Sunday, 11 April 2010

Israel Matzav: We've been here before

We've been here before

It occurred to me that all the talk about President Obama being the first US President to try to tackle the Middle East early in his first term in office is simply untrue. Richard Nixon did the same thing in 1969. His Secretary of State, William Rogers (pictured) introduced something known as the Rogers Plan, which was the subject of many fears in Israel and the United States so long as Rogers was Secretary of State. In a lot of ways, this sounds like deja vu all over again.

The Rogers Plan was a framework proposed by United States Secretary of State William P. Rogers to achieve an end to belligerence in the Arab-Israeli conflict following the Six-Day War and the continuing War of Attrition. The plan was publicly proposed in a December 9, 1969 speech at an Adult Education conference,[1] and was formally announced on June 19, 1970.[2] Despite eventual concessions Egyptians ceded for the plan, Israel lobbyists opposed to the proposal galvanized American public against it.[3] [That statement is disingenuous, as you will see below. CiJ].

The December 1969 speech followed the failure of the Jarring Mission to negotiate an implementation plan for UN Security Council Resolution 242 among the principals in the Six-Day War. It was in the context of the UN's failure to arbitrate Egypt–Israel tensions that the Soviet Union approached the US Nixon administration with the proposal to negotiate a peace settlement in the Middle East, with the two superpowers acting as mediators. The Soviet Union would work with Egypt and the United States would seek to represent Israel's interests.[4] [In other words, 'proximity talks.' We're back to 1969. CiJ]

Some of the points included in Rogers’ ten-point paper called for the following:

* Negotiations under Gunnar Jarring’s auspices following procedures used in the 1949 meetings on Rhodes;
* Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory occupied in the war;
* An agreement signed by the two sides officially ending the state of war and prohibiting “acts inconsistent with the state of peace between them”;
* Negotiations between Israel and Egypt for agreement on areas to be demilitarized, measures to guarantee free passage through the Gulf of Aqaba, and security arrangements for Gaza;
* A "fair settlement of the refugee problem".[5]

So why wasn't the plan accepted? No, it wasn't just Israel's fault....

Failure of the Jarring Mission and the mediated peace talks reflected a long-standing stalemate between Israel and Egypt. Whereas Israel demanded a formal recognition of its sovereignty, gained via direct peace talks with Egypt, Egypt would only agree to offer a peace sponsored by the third-party United Nations (this would allow Egypt to avoid political fallout from the Arab nations, which were strongly opposed to recognition of Israel). In addition to this peace, Israel would return all land to Egypt.[6] Both parties viewed the conflicting interests as a stalemate only to be resolved via military intimidation.[6] Whereas the US government view hoped to use promises of arms to gain Israeli concessions on land, Israel desired arms to secure the land it refused to give up.[6]

Negotiations leading up to Rogers’ plan were complicated not only by hostilities between Israel and Egypt, but also by the differing philosophies adopted by the Soviet Union and the United States in approaching the negotiations. Soviet strategy during the peace talks had been to “bring the Egyptians with them every step of the way. American strategy was wholly different. There was never any question of trying to persuade the Israelis to endorse each American move as it was made. To secure Israel’s agreement the Americans calculated that they would first have to have that of Egypt and the Soviet Union”.[7]

Thus, though both Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yitzhak Rabin had conferred with U.S. President Richard Nixon in the last few months of 1969, Rogers' speech was viewed as a surprise.[citation needed]

The plan was formally accepted by both Egypt and Jordan in July 1970,[8] with the full support of the Soviet Union[9] although only as grounds for a cease-fire, and not to end the effective state of war.

Sounds just like Hamas, doesn't it? They wanted all the land back for a 'hudna.' The Arabs' tactics haven't changed in 40 years.

In an unsuccessful attempt to draw the UN intervention following the cease-fire which ended the Six Day War, the Egyptians launched a new round of artillery duels with Israeli forces.[6] While Secretary Rogers pursued his peace plan, Pres. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, with the assistance of three brigades of Soviet troops,[10] rapidly escalated the War of Attrition against Israeli forces at the Suez Canal in an attempt to inflict maximum casualties on Israeli forces.

According to the August 7, 1970, "in place" cease-fire agreement, both sides were required not to change "the military status quo within zones extending 50 kilometers to the east and west of the cease-fire line." However, Egypt immediately moved anti-aircraft batteries into the zone. By October there were about 100 SAM sites in the zone, and Rogers made no diplomatic effort to secure their removal, setting in motion the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

For this reason, Secretary Rogers had little credibility in Israel. The Israeli interpretation of his plan was that it required Israel to withdraw from areas captured during the Six-Day War without any assurances of a lasting peace from Arab states. As a result, the Israeli government determined that support of the plan would be "irresponsible", and refused overtures from Egypt to enter into discussions aimed at settlement of the conflict called for by the plan. The Rogers peace plan finally failed due to lack of support from Israel (though an initial decision to accept it had resulted in the right-wing Gahal party leaving Golda Meir's government in August 1970). No breakthrough occurred even after President Sadat in 1972 surprised everyone by suddenly expelling Soviet advisers from Egypt and again signaled to Washington his willingness to negotiate.[11]

Note that the article contradicts itself - did Israel accept the plan or did it not? Note also that it failed because Rogers had 'little credibility in Israel.' That is true of Obama and Clinton and Mitchell as well, let alone Brzezinski.

But we have definitely been here before.


Israel Matzav: We've been here before

Israel Matzav: Obama isn't Sadat and Israel isn't making peace with America

Obama isn't Sadat and Israel isn't making peace with America

In Sunday's Washington Post, there is a call for President Obama to make 'a bold Mideast trip.' The call is made by what appears to be (but is not as we shall see later) an odd couple: Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen Solarz.

More than three decades ago, Israeli statesman Moshe Dayan, speaking about an Egyptian town that controlled Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea, declared that he would rather have Sharm el-Sheikh without peace than peace without Sharm el-Sheikh. Had his views prevailed, Israel and Egypt would still be in a state of war. Today, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, with his pronouncements about the eternal and undivided capital of Israel, is conveying an updated version of Dayan's credo -- that he would rather have all of Jerusalem without peace than peace without all of Jerusalem.

The comparison is outrageous. Sharm el-Sheikh may have had strategic importance, but there was no Jewish connection to it. Jerusalem is our capital - the city that has been the focus of our prayers for 3,000 years. To compare Sharm el-Sheikh to Jerusalem is outrageous, especially for a Jew (which Solarz is).

This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive peace agreement is in the interest of all parties. It is in the U.S. national interest because the occupation of the West Bank and the enforced isolation of the Gaza Strip increases Muslim resentment toward the United States, making it harder for the Obama administration to pursue its diplomatic and military objectives in the region.

The attempt to link Iran to the 'Palestinians' is outrageous. Iran isn't just an Israeli issue, and in fact, many Arab countries may be so disgusted with America's lack of leadership on the issue that they prefer that Israel attack Iran.

Peace is in the interest of Israel; its own defense minister, Ehud Barak, recently said that the absence of a two-state solution is the greatest threat to Israel's future, greater even than an Iranian bomb.

I don't agree with Barak, but if you ask Barak, I would bet that he will tell you that a 'Palestinian state' that reaches the 1949 armistice line would be an even greater danger to Israel than the lack of a 'two-state solution.'

And an agreement is in the interest of the Palestinians, who deserve to live in peace and with the dignity of statehood.

Funny, the 'Palestinians' don't seem to see it that way either. They turned down an offer that was far more generous than anything to which the Netanyahu government is likely to agree.

However, a routine unveiling of a U.S. peace proposal, as is reportedly under consideration, will not suffice. Only a bold and dramatic gesture in a historically significant setting can generate the political and psychological momentum needed for a major breakthrough. Anwar Sadat's courageous journey to Jerusalem three decades ago accomplished just that, paving the way for the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt.

Similarly, President Obama should travel to the Knesset in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to call upon both sides to negotiate a final status agreement based on a specific framework for peace. He should do so in the company of Arab leaders and members of the Quartet, the diplomatic grouping of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations that is involved in the peace process. A subsequent speech by Obama in Jerusalem's Old City, addressed to all the people in the region and evocative of his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June 2009, could be the culminating event in this journey for peace.

The difference between Sadat and Obama is obvious: Sadat was the party with whom we were supposed to make peace. He came and said he wanted to make peace, and then he never made another statement calling for Israel's destruction. Obama is not Sadat. We're not (supposed to be) making peace with Obama. We're supposed to be making peace with Abu Mazen. Would Abu Mazen come to Israel and make an unconditional statement like Sadat made before the Knesset ('no more war, no more bloodshed')? No. Even if Abu Mazen made such a statement, could he force it on his people? No. Would Abu Mazen be willing to pay with his life for making such a statement as Sadat did? No.

The basic outlines of a durable and comprehensive peace plan that Obama could propose are known to all:

Yes, they are 'known to all.' And over the years, Israel has made offer after offer to the 'Palestinians' (which I would not remake) that conceded each and every one of these points (and even did so without the call for US or NATO troops on the 'border' - something I don't believe any American or Israeli wants). And those offers were turned down (by Arafat) or ignored (by Abu Mazen). When do we stop making the same offer over and over again? When do we take 'no' for an answer?

For the Israelis, who are skeptical about the willingness of the Palestinians and Arabs to make peace with them, such a bold initiative by Obama would provide a dramatic demonstration of the prospects for real peace, making it easier for Israel's political leadership to make the necessary compromises.

No, it wouldn't. It would show that Obama is willing to get on a plane and come to Israel. Admittedly, that would be a major step for him, because he would not find adoring crowds here. Most likely, there would be massive demonstrations against him (and yes, I would attend them too). But again, it's not America with which Israel is being asked to make peace. Gestures from Obama are meaningless.

For the Palestinians, it would provide political cover to accept a resolution precluding the return of any appreciable number of refugees to Israel.

Why wasn't Bill Clinton enough cover for that?

For the Arabs, it would legitimize their own diplomatic initiative, embodied in the peace plan put forward by the Arab League eight years ago.

The 'Saudi initiative' includes the exercise of a 'right of return' for all the 'refugees.' What makes you think that the Arab countries will go along with a plan that doesn't include that? What have you done to ensure that Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq won't just push their 'refugees' over the border?

Finally, for Obama himself, such a move would be a diplomatic and political triumph. Bringing Arab leaders and the Quartet with him to Jerusalem and Ramallah to endorse his plan would be seen as a powerful example of leadership in coping with the protracted conflict. Since it is inconceivable that the Israeli government would refuse Obama's offer to bring Arab leaders and the Quartet to its capital, most of the American friends of Israel could be expected to welcome the move as well.

What makes you think the Arabs would agree to come here? And what will those Arab leaders say when a million or more Israelis come out to protest their presence even if our government doesn't have the spine to tell Obama to leave his entourage at home?

Accordingly, the administration must convey to the parties that if the offer is rejected by either or both, the United States will seek the U.N. Security Council's endorsement of this framework for peace, thus generating worldwide pressure on the recalcitrant party.

What if it's both parties?

Fortunately, public opinion polls in Israel have indicated that while most Israelis would like to keep a united Jerusalem, they would rather have peace without all of Jerusalem than a united Jerusalem without peace.

I've never seen polls like that. When did J Street start doing polls here?

Now you all know who Brzezinski is. Stephen Solarz, a former U.S. congressman from New York, is a member of the board of the International Crisis Group. If the name International Crisis Group sounds familiar, it should. The Conflicts Group is part of the International Crisis Group.

Brzezinski is a member of the International Crisis Group, as is Samantha Power. The Chairman Emeritus is George Mitchell and the next Chairlady is Louise Arbour. You can find out more about the group and its funding here. But guess who is really behind it (Hat Tip: Daled Amos):

The International Crisis Group was set up in 1995, and describes itself as an "independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation," which works "through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict." Taking issue with this misleading self-description, Diana Johnstone described the Crisis Group as a "high-level think tank supported by financier George Soros... [devised] primarily to provide policy guidance to governments involved in the NATO-led reshaping of the Balkans."

...

Another key figure working within the International Crisis Group, as part of its Executive Committee, is George Soros. Soros is the behind the scenes financier of numerous "human rights" groups. These groups help to serve a crucial purpose for the elite by confusing the global polity's understanding of the roots of human rights abuses. Most notably they achieve this through the output of the elitist Human Rights Watch. This organization is held in high regard by notables like Abramowitz and Henry Kissinger. Further, Abramowitz has stated that Soros is "the only man in the U.S. who has his own foreign policy -- and can implement it," while Kissinger, whose own democratic track record is somewhat cloudy, "respect[s] and admire[s]" Soros's philanthropic work. (2) Clearly, awareness of the extent of political power that Soros (and his foundations) wields internationally is demonstrated and understood by those he influences; what is concerning about this is that it appears there is little criticism of this anti-democratic influence, and no attempt to prevent the use of financial power to exert influence over and control the direction of humanitarian endeavours has been initiated by world leaders who purport to be the guardians of democracy. Instead of being challenged and criticized for manipulating the democratic process via his funding activities, Soros is actively courted by American Democrats.

In addition to Soros and Abramowitz, three other elite characters played instrumental roles in the creation of the Crisis Group. The first is Stephen Solarz, who serves on the advisory board of the AIPAC-associated think tank the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Solarz is a former board member of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); his wife, Nina Solarz, runs the Fund for Peace -- a group whose work is intimately related to that of the Endowment. The second person is the American special envoy to the Middle East for the Obama administration, George Mitchell, who in 1988 coauthored a book titled Men of Zeal (with William Cohen), which provided the cover story for illegal mechanisations of the Iran-Contra affair. The last critical Crisis Forum founder is long-time democracy manipulator, Mark Malloch Brown, who recently became the "vice president of the Quantum Fund, a hedge fund run by his billionaire friend George Soros." (3)

Read the whole thing. (And you thought AIPAC was owned by the Likud, didn't you?).

By the way, I did not cite the entire Washington Post article. You can read the whole thing here.

UPDATE 10:55 AM

Daled Amos points out that Obama is mentioned thirteen times in the article and 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is mentioned zero times. Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: Obama isn't Sadat and Israel isn't making peace with America

Israel Matzav: Abdullah looking for a strong horse?

Abdullah looking for a strong horse?

This past week, King Abdullah of Jordan gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal. My take on the interview is here.

Caroline Glick has a very different take, and reading her article makes me want even more to read the book upon which it is based: Lee Smith's, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. Caroline writes that insights gained through the book give a different view of King Abdullah's interview.

Smith develops six central insights in his book.

Arab political history is a history of the powerful ruling the weak through violence.

Islamic terror and governmental tyranny are the two sides of the coin of Arab political pathology.

Liberal democratic principles are unattractive to the vast majority of Arabs who believe that politics is and by rights ought to remain a violent enterprise and prefer the narrative of resistance to the narrative of liberty.

Liberal Arab reformers are unwilling to fight for their principles.

The 1,400 year period of Sunni dominance over non-Sunni minorities is now threatened seriously for the first time by the Iranian-controlled Shiite alliance which includes Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas.

And finally, that it is intra-Arab rivalries and the desire to rule and be recognized as the strong horse that motivates jihadists to wage continuous wars against Israel and the West and against regimes in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia alike.

As Smith explains, today, Arab leaders view Israel as a possible strong horse that could defeat the rising Shiite axis that threatens them. And now, as the US under Obama abdicates its leadership role in world affairs by turning on its allies and attempting to appease its foes while scaling back America's own military strength, Israel is the Sunnis' only hope for beating back the Shiite alliance. If Israel does not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, then the likes of Kings Abdullah of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak are going to be forced to accept Iran as the regional hegemon.

When seen against the backdrop of Smith's analysis, it is clear that as his father did when he supported Saddam Hussein against Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to the 1991 Gulf War, Abdullah was hedging his bets in his interview with the Journal. If Israel fails to act, he wants to be on record expressing his animosity towards the Jewish state and blaming it for all the region's problems. On the other hand, he used the interview as an opportunity to again send a message to anyone willing to listen that he wants Israel to assert itself and continue to protect his kingdom.

Read the whole thing. It's an interesting and plausible hypothesis, although I cannot say for certain that it's correct.


Israel Matzav: Abdullah looking for a strong horse?

Israel Matzav: While Obama fiddles, Iran unveils new centrifuges

While Obama fiddles, Iran unveils new centrifuges

Iran unveiled a third generation of domestically produced centrifuges on Friday in continued defiance of a leaderless world community.

The new machines are capable of much faster enrichment than those now being used in Iran's nuclear facilities, and Iranian officials praised it as a step toward greater self-sufficiency in the face of international sanctions targeted at choking off the nuclear work.

"Our capable experts at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran have managed to design a third-generation centrifuge and it has successfully passed all the mechanical tests," said Ali Akbar Salehi, the nuclear chief.

...

Iran says it will install more than 50,000 centrifuges at its enrichment facilities in central town of Natanz.

The international community does not have guarantees that sanctions could serve to change Iran’s behavior, but must continue to exert pressure on Teheran in hopes that the Islamic republic might reconsider the pros and cons of pursuing nuclear weapons, US President Barack Obama said in an interview aired Friday morning and communicated by the Reuters news agency.

Speaking to ABC’s Good Morning America, Obama reportedly said the "the history of the Iranian regime, like the North Korean regime, is that … you apply international pressure on these countries; sometimes they choose to change behavior, sometimes they don't."


The US president was quoted as saying that “consistent” international pressure would get through to a regime “which is not a stupid regime, which is very attentive.”

Meanwhile on Friday, North Korea denounced Obama's nuclear policy as "hostile” and vowed to keep building and expanding its arsenal of atomic weapons.

The world's rogue regimes are laughing at Obama. Unfortunately, from where we sit in Israel, it's not very funny. Israel Radio reported tonight that the new centrifuges can enrich at ten times the speed of the old ones.

More on Obama's Good Morning America appearance here.

Israel Matzav: While Obama fiddles, Iran unveils new centrifuges

The Torah Revolution: A case study

A case study

B"H

A case study on how to write an article on the "holocaust", without ever mentioning G-d. More than His Name, His project for the Jewish people is the real unlearned lesson, a refusal that I have no doubt will have dire consequences on us all. Again, people are trying and hoping to outsmart Hashem and get away with it: it won't work.

- This is a talkback on The Holocaust question


The Torah Revolution: A case study

Love of the Land: The fruits of delegitimization

The fruits of delegitimization


Summary of Editorials from the Hebrew Press
Israel Government Press Office
11 April '10

Yisrael Hayom(Hebrew,pg.9, bottom) refers to the ideological motives behind the affair and believes that "At the base of the story stands the great intellectual alignment against the State of Israel that has reached its peak since the Oslo accords burst upon our world and clearly legitimized the talk that was once marginal and is now routine: The talk about the delegitimization of the existence of the state of the Jews and its right to defend itself against its enemies, whom mainstream journalists see as freedom fighters while IDF soldiers have become goons. From this sprang Anat Kam.

Against such a background, it is clear that whoever exposes IDF secrets and its self-defense possibilities deserves full praise… Is it coincidental that the editor of the magazine section of the newspaper that is defending Anat Kam and Uri Blau, issued an internal report during the funeral of Maj. Eliraz Peretz that he, 'does not want to live in Eliraz Peretz's country or that of his mother.' And why? Because this 'is a family of fascists and jihadists and let nobody say that he was killed for me.' Here is the tragic link that nobody wants to deal with, but is apparent as a line that is dividing Israeli society against the background of this harsh affair: Between love of country and turning one's back on it."


Love of the Land: The fruits of delegitimization

Love of the Land: It's Nuke Fest Time!

It's Nuke Fest Time!


Graphic: Steve Hughes
Soccer Dad
09 April '10

I haven't done an Iran round-up for a while, but not much has changed. They are into events in the IRI:

National Nuclear Festival has just started at Tehran's Milad Tower on Friday.

Key state and military personalities, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are present at the ceremony.

Among the guests are Head of the Atomic Energy rganization of Iran (AEOI) Ali-Akbar Salehi, members of the cabinet, the Guardian Council and the Parliament as well as a number of foreign diplomats and ambassadors.

The festival began with playing of national anthem and recitation of verses from holy Quran.

The president is said to give a good nuclear news in the ceremony. [...]



They are making progress on the nuke front, as that festival suggests. According to an AP story, "Iran unveiled a third generation of domestically built centrifuges . . . capable of much faster enrichment than those now being used . . ." According to a Tehran Times headline, "Iran has produced several kilos of 20% enriched nuclear fuel":

Iran has produced several kilos of uranium enriched to a purity of 20 percent to power its medical research reactor, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) director announced on Wednesday.
However, Ali Akbar Salehi declined to state how many kilos have been produced.

Speaking to reporters, he said good news on how the country will produce fuel for the research reactor will be announced in the next few months. [...]



And what would an Iran round-up be without a touch of totalitarian boasting and bluster? A Press TV headline declares that Iran is the "world's most powerful country":

(Read full post)


Love of the Land: It's Nuke Fest Time!

Love of the Land: I Guess He Didn't Get the Memo that Petraeus Didn't Really Mean It

I Guess He Didn't Get the Memo that Petraeus Didn't Really Mean It


Andy McCarthy
National Review Online
10 April '10

(For those who have been following this, there was an audible sigh of relief from many, when Gen. Petraeus addressed the issue recently. However, the desire to hear something more soothing, may have eclipsed actually seeing what the bottom line was. Y.)

General David Petraeus's most ardent fans continue to believe their honey rather than their lyin' ears. Yet, as I detailed in Thursday's column, leftists and Islamists have no difficulty grasping that (a) he quite clearly blamed what he portrayed as Israel's intransigence for America's woes in the Muslim world, and (b) he has not "set the record straight" in a way that comes close to retracting or debunking his statements. What's more, they are basing their interpretation on what the general actually said, not the purported "spin" on it that Petraeus — while not retracting — has ascribed to "bloggers."

The latest is Palestinian journalist and activist Daoud Kuttab [h/t Ruthfully Yours], who writes:

The taboo was finally broken and the genie is out of the bottle, despite some attempts to force it back. America's military leaders have had enough and decided to speak out about the liability that a hardline Israel causes to America's national interest. Popular American General David Petraeus finally said the words that many have been saying behind closed doors for decades. The statement of the star-studded general puts American blind support for Israel in direct opposition to the country's most sacred institution, the military.... Petraeus has made a courageous statement that could play a key role in weakening the pro-Israel lobby and allow for a much more balanced US approach to the Middle East conflict....

This glowing tribute, it is worth noting, comes two weeks after claims that Gen. Petraeus had walked back his assertion that it is principally the lack of "progress" in resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that strengthens Iran, weakens "moderate" Arab regimes, and drives al Qaeda recruitment.

(Read full post)


Love of the Land: I Guess He Didn't Get the Memo that Petraeus Didn't Really Mean It

Love of the Land: Finkelstein’s Slander Against Israel

Finkelstein’s Slander Against Israel


Joseph Klein
Frontpagemag.com
09 April '10

Norman Finkelstein, the professional Israel-basher, appeared before the United Nations Correspondents Association in New York on April 7th to hawk his newest diatribe against Israel entitled ‘This Time We Went Too Far.’ Finkelstein claimed in his book that he was providing “an accurate record” of the “suffering” that the Gazan population “endured” as a result of the “merciless Israeli assault.” He urged the UN correspondents to publicize his message about what he called the “bloodletting in Gaza.”

Finkelstein was referring to Operation Cast Lead, which Israel launched in December 2008 to put a stop to the incessant rocket attacks launched from Gaza by Palestinian terrorists against civilians living in Southern Israel.
In his remarks to the UN correspondents, Finkelstein said that it was inaccurate to characterize what happened in Gaza as a war. He described it as a “massacre” deliberately designed by the Israeli government and military to terrorize the people of Gaza with “disproportionate force.” The real reason for Israel’s invasion, Finkelstein asserted, was to teach Arabs a lesson after Israel’s “defeat” in Lebanon in 2006.

To support his thesis that Israel used unreasonably disproportionate force against a defenseless civilian population and engaged in a “massacre” rather than a war, Finkelstein cited testimony from unnamed Israeli soldiers who were quoted as saying that they did not engage any combatants on the Hamas side. He also referred, as an example of Israel’s true intentions, to former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who said at the time that “Israel demonstrated real hooliganism during the course of the recent operation, which I demanded.”

Often associated with rowdiness at soccer games, “hooliganism” is a slang word that in the worst dictionary definition of the term refers to willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others. Let us suppose for the moment that this is what Livni actually meant and that “willful wanton and malicious destruction of Palestinian property” in Gaza reflected Israel’s true intentions. Is Israel expected to stand by and let Hamas and its other terrorist allies shoot rockets into Israeli civilian centers all day and night long, day after day – following repeated Israeli warnings to stop or face the consequences – without finally inflicting real damage to Hamas’ infrastructure in return? The use of disproportionate force to inflict damage against the enemy’s infrastructure was the only means available to stop Hamas’ campaign of aggressive violence against Israeli civilians.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Finkelstein’s Slander Against Israel

Love of the Land: Dore Gold and the US Stance on Jerusalem

Dore Gold and the US Stance on Jerusalem


Yisrael Medad
My Right Word
11 April '10

Dore Gold has just written:

• There is presently a marked shift underway in U.S. policy on Jerusalem. True, no U.S. administration accepted Israel's annexation of Jerusalem in July 1967. Nonetheless, in the past we saw the U.S. and Israel coming to a modus vivendi with respect to Israeli policy in Jerusalem...


...U.S. policy on Jerusalem went through different shifts. Back in 1948, the U.S. was originally committed to the failed internationalization proposals in UN General Assembly Resolution 181. This original position was quickly replaced in the 1950s by acceptance of the 1949 armistice agreements.

When President Richard Nixon came to the White House in 1969, there was a definite hardening of the U.S. position on the issue of Jerusalem. For the first time, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Charles Yost, described Jerusalem as "occupied territory," terminology that had not been used by Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, who served under President Johnson. Under Nixon, the United States did not veto or even abstain from resolutions that disagreed with Israeli policy on Jerusalem in 1969, 1970, and 1971.

In successive administrations, we see that the U.S. did not want the issue of Jerusalem addressed by the UN Security Council, and we see a movement of U.S. policy much closer to the Israeli position. No U.S. administration formally recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem in July 1967. Nonetheless, in the past we saw the U.S. and Israel coming to a modus vivendi with respect to Israeli policy in Jerusalem, when Israel built various neighborhoods in the eastern parts of the city.



But the US never recognized Israel's sovereignty anywhere in Jerusalem. Not east and not west.

I don't think Dore has done a good job on this issue.

(Read full critique)


Love of the Land: Dore Gold and the US Stance on Jerusalem

Love of the Land: Anarchy isn’t democracy

Anarchy isn’t democracy


Haim Misgav
Opinion/Ynet
09 April '10

Democracy has many faces – this is what we’ve been hearing night and day from many people since soldier Anat Kam, who apparently belongs to the anarchist leftist camp (whose members seek to undermine the legitimacy of the elected government) stole documents from the Central Command chief’s computer.

Now, they are trying to grace the theft with an ideological aspect: The soldier in fact did not steal the documents, they say, but rather, merely sought to “leak” them via an innocent journalist who would present them the public, in order to seemingly avert the death of innocents. And if this is what she did, fans of anarchy tell us, why should she be indicted?

If all the soldier sought to do was help the State of Israel maintain its moral character, we are told by all those people who are seemingly concerned about freedom of press and its ability to function in a state run by, lo and behold, the rightist camp, why was it wrong?

These types of arguments, by the way, are voiced every time spies of the same camp are caught. This article is too short to name them all –there are quite a few of them, who always premise their acts on the same ideology – but we should mention a few at least: For example, Marcus Kleinberg, a researcher at Israel’s biological institute, who was sent to 20 years in prison, or Udi Adiv, who spied for the Syrians and was sentences to 17 years in jail, or Mordechai Vanunu, who worked at the Dimona nuclear facility.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Anarchy isn’t democracy

Love of the Land: Another Arab "moderate" who really isn't

Another Arab "moderate" who really isn't


Hussein Shobokshi

Elder of Ziyon
10 April '10

An op-ed by Hussein Shobokshi at Asharq al-Awsat starts off this way:

In the Arab world, can we discuss any topic without mentioning Palestine? Though it is an odd question it is a perfectly legitimate one. It seems that raising important and complex issues such as education, health, public services, the judicial system, infrastructure and fighting corruption always comes to a dead end because of “the Palestinian cause excuse,” and because the battle must always comes “first,” as well other slogans that have been raised for a long time that aim to suspend any practical or positive action towards ultra-sensitive issues.

Under the Palestine umbrella, and with the calls for liberation and struggle, anything goes. Corruption has spread dramatically in all circles and in most fields. Educational backwardness has become a [distinguishing] attribute and a widespread phenomenon, not an exception. The deteriorating and deplorable infrastructure has become the butt of the joke and the source of mockery. Domination, despotism and the erosion of freedoms have become a way of life. The lack of an effective judicial system to guarantee people’s rights has turned into a painful reality in which people live without any real hope of changing it. Without exception, everything is being “postponed” because there is a more important battle that has now turned into a battle of tilting at windmills and because of this, despotism and tyranny have been further consolidated.

Forget about changing priorities! For that you would be labelled a traitor or regarded as one who seeks to divide the nation; a nation with a deteriorating education system, a broken judiciary and one with no agricultural or industrial potential and no sewage or electricity networks, etc.



Sounds like he has a clear vision of what Arab priorities should be, right?

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Another Arab "moderate" who really isn't

Love of the Land: WaPo, NYT spike coverage of Obama Admin Denunciation of Abbas, Palestinian Authority

WaPo, NYT spike coverage of Obama Admin Denunciation of Abbas, Palestinian Authority


Leo Rennert
American Thinker
09 April '10

In his press briefing on April 8, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said the following:

"Regarding the Middle East, we are DISTURBED by comments of Palestinian Authority officials regarding reconstruction and refurbishing of Jewish sites in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem's Old City.

"Remarks by the Palestinian ministry of Information denying Jewish heritage in and links to Jerusalem UNDERMINE THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE needed for substantive and productive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

"We also STRONGLY CONDEMN the GLORIFICATION OF TERRORISTS.. Honoring terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians either by official statements or by the dedication of public places HURTS PEACE EFFORTS and MUST END.

"We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders ACCOUNTABLE FOR INCITEMENT."



Not one word of Crowley's statement appeared in the April 9 editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Yet, this official U.S. statement with its STRONG CONDEMNATION of Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, accusing it of HURTING PEACE EFFORTS and UNDERMINING U.S. efforts to restart peace negotiations was highly newsworthy for at least four compelling reasons:

1. It was the strongest slap yet at Abbas and the PA by the Obama administration. Yes, from time to time, Team Obama has criticized anti-Israel incitement by the Palestinian Authority, but mostly in a muted, non-specific way. In this instance, Crowley referred specifically to PA incitement against the reopening of the Hurva Synagogue, the most prominent of the Old City's Jewish houses of prayer, which was destroyed by Jordan in 1948.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: WaPo, NYT spike coverage of Obama Admin Denunciation of Abbas, Palestinian Authority

Elder of Ziyon: Gaza Salafist group threatens Jews

Gaza Salafist group threatens Jews

Al Hayat al Jadida (plagiarized by Firas Press) interviewed a spokesperson of one of the Salafist terror groups in Gaza.

The official, Abu Abdallah al-Ghazzi, is a member of the "Jaysh Al-Ummah" (Army of the Nation) group, one of the organizations that is pressuring Hamas from the religious standpoint. While some of the Salafist groups have apparent ties with Al Qaeda, al-Ghazzi denies that his group takes any money from them - although the group cherishes Bin Laden's activities.

al-Ghazzi said that there will be a war "against the Jews" from Southern Lebanon "at any time," but apparently not from his group. For now, Jaysh al-Ummah will be restricting its activities against Jews from Gaza.

His limiting terror attacks to Jews near Gaza is not ideological, but practical, as the group is too small (about 200 members) to attack Jewish interests worldwide right now. But in the future, he definitely wants to be able to attack Jewish and "Crusader" interests worldwide.

He also said that if there is proof that Mahmoud Abbas helps the "Jews" at all, he should be beheaded.



Elder of Ziyon: Gaza Salafist group threatens Jews

Elder of Ziyon: PalArabs complaining that Jews building too many synagogues

PalArabs complaining that Jews building too many synagogues

The leader of the "Islamic-Christian Front for Defending Jerusalem and its Holy Places," Hassan Khater, has issued a press release saying that there are now 218 synagogues in Jerusalem, and 70 of them in the Old City alone.

Khater also said that the synagogues are not being built because the Jews need them for religious purposes. He said that this is a clear plan by Israel "to change the image of the holy city, and change the inherent religious nature which distinguished it throughout its long history - the nature of the Arab, Islamic, Christian tradition."

Even assuming his numbers are correct (is he counting tiny "shtiebelach"? Is he counting different minyanim in different rooms in the same synagogue as one or many synagogues?), Khater also doesn't mention that his Arab brethren destroyed between 50 and 60 synagogues in the Old City between 1948 and 1967, so having 70 built in the past 43 years hardly seems excessive.

As usual, Khater and his compatriots are denying the Jewish connection to Jerusalem that predates Islam by more years than Islam has been in existence. This is, simply put, Jew-hatred.



Elder of Ziyon: PalArabs complaining that Jews building too many synagogues

Elder of Ziyon: On "moderation" and the Al Asharq al Awsat columnists (Zvi)

On "moderation" and the Al Asharq al Awsat columnists (Zvi)

From Zvi, in commenting on my last post:


There's an important point to note here. A person can be a moderate or reformer when considering only Saudi local issues or some other topics, and still be an extremist regarding the Israel agenda. But Shobokshi is not a reformer in either sense.

I read Shobokshi's columns, but I don't expect him to penetrate the smoke-screen of anti-Israel incitement or abandon a long-term destroy-Israel agenda. In some cases, Shobokshi starts down a road that leads to some clear-headed analysis, but he always returns to the same old hostile mindset.

Of course, it's possible that Shobokshi really is smarter and wiser than this, but is forced by the constraints of Arab media and society to phrase things in a way that prevents others from labeling him a traitor. Your recent posts about Mira Awad and Ema remind us that Arab media figures who openly take unconventional stances on Israel or Jews are taking a risk.

But I don't see any evidence that Shobokshi thinks in this manner. Rather, he's deeply entrenched in the hatred of Israel and accepts without reservation the flagrant nonsense that is broadcast about it in the Arab media (examples).

I can laud Shobokshi's call to stop letting pursuit of "the Palestinian Cause" become the fig leaf that allows the leaders of the Arab world to run everything else into the ground. But he's no moderate.

At the end of the piece, Shobokshi shows that what affects him most deeply Shobokshi is Arab victory, not a better life for his people.

I do recommend reading several of the columnists on the English site. This is not because they agree with me on very much (I doubt that they do), but rather because I find that they have interesting opinions. I don't expect them to be friends of Israel or to support its point of view.

* Mshari al-Zaydi: I often find his columns to be very interesting, even when I don't agree with them (except that his most recent one embraces an easily-debunked myth - oh, well).
* Abdul Rahman al-Rashed is the general manager of Al Arabiya. Mr. al-Rashed sometimes gets muddled, and sometimes he does things for the wrong reasons, but regardless of my own opinion on a topic, his comments are often worth reading.
* Tariq Alhomayed is the Editor in Chief of Asharq al Awsat. Along with other sources, his comments can help to paint a picture about the regional hopes and concerns of modernist members of the Saudi elite. You do have to take what he says on some topics with a grain of salt, especially where the Saudi monarchy is involved.


As I said, don't expect these guys to be pro-Israel. I don't even expect them to be neutral; you'll just be disappointed. What I expect from them is that even when Israel is involved, they tend to have interesting analyses rather than engaging in knee-jerk ranting, bizarre flights of fancy or simplistic naivete. That's not true of some of the other columnists.

The most openly liberal commentator on the Asharq English site used to be Mona Eltahawy. But Ms. Eltahawy says that she was banned by the paper after she penned columns openly slamming the Egyptian government.

At least, with the Saudis and the Syrian/Iranian axis embroiled in a regional cold war, the paper seems to have stopped accepting regular contributions from the Syrian Minister of Expatriates and Paranoid Drivel, Bouthaina Shaaban.


Elder of Ziyon: On "moderation" and the Al Asharq al Awsat columnists (Zvi)

Elder of Ziyon: Another Arab "moderate" who really isn't

Another Arab "moderate" who really isn't

An op-ed by Asharq al-Awsat starts off this way:

In the Arab world, can we discuss any topic without mentioning Palestine? Though it is an odd question it is a perfectly legitimate one. It seems that raising important and complex issues such as education, health, public services, the judicial system, infrastructure and fighting corruption always comes to a dead end because of “the Palestinian cause excuse,” and because the battle must always comes “first,” as well other slogans that have been raised for a long time that aim to suspend any practical or positive action towards ultra-sensitive issues.

Under the Palestine umbrella, and with the calls for liberation and struggle, anything goes. Corruption has spread dramatically in all circles and in most fields. Educational backwardness has become a [distinguishing] attribute and a widespread phenomenon, not an exception. The deteriorating and deplorable infrastructure has become the butt of the joke and the source of mockery. Domination, despotism and the erosion of freedoms have become a way of life. The lack of an effective judicial system to guarantee people’s rights has turned into a painful reality in which people live without any real hope of changing it. Without exception, everything is being “postponed” because there is a more important battle that has now turned into a battle of tilting at windmills and because of this, despotism and tyranny have been further consolidated.

Forget about changing priorities! For that you would be labelled a traitor or regarded as one who seeks to divide the nation; a nation with a deteriorating education system, a broken judiciary and one with no agricultural or industrial potential and no sewage or electricity networks, etc.

Sounds like he has a clear vision of what Arab priorities should be, right?

But the irony is that he spends the rest of the article trying to convince his readers that the very reason they should be spending time on education, health, the judicial system and fighting corruption is...because they are prerequisites to "liberating Palestine:"

A nation with such “achievements” under its belt cannot by any means liberate Palestine. Most importantly, the correlation between deterioration and liberating Palestine is one that cannot be denied.

Yes, improving the education system, the judiciary and infrastructure will lead to “spontaneously” liberating Palestine. Yes, it’s that simple. If you liberate yourself, you will liberate your land. ... Crying and wailing in the name of Palestine has turned into a permanent state of mourning instead of aiming towards the “final” target with a continuous series of numerous, small victories and achievements within the country and within one’s self. Though it is such a long journey, it is one of utmost importance.

Which means that even the most moderate Arabs consider "Palestine" to be the most important issue; just that they differ on how to get to the point of "liberating Palestine" (which means, of course, destroying Israel.)


Elder of Ziyon: Another Arab "moderate" who really isn't

Israel Mourns Polish President, a Great Friend of Israel - A7 Exclusive Features - Israel News - Israel National News

Israel Mourns Polish President, a Great Friend of Israel - A7 Exclusive Features - Israel News - Israel National News

Observing Sabbath Saved Life of Poland's Chief Rabbi - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Observing Sabbath Saved Life of Poland's Chief Rabbi - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Iranian Spy for CIA: Weak West Will Cause War with Iran - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Iranian Spy for CIA: Weak West Will Cause War with Iran - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Report: US Fighting Israel's Nuclear Program - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Report: US Fighting Israel's Nuclear Program - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

"Haaretz-the Thinking Man's Newspaper" Editor Airs his Thoughts - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

"Haaretz-the Thinking Man's Newspaper" Editor Airs his Thoughts - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Cabinet to Grant Electric Rate Cuts for Holocaust Survivors - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Cabinet to Grant Electric Rate Cuts for Holocaust Survivors - Politics & Gov't - Israel News - Israel National News

Love of the Land: Everyone knows

Everyone knows


Melanie Phillips
The Spectator
08 April '10

According to David Ignatius, the Obama administration is preparing to impose a ‘solution’ to the Middle East impasse between Israel and the Arabs Palestinians. Apparently, everyone knows what such a ‘peace deal’ would look like.

Well if everyone knows, why hasn’t it been achieved?

Apparently it’s much like the

agreement that was nearly reached at Camp David in 2000 and in subsequent negotiations.


Ah yes, ‘nearly’. Only problem was the Palestinians wouldn’t have it, even though it offered them more than 90 per cent of the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem. Why didn’t they accept it? Because they wanted more. Everyone who has read the history knows what a peace deal would look like because it was offered in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1960s and 2000; only problem is that the Arabs rejected it.

The Palestinians ‘know’ what a peace deal that they would agree to would look like. It would consist of peace without Israel existing at all. They’ve said so many times. For some inexplicable reason, not everyone in the Obama administration ‘knows’ this fact. Indeed, none of them seems to. Or if they do, they’re not telling us.

An anonymous American official told Ignatius:

...an American plan, if launched, would build upon past progress on such issues as borders, the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.


Fascinating! The Obama administration knows what everyone else doesn’t know they know. What Israeli borders does ‘everyone know’? The 1967 borders, aka the 1947 ‘Auschwitz borders’? Or the borders proposed in 2000, which included some of the settlements and the Jewish areas of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line which everyone but the Obama administration has known for the past several decades will always remain part of Israel?

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Everyone knows

Israel Matzav: Jones claims Netanyahu canceled because of... Holocaust Day?

Jones claims Netanyahu canceled because of... Holocaust Day?

In a press briefing on the Thursday night flight from Prague back to Washington, National Security Adviser James Jones told reporters that Prime Minister Netanyahu had canceled his participation in President Obama's nuclear disarmament conference because of... Holocaust Day.

Jones said Obama understood Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to cancel plans to attend the Nuclear Security Summit the Obama administration is hosting next week. The Israeli government said Netanyahu cancelled after receiving reports that Egypt and Turkey had planned to grand-stand at the nuclear summit about Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons and its failure to join the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

"In the case of the Prime Minister’s decision, he [Obama] understands that their Holocaust Day events were going to make it difficult for the Prime Minister to be in two places at once," Jones said. "We obviously would like to have had the Prime Minister, but the Deputy Prime Minister [Dan Meridor] will be leading the delegation and there will be a robust Israeli delegation. And we’ll still have a great conference, but he understands the reasons why."

"I think that the Israelis did not want to be a catalyst for changing the theme of the summit, and I think that they will be at the table," Jones added. "The Prime Minister will be in Israel, but he is committed to the theme of the summit and the President's initiatives on proliferation and counter-proliferation and the spread of nuclear weapons."

"So, again, we’ll be sorry that the Prime Minister can't be there, but we’re delighted that we’ll have a very, very [good] Israeli delegation," Jones said.

U.S.-Israeli relations are "fine," the former Marine Corps general said.

Great job of facing up to reality, Jim. I haven't seen Netanyahu's cancellation reported that way anywhere in the Israeli media, and I don't think anyone in Israel would have thought twice if Netanyahu were not here on Sunday night and Monday.

Israel Matzav: Jones claims Netanyahu canceled because of... Holocaust Day?

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video




Here are Shloime Dachs and Lipa Schmeltzer singing Al Chomosayich Yerushalayim (On Your Walls Jerusalem) and a couple of songs in English that I don't need to explain.

Let's go to the videotape.




Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Love of the Land: Symptom of craziness

Symptom of craziness

The Nazi-era annals of those with only tenuous Jewish links paradoxically illustrate how unparalleled the Holocaust was.


Sarah Honig
Another Tack/JPost
09 April '10

The latest Egyptian blockbuster movie, Cousins (Welad Ela’am), ostensibly set in Tel Aviv (actually filmed in far-off Cape Town), unabashedly demonizes Israelis as Nazis. In one scene, as drivers halt their vehicles for Holocaust Remembrance Day’s memorial siren, the Arab hero provocatively asks an old man standing at solemn attention: “And what about the Holocaust you perpetrated against the Palestinians?”

Dwarfing and distorting the Holocaust serves our enemies – from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Ramallah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas (who earned a PhD in Moscow for a dissertation which denied the Holocaust and simultaneously blamed it on Zionists).

This is the common Arab warp of history. It goes entirely unchallenged in the Arab/Muslim milieu and is fast becoming axiomatic in Europe and among the so-called progressives who proliferate in America’s media and campuses.

Their assorted misrepresentations omit to mention that the very word genocide was coined post-Holocaust specifically to describe what was plotted against the Jewish people. Eventually the term was devalued and used in reference to any bloody combat, though Europe’s Jews were never a combatant side and instigated no aggression against Germany. Not even the remotest casus belli existed against them.

THE NAZI-ERA annals of those with only tenuous Jewish links – such as the once-great Wittgenstein clan of Austria – paradoxically illustrate how unparalleled the Holocaust was, how distinct from even the worst massacres of recent history which are fallaciously compared to it and used to diminish its terrifying uniqueness.

This is particularly odd given the fact that the Wittgensteins weren’t Jewish according to any Jewish criteria, that none perished in any of Germany’s industrialized death facilities and that some Wittgenstein scions fought with distinction in the Wehrmacht. Unlike the struggling Jewish masses, the Wittgensteins were among the wealthiest members of the prewar European upper crust. They were intellectually brilliant and exceptionally eccentric by any yardstick. They could plainly afford to be.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Symptom of craziness

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Partisans

Partisans

Tomorrow is the day of commemoration of the Holocaust. Here's Shir Hapartisanim, the Song of the Partisans. It was written in the Vilna Ghetto in 1943, in Yiddish; the You-Tube film has it in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The music is, of course, Russian. Unmistakably so.
Hebrew Words

English translation
Never say you are going on your final road,
Although leadened skies block out blue days,
Our longed-for hour will yet come
Our step will beat out - we are here!

From a land of green palm trees to the white land of snow
We arrive with our pain, with our woe,
Wherever a spurt of our blood fell,
On that spot shall spurt forth our courage and our spirit.

The morning sun will brighten our day
And yesterday will disappear with our foe.
But if the sun delays to rise at dawn,
Then let this song be a password for generations to come.

This song is written with our blood, not with lead,
It is not a song of a free bird flying overhead.
Amid crumbling walls, a people sang this song,
With grenades in their hands.

So, never say the road now ends for you,
Although skies of lead block out days of blue.
Our longed-for hour will yet come -
Our step will beat out - we are here!


Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Partisans

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: "A Threat to Democracy"

"A Threat to Democracy"

Earlier this afternoon I was at a weekly gathering of some 15-20 friends. A judge, four professors, four mere PhDs (that's me), some attorneys, a few physicians, some highly successful business people. We convene for a Talmud study session led by the judge, but the participants are of varying degrees of religious observance, from not at all to rather strict. Our politics are likewise diverse. The consensus was that Haaretz has broken all the rules; three of those present said they were going to cancel their subscriptions. I can't remember the group ever being so agitated.

The Poles have far greater woes this weekend than the Israelis, as do the Thais. The Anat Kamm story which has us all worked up is not really important, and I hope to stop dealing with it very soon. Yet I do wish to summarize it as it looks after spending a few hours carefully reading Haaretz - where it was by far the main story - and some other papers, where it was major but not exclusive.

The story began when Anat Kamm allegedly stole 2000 classified documents from the office of her commander, CO of the Central Front, Yair Naveh, between 2005-2007. Allegedly, because she hasn't yet been convicted, let us not forget. The documents dealt with many matters, of varying seriousness. The security forces say that once they had figured out what had been stolen they had to make changes to operational procedures and change operations, out of fear their details had leaked. We're a country at war, people get killed in our wars, and this theft interfered. No-one's saying anyone was killed, but as we say in Hebrew, that was more luck than brains. Also: the documents are still out there. They haven't been retrieved yet.

The lesson to be drawn from this part of the story is that the counter-espionage folks better get their act together.

Kamm's upcoming trial may cast light on the matter of her motives. We know (because she has openly said) that she holds seriously Left political opinions. However, she tried to join pilot training when she was 18, and during her military service she tried to be sent to officer training; both would have meant adding time to her service, and neither indicate an anti-Israel position. It sounds like she was a Meretz voter, and those people don't engage in treason anymore than anyone else. I'm not a lawyer, but my sense is that they're doing her a disservice by playing up any ideological motives. Were I in their place I'd portray her as silly, unthinking, and hope for 3 years in jail rather than 20.

Some of Israel's critics are dong everything in their power to portray her as a brave whistle-blower. (Silverstone, Mondowiess). The problem with this story line is that she didn't blow any whistles while she was in a position to do so, and after she left the army it took more than a year before she found anyone willing to look at her documents. (A journalist at Yediot, Israel's most popular paper, seems to have refused to look). My sense is that she tried to show the whole trove, not a specific document in it - but I could be wrong.

Eventually Uri Blau at Haaretz was interested. That was the turning point which changed the story from minor to major, and will probably cost Anat Kamm an extra decade in jail.

Before picking up the Haaretz strand, a reflection on political theory. In democracies, the electorate is sovereign. It expresses its sovereignty by periodically electing legislators who then elect the executive (or the executive is directly elected, in presidential democracies). The executive operates according to the law, as legislated by representatives of the electorate, and within the parameters of the constitution, which is also ultimately subordinate to the electorate. In order to ensure that the sovereign electorate is well informed about what its various elected representatives are doing, in the legislature and the executive, it's important to have freedom of speech, and freedom of information.

I recognize that it's more complicated than that, but those are the outlines.

The press does not have exemptions from the law, though in practice the executive is expected to respect the crucial role played by the media (when it does its job).

Over the weekend I spoke to a number of attorneys, including attorneys trained outside Israel. All were emphatic that journalists are not allowed to break the law. Not in Israel, not elsewhere.

Uri Blau did, when he published a story based on Kamm's stolen documents. Moreover, his editors (stupidly, in retrospect), published full pictures of some of the documents, thus giving the counter-espionage people a starting point for their investigation - which they duly used.

Haaretz republished most of Blau's story over the weekend, to remind us that the real culprits are the generals who are not behaving correctly. In brief, the High Court of Justice ordered that Palestinian terrorists not be assassinated in cases where they can be arrested; Kamm's documents seemed to be saying the generals were disregarding this order. Since Haaretz was so helpful as to re-publish the story, I feel confident in saying it isn't convincing. The documents they cite seem to be saying that the terrorists must be arrested, but if the choice is between letting them get away or killing them, they should be killed. In other words, precisely what the High Court said. There was also mention of the fat that should there be a need to fire at the terrorists, this would be permissible even if there was one single unidentified individual with them - but not two, say, or four. We know that in the invasion of Iraq the Americans were allowed to assasinate identified enemies along with up to 29 civilians - so the documents Kamm stole seem to prove the opposite of what Uri Blau said they proved.

So Kamm wasn't a whistle-blower, and Blau wasn't uncovering an uncomfortable truth the IDF needed to hide.

Much has been made about the fact that the story was submitted to the censor, so it must have been OK. This is dishonest, as the purveyors of the line know perfectly well but their gullible audience may not. It could perhaps have been true back in the 1960s, when the censor had teeth and was active. Ever since then, however, the powers of the censor have been whittled away, by technology, by public pressure, by reality. Nowadays the censor blocks stories with the potential to cause harm to life in clearly identified ways, but that's about it. A story in November 2008 about a discussion between officers in 2006 about an event which has long since passed won't be blocked by the censor.

You don't believe me? Go to the archives of the Channel Two radio and see all the stories broken over the years by their fantastic correspondent on military matters, Carmela Menashe. Go to the archives of the newspapers and see the stories of reserve soldiers who reported - in real time, not two years later - that Israel's allies the Lebanese Phalanges were murdering people in Sabra and Chatilla in Septemebr 1982. Or go the the websites of Breaking the Silence, or for that matter, to the websites of any of the two dozen left-wing NGOs who regularly tell about all the awful things Israel does (or more accurately, often doesn't do but the stories are there anyway). Then ask yourself what sort of a censor it is who "allows" all these stories to appear, and if the Uri Blau story of November 2008 was so daring.

Since Haaretz had so helpfully shown the stolen documents, the counter-espionage officials came to talk with Blau. Had he been anything other than a journalist, he'd have been summarily arrested and facing many years of jail. But since he's a journalist, and democracy needs journalists to be able to act freely, he wasn't arrested. A deal was cut with him and he agreed to give back the stolen documents, so that they'd never reach someone more dangerous than Haaretz.

Blau returned 50 documents. When the investigators found Kamm independently of him, she told them there had been 2000 documents, not 50. The went back to Blau and his newspaper to retrieve the other 1950 documents, but he absconded, and his lawyers - who are the lawyers of Haaretz - have refused to return the documents.

All the attorneys I talked to over the weekend agree this is illegal. It's also stupid, I'd think. If I were in the Iranian intelligence services I'd be frantically looking for Uri Blau about now, obviously. Our counter espionage forces say this fear is what lead them to insist on that gag order until after they got the documents back, which makes sense but was probably a bad decision for other reasons. Yet if that's how it happened, Haaretz carries some responsibility for the gag order, too.

So far, Haaretz comes out of the story badly. Their Friday (weekend) edition made things much worse. The editor in chief collected his entire staff and told each and every one of them to write a story based on their particular areas of expertise, but the common line was to be that the State if Israel is wrong. It's laws are outdated. It's system of classification of military documents is designed to protect the generals, not to serve the security of the state. Uri Blau wrote about how he's the protector of our democratic freedoms. And so on and so on and so on. Importantly, the attack was not against the Netanyahu government: it was against the State of Israel, its laws and its institutions. All of the articles were translated to English, of course, and put on the paper's website:
Ze'ev Segal, the editorial, Anshel Pfeffer, Amos Harel, Uri Blau, Ron Leshem, Aluf Benn, Gideon Levy, Reuven Pedatzur, Akiva Eldar. Avi Issacharoff wasn't pulled into the morass, perhaps because no-one could figure out an angle to use his Palestinian sources to besmirch the country in this context.

For many years Haaretz used to advertise itself as "The newspaper for thinking people". This was an edition indistinguishable from Pravda. Every single one of the articles trotted out the party line; not a single journalist dared let out a peep of dissent. There was chattering galore about the freedom of press which is somehow under siege, and the sanctity of the High Court which was allegedly tainted, but not a single word about the bald fact that Haaretz has been and still is engaged in brazenly illegal actions. Silence, nada, nothing. Brezhnev would have been proud.

Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: "A Threat to Democracy"
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...