minimal sanctions on Iran.

During his visit to Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to defuse the tension. His partners in government, we should never forget, are Defense Minister Ehud Barak, leader of the Labour Party, and President Shimon Peres, who has done more to promote Middle East peace than any other living Israeli leader.

But according to reliable sources, Obama went out of his way to be personally hostile, treating Netanyahu like some colonial minion who could be ordered around.

It is not entirely clear what demands the White House has made on Israel. Those most often mentioned are the release of more Palestinian prisoners, the permanent end of construction in the West Bank, and the permanent end to construction in parts of Jerusalem over the pre-1967 border.

Palestinian prisoners: It is ironic, given U.S. statements that Israel must "prove" its commitment to peace, that there have been so many prisoner releases in the past. Thus, Washington is not giving Israel credit for these. Moreover, many of those arrested have committed terrorism against Israeli civilians in the past and may well do so in future. Finally, releasing prisoners will not bring any gratitude from the PA or increased willingness to negotiate. If such a release is forced, the PA will merely assume that it doesn't matter if Palestinians attrack or kill Israelis because Washington will secure the release of those captured in future without the PA having to do anything.

West Bank and Jerusalem Construction: Only five months ago, the U.S. government agreed to a temporary halt to construction and Israel's government agreed. If this did not prove Israel's commitment to peace--and the White House broke the deal--why should Israel assume that it will get any credit for this step either? What is its incentive for such a big concession? Such construction should give the PA an incentive to make a deal faster. But, again, if this goal is achieved by U.S. pressure, why shouldn't the PA presume that all settlements will be removed in future by a similar mechanism without its having to make full peace and any concessions?

I won't take space here to restate all the arguments regarding Israel's claims to areas of Jerusalem under Jordanian rule before 1967. Note that President Clinton, in the Camp David and Clinton plan proposals in 2000, supported Israeli rule over much--though definitely not all--of east Jerusalem.
Why should the administration believe that it can press Israel to make big concessions, a: with no PA concessions; b. with its U.S. ally showing itself so unreliable that it is unlikely to credit Israel with concessions it does make or to keep agreements based on Israeli concessions; and c. at a time when the U.S. government is not workin very hard to stop Iran's nuclear weapons campaign?

The one answer the administration gives is so factually inaccurate as to call into question--if I may coin a phrase--its analytical sanity.

Judging from the evidence, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC speech, the administration thinks it can force Israel's government to give in because it knows better what Israelis want than do Netanyahu, Barak, and Peres.

Actually, a poll by the highly respected Smith Research company for the Jerusalem Post, found that only 9 percent of Israeli Jews considered the administration pro-Israel, while 48 percent said it was more pro-Palestinian. To understand these figures, you have to know that most Israelis are very reluctant to say anything critical of the United States, out of genuine respect, concern not to damage relations, and speaking on the basis of their hopes.

So does the administration want to resolve this issue or to break Israel's willpower? Is it going to keep piling on demands in hope of giving the PA so much that it will agree to talk about getting itself even more unilateral Israeli concessions? Is the goal to overthrow Netanyahu—which isn’t going to happen—or turn him into a servant who will follow orders in future—which also isn’t going to happen?

Doesn’t this U.S. government understand that if it proves itself hostile that will destroy any incentive Israel has to enter negotiations with Obama as the mediator? If he's this much acting solely based on PA interests now, does any Israeli government want to make him the arbitor of the country's future, deciding on its borders, security guarantees, and other existential issues? Of course not.

By the same token, can't he comprehend that he is giving the PA every incentive to keep raising the price, especially since it doesn't want to talk any way?

Is there no real sense--probably not--that if this administration undermines Israel's trust in Washington it will push the whole country further to the right. If the U.S. government politely asks to stop building in east Jerusalem in exchange for some tangible benefit and for a limited time, lots of Israelis would be willing to agree. But if this happens in a framework of enmity and threat, with the "reward" being no benefit and even more concessions to follow, even doves will grow sharp beaks.

It seems as if the Obama Administration has chosen just one country in the world to try to pressure and intimidate. And it has picked the worst possible target in this respect, both because of how Israelis think and also given very strong domestic U.S. support for Israel (especially strong in Congress).

Won’t it see that if it bashes Israel while ignoring the PA’s commemoration of a major square in honor of a terrorist who murdered a score of Israeli civilians, with Clinton even claiming this was done by Hamas and not the PA? And as the administration betrays Israel’s main priority—failing to put serious pressure on Iran to stop building nuclear weapons—why should Israel want to do big favors and take big risks for this president?

Finally, since this administration has already unilaterally abrogated two major U.S. promises—the previous president’s recognition that settlement blocs could be absorbed by Israel as part of a peace agreement, and the Obama administration’s own pledge to let Israel build in east Jerusalem if it stopped on the West Bank—why should it put its faith in some new set of promises?

So the Obama Administration will have to decide, and do so in the coming days.

Does it want to try to get some limited concessions from Israel to use as capital in trying to get talks started, using these to brag--futilely, of course--to Arabs and Muslims how they should be nicer to the administration in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or does it want to live up to the negative stereotypes held by its worst enemies while simultaneously committing political suicide and destroying U.S. credibility in the Middle East. We will know the answer pretty soon.


RubinReports: Has the Obama Administration, against U.S. interests, declared diplomatic war on Israel?

Israel Matzav: Obama in Israeli television interview: 'Let them eat cornflakes'

Obama in Israeli television interview: 'Let them eat cornflakes'

Latma becomes the first Israeli television network to interview President Obama, and we have the full interview, so let's go to the videotape.



Heh.

Israel Matzav: Obama in Israeli television interview: 'Let them eat cornflakes'

Israel Matzav: Why has Obama treated Bibi so rudely?

Why has Obama treated Bibi so rudely?

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting post on why President Obama treated Prime Minister Netanyahu so rudely at the White House this past week. This is Glenn's theory (Hat Tip: Memeorandum):

But it’s also possible — I’d say likely — that there’s something else going on. I think Obama expects Israel to strike Iran, and wants to put distance between the United States and Israel in advance of that happening. (Perhaps he even thinks that treating Israel rudely will provoke such a response, saving him the trouble of doing anything about Iran himself, and avoiding the risk that things might go wrong if he does). On the most optimistic level, maybe this whole thing is a sham, and the U.S. is really helping Israel strike Iran, with this as distraction. The question for readers is which of these — not necessarily mutually exclusive — explanations is most plausible.

It's an interesting thought, but I really doubt it would work. Since I'm convinced at this point that there is no way in the world that Obama will attack Iran, I'd be happy at this point if Obama would just stand down and let the IAF do the job. But if he thinks that we're going to attack Iran and they won't retaliate against the US, I'm afraid he's fooling himself.

I also wonder whether an attempt by Obama to disassociate himself from an Israeli attack will also mean going along with all the inevitable UN condemnations, cutting off arms sales to Israel (to the extent not cut off already), etc.

William Jacobson (who sends me lots of readers by the way - thanks!) has some interesting thoughts on why Americans have been very affected by the way Obama treated Netanyahu (yes, fellow Israelis, this has been big news in the US too).

Part of it certainly is that the foreign leader in question was the leader of Israel, which is tremendously popular with Americans. In Israel the clear majority of Americans see a democratic nation surrounded by implacable enemies who also are our enemies, doing what it takes to survive and thrive. In so many historical, religious and political ways Israel is our kindred spirit, more than just one among many nations.

But that cannot explain the intensity of the reaction. Obama has shown disrespect for our British friends, with whom we share an even more intense historical relationship. There are very, very few countries in the world whose soldiers would die for us, and Britain is one of those countries. Yet the reaction to Obama's treatment of Britain has been muted.

I think the reaction to Obama's treatment of Bibi Netanyahu hits home because it was so personal in nature, and because it epitomized how the American people have been treated by Obama and the Democrats, with arrogance and disdain.

Hmmm. I wonder how many Jewish Democrats have been woken up by this past week. But I'm glad to hear that so many Americans feel all warm and fuzzy about Israel.

I spent the last day or so in Samaria in what some of you might call a 'settlement.' This is the first live post I've done since about 2:00 Friday afternoon, so for those of you who are wondering where your comments disappeared to, they should be up shortly.

Israel Matzav: Why has Obama treated Bibi so rudely?

Israel Matzav: Makan attacked for coming to Israel

Makan attacked for coming to Israel

Kaspian Makan, the fiancee of Iranian martyr Neda Soltan, is under attack at PBS's Tehran Bureau page for coming to Israel (that's him pictured with President Shimon Peres).

It is not clear why Makan chose to journey to Israel, let alone meet with a top Israeli power. Neda's mother, Hajar Rostami Motlagh, has made public her futile attempts to dissuade her once-to-be son in law. According to a report, she told him, "If Neda were alive, she would not have gone to Israel. I don't see why you should." Motlagh accused Makan of "misusing Neda's name" and "wrongly calling himself a representative of the Iranian nation." She added, "Makan had no right in doing so... and I told him you ruined your image by going to Israel as Israel does not have any respect (or place) among Iranians....please let Neda's soul be at peace."

Makan introduced himself to Peres as a representative of the Iranian nation. For a man so silent on political and post-election issues, it is not clear how he could establish himself as ambassador to the entire Iranian nation. Especially while visiting Israel, a move seemingly designed to incite his compatriots given the sensitivity to Israel held by many Iranians, both reformist and hardliner. Until Makan comes out and explains his motives and the details of his trip to Israel, a great many important questions about his trip, not to mention its potential consequences, remain unanswered.

A few non-Jewish Iranians daring to travel to Israel returned to face IRI's wrath, most notably the famous blogger Hossein Derakhshan. While Derakhshan did not meet Shimon Peres or other ranking Israelis, it is widely believed that his trip to Israel was one of the factors behind his detention upon his return to Iran. He has been in prison without a court hearing ever since, and according to his brother, "Our family does not even know of any official charge against him."

Knowing the efforts of the Iranian government to cast doubt over Neda's death, it is hard to believe that Makan went to Israel to raise positive publicity for the Iranian Green Movement, or on behalf of the Iranian people. One can only assume that he was aware of two facts: first, that Neda's name and image are internationally iconic for opposition movement. Second, Israel is not a good place to discuss issues of freedom and human right abuses occurring in Iran unless you are siding with the enemy of your own country. Taking these points into account, the task of deciphering a conceivable explanation for what impelled Makan to Israel, except for perhaps the insanity of hubris, becomes ever more difficult.

Read the whole thing.

So who is more representative of how the Green's feel about Israel? Makan or his detractors?


Israel Matzav: Makan attacked for coming to Israel

Israel Matzav: Who holds the moral high ground?

Who holds the moral high ground?

Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.

John Hinderaker tears apart an AP 'analysis' on Israel and the 'Palestinians' here. It's worth taking the time to read.

Israel Matzav: Who holds the moral high ground?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...