The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Monday, September 29, 2003
Guardian Mideast Correspondent: Israel's Racist, Colonial In today's Beirut Daily Star, David Hirst writes an anti-Israel screed suggesting that Israel, not Iran, is a "nuclear-crazy" state. The article itself would not be noteworthy if not for the fact that from 1963-2001, Hirst was the Middle East correspondent for the (London) Guardian, and that he still occasionally writes for the Guardian. The Guardian is a leading newspaper in Europe, and, without exaggeration, makes the New York Times and Washington Post appear to be unconditional supporters of Israel. Here is an excerpt from the Guardian's long-time Middle East correspondent's article: "The time may come when the cost to the US of continuing to support its infinitely importunate protege in a never-ending conflict against an ever-widening circle of adversaries is greater than its will and resources can sustain. That would very likely be a time when Israel itself is already in dire peril. And if it were, then America would very likely discover something else: that the friend and ally it has succored all these years is not only a colonial state, not only extremist by temperament, racist in practice and increasingly fundamentalist in the ideology driving it, but also eminently capable of becoming an 'irrational' state at America’s expense as well as its own." Thursday, September 25, 2003
Israel and the Kurds Kurdish Media has an interesting article by Kawa Bradosti about the relationship between Israel and the Kurds: "Regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, Kurds must remain neutral in this issue and not intervene in any way. If Israeli donors are interested in investing in Kurdistan, they should be allowed and welcomed to do so just like any other nation. Notwithstanding this, Kurds have always supported an independent Palestinian state... "The potential is there for Israel and the Kurds to have a much closer relationship especially when considering the often hostile attitude of the neighboring countries in the region both to Israel and to the Kurds. It would be good common sense for the two nations to support each other and to forge an alliance together." While Israel's close relationship with Turkey may be an impediment to establishing closer relations with the Kurds, it need not necessarily be. After all, Turkey has remained supportive of the Palestinians, even as its strategic relationship with Israel has expanded. Letters in Arab News Recently, I posted in praise of the publication by Arab News of pro-Israel letters from United States readers. Today's issue of Arab News, however, reverts to publishing typical paranoid anti-Israel screeds that assume that Zionists control America. Here are two examples: 1. "It is clear that America is questioning Iran's nuclear capability because Israel and its lobby ordered it to do so. So long as Sharon, Netanyahu, Wolfowitz, AIPAC and other lobby groups are the ones who determine American foreign policy on the Middle East, all we can expect is terrorism, murder, deception, manipulation and looting." Haibe Dirie, Mogadishu, Somalia 2. "Some of the letters from Americans published on this page are a testimony to the power of the Israeli propaganda machine in America and its ability to distort news and spread misinformation... "Arabs don't hate America. Most Arabs like American freedoms, culture, music and movies. But all of them hate the Zionist-controlled American foreign policy. "It is Sharon who is an obstacle to peace, not Arafat and not Hamas. Hamas was formed in 1988, about 20 years after the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The media in America does not tell its readers that Sharon is a war criminal judged guilty by an Israeli enquiry commission of killing thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese... "Sharon and Saddam are men of a similar nature. But Sharon is more dangerous. He has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. His country is in violation of over 60 UN resolutions. It spies on America. But Sharon has an army of propagandists covering for him in Washington and has control of the US Congress. "America did not come to the Middle East to solve our problems but because of the problems it created by supporting Israeli atrocities, and by helping Bin Laden and Saddam to become what they are. "Yes, we know 15 of the hijackers were Saudis. So what? Almost all serial killers in the world are Americans, and America has the largest prison population in the world. What does that mean? You can't judge a whole nation by the acts of the few." Ahmed Issa, Jeddah Camp David and Taba Often, Middle East "experts," commenting on failed peace efforts, claim that former Prime Minister Barak offered 97 percent of the West Bank at Camp David in August 2000. In fact, Barak offered much less than that at Camp David. The 97 percent figure is based on the Clinton Plan, upon which Israel and the PA negotiated at Taba in January 2001. Even at Taba, Israel offered between 95 and 96 percent of the West Bank (including land within pre-1967 Israel), rather than 97 percent. The distinction is not semantic or just a pet peeve. While few seem to have noticed, in interviews over the last few years, whenever asked Barak has disavowed his concessions at Taba, and insists that a final status agreement be based on Camp David. And while I believe the Camp David concessions to have been excessive, they would have allowed settlements in which 80 percent of the settlers reside to have been annexed and offered far less egregious concessions in Jerusalem that were offered at Taba. Upon boarding the airplane that took him to Camp David, Barak promised not to give up the Jordan Valley or to divide Jerusalem. He promptly broke those promises, and offered approximately 92 percent of Judea and Samaria (including the Jordan Valley, though only after a number of years). He also agreed to a Palestinian capital in parts of Jerusalem, but did not offer any concessions in the Old City. The Clinton Plan went much further, calling on Israel to give up 94-96 percent of the West Bank, plus 1-3 percent from land in pre-1967 Israel. The total was meant to be 97 percent, but Israel apparently offered 95-96 percent at Taba while the PA demanded around 99 percent. The Clinton Plan called on Jerusalem to be divided, with Israel annexing Jewish areas and the Palestinians receiving Arab areas. Since that formula made no sense on the ground (i.e., generally to walk to the Western Wall or the Jewish Quarter one has to pass through the Muslim Quarter) at Taba the parties discussed alternate ways to divide Jerusalem. Barak's offers at Camp David, and the Clinton Plan, both were to expire and be deemed null and void following Palestinian rejection of them. Unfortunately, however, there seems to be a sense that every new round of negotiations must pick up where the maximum Israeli concession left off. It is therefore crucial that in accordance with Barak's position, at most, any future negotiation or final status peace plan is based on the concessions offered at Camp David, not at Taba. Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Newsday Distorts Poll On Settlers Monday's Newsday included an article about residents of Judea and Samaria, stating that "83 percent in a recent poll - would agree to leave in exchange for financial compensation or relocation to comparable homes inside Israel." The article quotes a professor at Tel Aviv University who helped conduct the poll for Peace Now as saying that "many of the settlers are hostage to the Israeli government, which is not willing to leave the territories." The article is utter nonsense, as the Peace Now poll in question never indicated that 83 percent of settlers wish to move out of their settlements. In fact, according to the poll, "if the settlers could decide where to live today, 71 percent said they would stay where they are" and if an Israeli government ordered the evacuation of settlements, "just 36 percent said that they would heed the order without any kind of opposition." So where did Newsday get the 83 percent number? From a poll question asking, if the government already decided to dismantle settlements, how it should treat the displaced residents. In response to that question, "74 percent of settlers say that the state should compensate them and allow them to decide for themselves on the best solution. Around 9 percent said the state should resettle them inside Israel proper." Hezbollah Deal I don't usually agree with Haaretz's editorials, but today's editorial in opposition to the reportedly imminent deal with Hezbollah is absolutely on target. According to the editorial: "A new deal is in the works, which does not include Ron Arad, but does involve Israel freeing not only all the Lebanese it holds, but also Palestinians, Jordanians and others. If these facts are correct, this would be a terrible deal, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's eagerness to conclude it is so surprising that it raises doubts about his judgment and motives... [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah said this week that for the next deal, he will try to discover what happened to Arad. If so, let him ask his friends in Iran - as part of this deal, not as part of some future one - what became of the navigator and where he is now. "The absence of information about Arad is not the only flaw in the emerging deal. The inclusion of non-Lebanese prisoners will give Nasrallah status far beyond the borders of Lebanon - even though, in his opposition to an IDF presence in his country, he pretends to act as a Lebanese freedom fighter rather than an Arab or Muslim enemy of Israel." Tuesday, September 23, 2003
1980 vs. 2003 In the current issue of New York Magazine, Craig Horowitz writes about evangelical Christian support for Israel. Horowitz notes that in 1980 "Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin outraged much of the Jewish community by presenting the Jabotinsky Centennial medal to the Reverend Jerry Falwell for his work on behalf of Israel." Now, however, "much of that queasy reluctance has been overcome, or at least pushed aside, as Israel's situation has worsened. As the violence gets more horrific and more relentless, and the overall outlook more bleak, Israel seems to have fewer and fewer friends. Support from the evangelicals, however, hasn't wavered." Horowitz's assumption that "Israel's situation has worsened" since 1980 is a commonly held view, but I'm not sure it's accurate. It is true that Palestinian terror is much worse now, with the PLO in Eretz Israel rather than Lebanon, and Hamas no longer an obscure opposition to the PLO. And the fact that another generation has gone by and the prospects for peace with the Palestinians remain bleak is obviously not a good thing. Nor is Israel's demographic problem. And Iran's development of nuclear weapons is extremely troublesome. None of this can be underestimated, but nor should the many areas in which Israel's situation has improved since 1980 be overlooked. For example, while in 1980 Saddam Hussein was developing the Osirak nuclear facility, a year later that facility was destroyed by the IAF, and today with Saddam gone Iraq is not a military threat. The threat from Israel's east has also been reduced as a result of the peace treaty with Jordan, which Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein signed in 1994. In 1980, Israel was seven years removed from the Yom Kippur war, which it won at a very heavy price, and had fought four regional wars in its 32 years of existence. 23 years later, while the peace with Egypt is extremely cold, it has endured, and Israel has now not fought a regional war in 30 years. In 1980, the USSR was supplying weapons to Syria. Following the demise of the Soviet Union, Syria ceased to pose an existential threat to Israel, and Israel now possesses vast military superiority over the Arabs. The demise of the USSR also resulted in hundreds of thousands of Russian immigrants to Israel, alleviating (at least temporarily) the demographic threat. The Arab boycott of companies doing business in Israel was in full force in 1980, but is dormant today. While Israel is now in a deep recession, its per capita income is far higher today than it was in 1980, even as the Arab and Muslim states remain mired in Third World conditions. Ultimately, Israel's strategic position is far stronger today than it was in 1980. Then, however, Jews were not being killed regularly on Israeli streets, as is occurring in 2003. Israel must therefore decisively win the current war being waged against it. When it does, the Arab threat to it will have been reduced, and Israel will be in a stronger position to deal with the military, political and demographic problems that remain. Lou Dobbs Interviews Alan Dershowitz On CNN last night, Lou Dobbs interviewed Alan Dershowitz about the latter's new book, The Case For Israel. Toward the end of the interview, Dershowitz mentioned that three years ago, former Prime Minister Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank. Dobbs asked what right Israel had to the other three percent, adding that "it's like rat poison. 98 percent of it is fine, but the other two percent will kill you." (my paraphrase) So after three years of unending Palestinian terror, instead of being credited with having made a generous offer - as Barak claimed would be the case - Israel's right to even one inch of Judea and Samaria (and the Old City of Jerusalem) is being rejected. Peres and Jerusalem Post The editorial in today's Jerusalem Post correctly criticizes those who protested outside Shimon Peres' birthday party and called for "the Oslo criminals" to be brought to justice: "No Israeli newspaper has been more steadfast in its opposition to the Oslo Accords than The Jerusalem Post. But we do not join in the protesters' sentiments. Surely the 'Oslo criminals' did not build the reactor at Dimona, or Israel Aircraft Industries, or many of the settlements. Surely the "Oslo criminals" did not organize the Entebbe rescue, or rescue Israel's economy from hyperinflation, or arrange our peace with Jordan. These are the foundation stones upon which the modern Jewish state is built. The man who did so much to put them there deserves, at the very least, a more intelligent opposition." The editorial fails to note, however, that the Jerusalem Post publishes advertisements from Women in Green, the main group leading the anti-Peres protest. Indeed last Friday's paper had an ad calling for people to join the protest. Of course, publication of advertisements from a group does not suggest an endorsement of that group's political views, and in addition to Women in Green, Friday's Jerusalem Post also published an ad from Gush Shalom, a radical left-wing Israeli group which is promising to act as human shields for Yasser Arafat. Still, the editorial should have mentioned that those promoting the anti-Peres event regularly advertise in the Jerusalem Post. Monday, September 22, 2003
Root Causes of Terror Robert Pape, a political science professor, writing in today's Times about the motivations of terrorists, correctly says that "there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter... Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective." Pape counsels against making political concessions to "political causes supported by terrorists." Such political concessions, he argues, lead only to more terror: "Suicide terrorists were thought to compel ... Israeli forces to quit the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1994 and 1995." While I believe Pape is right that political concessions are not a correct response to terrorism, he is wrong that in 1994-95 Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza due to terror. In fact, Israel negotiated the Oslo Accords with the PLO in 1993, before the first wave of suicide bombings in 1994. Further, at the time Binyamin Netanyahu was elected in 1996, Israel retained more than 70 percent of Judea and Samaria. In fact, the reverse of Pape's argument is true: The withdrawal of Israeli forces from part of Judea, Samaria and Gaza compelled suicide terrorists to attack Israel, both between 1994 and 1996 and after the 2000 Camp David summit, when former prime minister Barak offered to withdraw from almost all of the territories. Ignoring this, because Pape believes that military attacks on terrorists only incite more terror, he concludes that "In the end, the best approach for the states under fire is probably to focus on their own domestic security while doing what they can to see that the least militant forces on the terrorists' side build a viable state on their own. Israel, for example, would be well advised to abandon the territory it holds on the West Bank but to go ahead with building the immense wall, 20 feet high and 20 feet wide, to physically separate it from the Palestinian population. This would create real security for Israel and leave the West Bank for a true Palestinian state." Not only does Pape's conclusion appear to undermine his argument against making political concessions in response to terror, it ignores Israel's experience with the Oslo Accords, when it negotiated a deal with (what it then believed to be) "the least militant forces on the terrorists' side" only to face wave after wave of suicide bomb attacks. Pape also ignores the fact that a state - even on all of the territory captured in 1967 - would not meet the demands of even "the least militant" Palestinians, who continue to demand that millions of "refugees" be allowed to "return" to Israel. Suicide Bombings and Routine In this week's issue of The New Republic, Martin Peretz criticizes Thomas Friedman's recent column which stated that "Suicide bombing is becoming so routine here that it risks becoming embedded in contemporary culture." Peretz correctly pointed out that in fact, "for Israelis every bomb feels almost like the first bomb. Israelis are being murdered, but they are not being deadened." My review of that Friedman column can be read here. Thursday, September 18, 2003
Daniel Ben Simon Interview Daniel Ben Simon, a senior writer and columnist at Haaretz, answered readers' questions on Haaretz's website today. Interestingly, not a single question came from a supporter of Israel's government. Here are a few illustrative questions and answers: Q: Haaretz editorials depict the blunders, spin, and dysfunctional decision-making of Sharon's government. Why does Haaretz's perception not ignite Israeli students, liberals and patriots to take to the streets and protest, as we did with our authoritarian regime in Chile during the eighties? Roberto Feldmann Santiago, Chile A: Daniel Ben Simon: Haaretz is trying very hard to reveal Sharon's true character and morals. It seems that Israelis are not in the mood to pay attention to these "minor" details. Q: Do you think that "the sheer stupidity" of this government (to use a term that recently appeared in Haaretz) is putting the existence of Israel in danger? Pedro Eslava Pamplona, Spain A: Daniel Ben Simon: Yes! Q: Do you think there is a deep division in Israeli society between the religious and the secular, or is it all exaggerated? A. London, U.K. A: Daniel Ben Simon: I think that when the conflict with the Palestinians ends, the real war will start - the war between the religious and the secular. Knowing the religious, they will not be prepared to compromise. It will be a passionate war between believers in God and believers in freedom. But we still have a long way to go and a few other unfinished wars to deal with. The Fence and The Left In today's Haaretz, Israel Harel criticizes the construction of the security fence as the result of "feelings of despondency and hopelessness transmitted from the grass roots upward, from panicked and exhausted citizens to the government." Harel views the fence as the main symbol of the adoption of a new consensus in which the "remaining dispute between the right and the left today is no longer the principle of the division of western Israel - that process is already in full swing - but rather the route of the fence, the main device for the execution of the division." Harel points out that including Ariel and nearby Samaria communities within the fence would be in accordance with former Prime Minister Barak's concessions in 2000. Barak emphasized then that "Israel would annex the large settlement blocs that house some 80 percent of the settlers" and annexation of the main settlements was supported by all on the left, including Yossi Sarid and Yossi Beilin. Today, however, the left is vocally opposing including the large settlements within the fence, and is therefore undermining even the implementation of Barak's plan. Dangers of Withdrawal Sam Singer of Protocols (in comments) now argues that Israel should withdraw from most of Judea and Samaria because: "Will the casualty toll drop if we pull out of most of the West Bank and unilaterally separate and build a DEFENSIBLE fence? I can't think of any reason it wouldn't, and I certainly havent heard one from most of the cretins attacking anyone who so much as breathes a word of criticism from the left flank." In response to Sam, here are a few reasons why the casualty toll can easily rise upon IDF withdrawal: 1. If Israel is out of Judea and Samaria, Kassam rockets can be placed in Ramallah and easily reach all of Jerusalem. They can be placed in the Shomron, and easily reach the Tel Aviv area, including Ben Gurion Airport in Lod. If a rocket as much as landed anywhere near the airport or an airplane, no foreign airlines would continue to fly to Israel. 2. Even with a fence or wall, it would be very difficult to bar Palestinians outside of Jerusalem from entering Jerusalem, particularly those from suburbs such as Abu Dis. With the IDF out of most of Judea/Samaria and the checkpoints gone, what would stop Palestinians from loading a van with explosives, and driving it straight into Jerusalem for use in car bombs and/or suicide bombings? 3. If residents of "consensus" settlements such as those in Gush Etzion, Ariel, Maaleh Adumim, Givat Zeev, etc. remained while the IDF withdraws, the Jewish civilians in those areas will be sitting ducks. If the fence/wall keeps those areas and the IDF remains, then Israel will have already kept a significant part of Judea and Samaria. Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Burg Article Last month, Labor Party Knesset member Avraham Burg wrote a column in Yediot Aharonot that was sharply critical of Israel. The piece, which was then translated into English and published in the Forward, under the headline 'A Failed Israeli Society Collapses While Its Leaders Remain Silent,' claims, in part, as follows: "The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly... "Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated... "Israel's current prime minister personally embodies ... suspect personal morals and open disregard for the law — combined with the brutality of occupation and the trampling of any chance for peace. This is our nation, these its leaders. The inescapable conclusion is that the Zionist revolution is dead." Yesterday, the viciously anti-Israel Guardian reprinted the article, this time with the headline 'The end of Zionism: Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy.' Today, the article appeared in Arab News, a Saudi paper and in the Jordan Times. Burg has a right to express his views (though they have moved to the extreme left from his previously more mainstream leftist positions and though they have a tone of self-hatred). But I have a big problem with a member of Israel's opposition marketing his column to newspapers opposed to Israel's existence. It's one thing to be sharply critical of Israel in an Israeli paper and a Jewish weekly in the U.S. I think doing so in Saudi Arabia and Jordan is incitement against Israel, while placing the column in the Guardian will be seen as a moral defense of that paper's venom toward Israel. Monday, September 15, 2003
Anna Lindh and Israel Last week, Sweden's Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was stabbed to death while shopping in a department store. Initially, I refrained from posting about Lindh, in light of the tragic murder, but it now seems appropriate to refer readers to her anti-Israel history. Last year, during Israel's military operations in Judea and Samaria following a wave of suicide bombings, Lindh stated that the "offensive can in no way be defended" and that Israel's defensive actions were "a week of shame." When Israel initially declined to allow the UN to investigate events in Jenin, Lindh charged that Israel "shows lack of respect for the United Nations" and "has chosen a course of action that risks placing the country outside the rest of the world community." Lindh's death has been widely mourned by Palestinians and their supporters, who have praised her for stating that "Israel is a democracy balancing on a thin line" and that "Israel must abide by international law and conventions and stop humiliating the population in the occupied territories. The walls, both of barbed wire and of suspicion, must come down." Lindh also told an interviewer that her goal was that "Israeli citizens will turn against the military policies of Sharon." She also said that "equating Arafat with terrorists is both inappropriate and stupid." Indeed, Lindh was a close ally of Arafat, and is pictured with him here. While Lindh's murder is tragic and obscene, she will not be missed. Israel's Demographic Problem Sam Singer of Protocols posts about Israel's demographic problem. Citing Tom Friedman's column in yesterday's Times, Shapiro calls on Israel to unilaterally withdraw from almost all of Judea and Samaria. Friedman wrote that "by 2010 there will be more Palestinian Arabs than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined." I'm almost certain that's an exaggeration. Further, I believe that the entire demographic issue has become overhyped. Israel has never annexed Judea, Samaria and Gaza, so the notion that combining the Arab populations in those areas with those in pre-1967 Israel forms the moral basis to argue for one bi-national state seems to me to be off base. Thus, Singer's statement that "Israel will cease to be a Jewish state in our lifetimes. Unless there is unilateral separation from the Palestinians - NOW! TODAY! - there is no way on earth that Israel as we know it can survive," is unnecessarily alarmist. Nevertheless, the demographic problem is a real one, even if not necessarily an existential one. As a result, most Israelis support giving up the parts of the West Bank with large Arab populations, while annexing the main settlement blocs. Singer, however, writes that "Unilateral separation does not mean a wall that incorporates 50% of the Palestinians into Israel. It means a contiguous country, on most of the West Bank with all of them over there. That is the minimum level of concession that the right has to get used to at this point." In fact, if Israel were to retain Ariel, Karnei Shomron and the other communities in Western Samaria, along with Maale Adumim, most of Gush Etzion, the areas just north of Jerusalem such as Givat Ze'ev, other large settlements near Jerusalem such as Beitar Illit and Modin Illit, the area just south of Jerusalem to cover Rachel's Tomb, and the Jordan Valley for a total of perhaps 25 percent of Judea and Samaria, this would not include anything close to 50% of the Palestinians, but somewhere around 200,000 of them. Thus, Israel can achieve unilateral separation while keeping a large chunk of the territories. Indeed, Israel can relieve itself of the large majority of Palestinians even while retaining 50 percent of Judea and Samaria; the idea of keeping 25 percent is not mine, but that of Ehud Barak, who proposes doing just that (the Jordan Valley plus 12-15 percent) in the absence of a peace agreement. Prime Minister Sharon's plan appears to be an interim agreement giving up about 65-70% of Judea and Samaria, with Israel keeping about a third until the Palestinians would be ready to discuss a reasonable final status agreement. Some may respond that this would not provide the Palestinians with a viable state, but Israel's objective in any unilateral withdrawal would only be to alleviate its demographic problem, not to make political concessions. Indeed, until and unless it is recognized in secure borders, UN Resolutions 242 and 338 do not require Israel to withdraw from any territory. Since a final status peace agreement will not occur anytime soon, Israel can therefore alleviate its demographic situation without withdrawing from almost all of Judea/Samaria. If the Palestinians would be unhappy with only a partial withdrawal, that might motivate them to negotiate a reasonable peace agreement. Terror and G-d In yesterday's Jerusalem Post, Rabbi Stewart Weiss, whose son Ari was killed a year ago during an IDF operation and whose wife went to school with David Applebaum, the Shaare Zedek ER chief who was murdered in the Cafe Hillel bombing last week, asks: "How does a caring, omnipotent God allow such horrible tragedies as we have experienced to transpire? How can He permit the murder of a magnificent doctor, a tzaddik who saved countless lives in his distinguished medical career including many victims of similar terror acts? How can He take a bride on the eve of her wedding? How can we activate the 'merciful and compassionate God' to whom we pray each day?" Rabbi Weiss concludes that he does not know, and that he believes nobdoy else does either: "I have no answers not a single one that ameliorates the pain. It is beyond me. I cannot fathom God's purpose in these horrendous outrages; I do not know what particular message He is trying to send. In an age when prophecy is long gone and Heavenly voices have ceased to rain down, I am at a loss as to what God's plan is. "Nor do I believe that anyone out there in the mortal world has an inside track to God's will. I am wary of self-proclaimed authorities who claim they know why this is all happening and what it will take to stop the killings. "From the mystic who assured us that Ari would be safe during his service, to the parent who pulled his kid out of the army and moved him to safe California where he was subsequently killed in a car crash they are all Pretenders to the Throne. No one has a clue." I fully agree with Rabbi Weiss. After the 9/11 attacks, and after terrorist attacks in Israel, some people have offered silly explanations to comfort themselves. For example, people claim that the fact that many people survived these attacks is a miracle and focus only on the survivors. Others will say that the victims' "time was up," which in Jewish thought is at best questionable with respect to victims of murder. Finally, I've even heard people say that the victim is much better off in the next world, and would in fact refuse to come back if he or she could. That's not only nonsensical, it contradicts the importance Judaism places on a person's life on earth. The better explanation is offered by Rabbi Weiss, that while we believe in G-d, we do not understand the reasons for tragedies, including murder of the righteous. Friday, September 12, 2003
More from the Cowardly Oz On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Oslo Accords, Amos Oz writes a column in Newsday demanding that Prime Minister Sharon deal with Yasser Arafat, and criticizing Sharon for failing to completely freeze construction in Judea and Samaria. According to Oz, "Arafat may be a nasty man with a record of violence and double crossing... but we Israelis cannot select Mother Theresa to become the leader of the Palestinians. We have to deal with Arafat not because he is nice and sweet, not because he is our friend, but precisely because he is the leader of our enemies." That's not what Oz said ten years ago. In a September 1993 column in The Jerusalem Post, Oz wrote that "if they take whatever we give them and demand even more, still exercising violence and terror... Israel will be in a position to close in on Palestine and undo the deal. "Once peace comes, Israeli doves, more than other Israelis, must assume a clear-cut "hawkish" attitude concerning the duty of the future Palestinian regime to live by the letter and the spirit of its obligations. The plan now being negotiated, Gaza and Jericho first, is a sober and reasonable option. If the Palestinians want to hold onto Gaza and Jericho, eventually assuming power in other parts of the occupied territories, they will have to prove to us, to themselves and to the whole world, that they have abandoned violence and terror, that they are capable of suppressing their fanatics, that they are renouncing the destructive Palestinian Charter and withdrawing from what they used to call 'the right of return.' They will also have to show that they are willing to tolerate in their midst a minority of Israelis who may choose to live where there is no Israeli government." Instead of honorably standing by his 1993 column, Oz continues to undermine Israel and its elected government. UPDATE: Readers have commented that Oz has "a right to change his mind" and cannot be held to something that he wrote 10 years ago. However, this is not a question of Oz changing his mind after 10 years, it's about his taking responsibility - as he promised - to "take a hawkish attitude" on the Palestinian duty to abandon violence, and his having completely ignored that responsibility throughout the last ten years. Thursday, September 11, 2003
Reactions to Terror Tom Friedman's point about Israelis continuing with their routine within minutes of terrorist attacks causes me to look back at a time when this was not the case. In 1995, Alisa Flatow, a 20 year old Brandeis student, was murdered in a bus bombing. At that time, Prime Minister Rabin apologized to Alisa's father, Stephen Flatow for not being able to protect his daughter, and prevent her murder. In 1994, 19 year old Nachshon Wachsman was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists, who held him captive for five days before he was murdered during a failed IDF rescue attempt. Nachshon's mother, Esther Wachsman, recalled that during those five days: "We appealed to our brethren -- to the Jewish people throughout the world -- and asked them to pray for our son. The Chief Rabbi of Israel delegated three chapters of Psalms to be said every day, and people everywhere, including schoolchildren who had never prayed before, did so for the sake of one precious Jewish soul. "I asked women throughout the world to light an extra Sabbath candle for my son. From about 30,000 letters that poured into our home, I learned of thousands of women who had never lit Sabbath candles, who did so for the sake of our son... "A prayer vigil was held at the Western Wall and, at the same hour, prayer vigils were held throughout the world in synagogues, schools, community centers, street squares and, yes, churches throughout the world. People of good faith everywhere hoped and pleaded and prayed for Nachshon. "At the Western Wall 100,000 people arrived, with almost no notice -- Chassidim in black frock coats and long side curls swayed and prayed and cried, side by side with young boys in torn jeans and ponytails and earrings. There was total unity and solidarity of purpose among us -- religious and secular, left wing and right wing, Sephardi and Ashkenazi, old and young, rich and poor -- an occurrence unprecedented in our sadly fragmented society." After Nachshon was murdered, "the entire nation mourned with us. Thousands came to comfort us, though no one can comfort a bereaved parent. Israeli radio began each morning's broadcasts with the words 'Good morning Israel, we are all with the Wachsman family.' Food and drink were delivered non-stop to our home; bus and taxi drivers who brought people from all over the country who wished to express their condolences, left their vehicles and joined their passengers in our home. That unity, solidarity, caring, compassion, and love with which we were showered gave us strength and filled our hearts with love for our people." In light of the number of victims, it's probably not realistic - and perhaps not even healthy - for Israelis to mourn for each of its victims in the same way that they did for Nachshon Wachsman. But simply accepting mass murder as routine (something that I do not believe most Israelis are guilty of) is not something that is praiseworthy. Four Comments on Tom Friedman's Column In today's Times, Thomas Friedman writes from Tel Aviv. Following is my reaction to his column: 1. Friedman compliments Israelis who are "gripped with routine" following suicide bombings and points out that "the radios used to stop playing upbeat music after a bombing; now they don't hesitate." There's a difference between resilience and apathy, and I'm not sure that Friedman understands it. Going on with one's life despite the pain caused by Israel's enemies is resilience. In the Jerusalem Post, Natan Applebaum (son of David Applebaum and brother of Naava Applebaum, who were buried yesterday on what was to be Naava's wedding day) is quoted as saying that "We are not a family that is afraid. We go to cafes and take buses, and we will continue to do so. We do not live for the moment, we live for the future." That's resilience. Going out for a party before the dead are even evacuated is not. At best it's cognitive dissonance, or denial. 2. Friedman writes: "I was in a trendy Tel Aviv sandwich shop the other day and my young Israeli waitress had a fun little tattoo on her shoulder. Jews with tattoos — you don't see that every day. Message to Hamas: You may think these suicide bombers will drive Israelis to leave. But they're just digging in, and clinging to normality. The Jews are getting tattoos." In his book, from Beirut to Jerusalem, Friedman lambasted Menachem Begin for supposedly being obsessed with the idea of Jews who can fight. Apparently Friedman is obsessed with the idea of Jews who get tattoos. 3. Friedman essentially equates Prime Minister Sharon and Hamas, and blames Sharon for Hamas (and presumably Fatah, though he doesn't say so) mass murders of Jews: "In three years, some 850 Israelis have been killed under your strategy. Yours and Hamas's are two failed strategies that add up to a human meat grinder." In fact, Sharon has not been prime minister for three years, and the mass terror endured by Israel was well underway before he was elected, even as former Prime Minister Barak egregiously offered to divide Jerusalem and give up almost all of Judea and Samaria. Friedman, however, demands that Israel make unilateral concessions, without any promise that the Palestinians will reciprocate. 4. Friedman writes: "Suicide bombing is becoming so routine here that it risks becoming embedded in contemporary culture. America must stop it. A credible peace deal here is no longer a U.S. luxury — it is essential to our own homeland security. Otherwise, this suicide madness will spread, and it will be Americans who will have to learn how to live with it." So instead of supporting Israeli steps to uproot the terrorist groups, Friedman calls on the U.S. to impose a peace agreement, and sacrifice Israel as Chamberlain sacrificed Czechoslovakia. Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Jerusalem Post Editorial: Kill Arafat Thursday's Jerusalem Post editorial calls on Israel to kill Yasser Arafat: "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative... "Israel cannot accept a situation in which Arafat blocks any Palestinian break with terrorism, whether from here or in exile. Therefore, we are at another point in our history at which the diplomatic risks of defending ourselves are exceeded by the risks of not doing so. "Such was the case in the Six Day War, when Israel was forced to launch a preemptive attack or accept destruction. And when Menachem Begin decided to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And when Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in Palestinian cities after the Passover Massacre of 2002... "When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right. "Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself... "We complain that a double standard is applied to us, and it is. But we cannot complain when we apply that double standard to ourselves. Arafat's survival, under our watchful eyes, is living testimony to our tolerance of that double standard. If we want another standard to be applied, we must begin by applying it ourselves." Four Comments on the Situation 1. The death toll from yesterday's carnage is 15. Each death is a terrible tragedy, but the murders of David Appelbaum and his daughter Naava Applebaum are the most painful. (Click here for The Jerusalem Post article.) The reasons are obvious and stating them is hopefully unnecessary, but I will do so anyway: First, for those of us in the U.S., the Appelbaums made aliyah from Cleveland 20 years ago and live in a section of Jerusalem in which many American olim reside. Second, David Applebaum headed the ER in Shaare Zedek Hospital and regularly attended to terror victims. (The Jerusalem Post recently featured Dr. Applebaum.) Worst of all is that Naava Applebaum, who was 20, was to be married tonight to Chanan Sand. The wedding invitation can be viewed here. A picture of Chanan Sand and Naava Applebaum following their engagement can be seen on this webpage for Chanan's family. 2. Galei Tzahal (Israel Army Radio) is reporting that Raed Bargouti (relative of Fatah leader Marwan Bargouti), who was recently released from prison in an Israeli "confidence building gesture," has been rearrested due to involvement in the planning of yesterday's attacks. Israel's release of hundreds of prisoners - which was not even required in the road map - was moronic. Common sense, rather than sophisticated intelligence information, was all one needed to know that these terrorists would immediately revert to terrorism. Yet Israel's leaders lacked common sense, and believed that asking the terrorists to sign a statement promising to behave in the future would suffice. 3. I believe that Prime Minister Sharon has a plan with regard to the future of Judea and Samaria. But neither he nor his government has a policy or a strategy with regard to terror. Prime Minister Sharon almost never speaks to the people in a national address. After every terrorist attack, some ministers call for Arafat's expulsion, while others are against expelling him. Why doesn't the government simply sit down and discuss and debate once and for all what to do with him? Similarly, the government cannot decide whether to invade Gaza, or not to invade Gaza. So it does not invade Gaza "at this time," but reserves the option of doing so later. It apparently has finally decided to target the Hamas leadership, but with small bombs, so the missile attacks are usually unsuccessful. Sharon has gone from not giving a damn what anyone thought, to needing U.S. approval for every step taken by Israel. U.S. support is indeed important, but Israel's failure to do everything possible to protect its civilians is shameful. For example, if killing Hamas leaders ultimately protects Israelis, why did Israel begin targeting them only recently? Hamas is now threatening to kill another Israeli cabinet minister. (Rechavim Zeevi was murdered by the PFLP in 2001.) With the help of G-d and the Israeli Defense Forces, hopefully Hamas and the other terrorist groups will not succeed. But if G-d forbid they do, such an event may finally cause the government to unleash the abilities of the IDF and IAF on Israel's enemies. It should not have to come to that, or to a "mega-attack" on civilians, for the government to treat Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah as the U.S. treats al Qaeda. Indeed, it should not have come to the events of today, when a young woman was buried on what was to be her wedding day. 4. Today's Times states that Cafe Hillel "is in the so-called German Colony, a neighborhood known as the city's most dovish, secular area." Obviously James Bennett and Greg Myre missed the fact that not only are many of the German Colony's residents observant, but that almost all of the cafes and restaurants (including Cafe Hillel) are kosher. Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Howard Dean and Israel Many of us are frustrated and angry at the Bush Administration's pressure on Israel with regard to the road map, the fence, the war on terror and the future of Jerusalem and the settlements. However, as The Jerusalem Post reports in tomorrow's paper, things could get much worse if Howard Dean is elected President in 2004. Dean is quoted as saying that it was not America's place "to take sides in the conflict" and that an "enormous number" of Israeli settlements must be dismantled. Dean also said that "in order to be an honest broker, we have to take a very middle path. I actually think the president has done that in his words." Bush has been very disappointing over the last few months, and as a result I am uncertain whether I will vote for him. But I am damn sure that I will be voting against Howard Dean in the primaries and - if he is nominated - in the general election. Iranians Blame Mossad For Iraq Terror; Compare Israel to Nazis Today's Tehran Times provides yet another display of the extent of Arab evil and lunacy. First comes a report that "15 Mossad agents" who received U.S. assistance were responsible for the recent car bomb in Najaf, Iraq, that killed more than 80 people, including Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim. The report further states that "after Saddam Hussein was ousted, the Zionist regime took advantage of divisions among the Iraqi Shia and sent a large number of extremist Jews and Mossad agents to Iraq, with the help of the occupying forces, to infiltrate Islamic groups and obtain information." Second, the paper reports that Iranian government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh told reporters that "the Europeans should check their memory and see that during the time when they were occupied by Nazis, what actions did their people take? Defense against aggressors and occupiers is the legitimate right of any nation, and you cannot label these movements as terrorist movements. If you want to call defending yourself against the aggressor and occupier as terrorism, it is like legitimizing occupation and aggression." Benny Morris: Kill Arafat Newsweek interviewed Ben Gurion University Benny Morris about Abu Ala and Palestinian terror. Morris, who once was a leading critic of Israel, has radically changed his views in the last three years, as was demonstrated in a lengthy article in The New Republic. In the Newsweek interview, Morris states that "the ends and desires of Hamas are really ends of the entire Palestinian people. Hamas wants Israel eliminated and most Palestinians, in their hearts, do as well. So part of the problem is that Hamas represents the real desires of Palestinians. Some Palestinians believe that they can’t put an end to Israel and thus must accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But even then, I believe these people think that over a process of time Israel will cease to exist." Morris also argues that Israel should kill the terrorist Palestinian leadership, including Sheikh Yassin and Yasser Arafat: "I don’t think the attack on Yassin is the last we’ll see. I think Israel will try and get him again. In fact, I think we should have gotten to him and to Arafat a long time ago." While he concedes that new terrorists may replace those who are liquidated, he believes that "nonetheless there is a psychological effect and a public relations effect of killing off the leadership." As for Arafat, Morris says that "there is no solution except killing him. All this talk about exiling him is nonsense. He would be much more trouble wandering the world. I think the choice is between killing him and keeping him in his Ramallah compound." Bush and the Shrinking Fence In today's Haaretz, Ze'ev Schiff reports that Israel is giving in to United States demands that the security fence not include Ariel and other Western Samaria "settlements." According to Schiff, "in the argument over Ariel, the Americans won. Even though Defense Minster Shaul Mofaz wants to include Ariel inside the fence, the tendency now is not to extend the fence and planning has already begun for a new route. But Ariel - and two other settlements - will get new separation fences of their own - even as they are kept out of the main separation fence." Ariel, which has about 17,000 residents, is a number of miles outside of the Green Line, so American pressure in that regard is understandable, even as Israel's failure to insist on protecting its interests is troubling and disappointing. Yet the Bush Administration's pressure also relates to communities in the Jerusalem area, such as Givat Ze'ev, a community of 13,000, and other urban neighborhoods in northern Jerusalem, or just north of the capital. While Israel has stated that the fence must cover the tens of thousands of residents of those neighborhoods, Haaretz reports that "the Americans have not accepted the argument - and have made that clear in discussions with Israeli officials in Washington. The issue is clearly leading to an open clash, because of the sensitivity of the Jerusalem issue." The Bush Administration's position is outrageous. While Ramot, Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Pisgat Ze'ev and Givat Ze'ev were built in areas captured in 1967, all have large Jewish populations, and would have been annexed to Israel even under the Clinton Plan. The U.S. insistence that the fence not cover these areas (which have been targets of terrorist attacks) has no legitimate basis, and must be rejected by Israel. Monday, September 08, 2003
Pro-Israel Letters in Saudi Paper I have previously criticized Arab News, the Saudi English-language daily, for their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic articles. However, tomorrow's edition deserves praise for publishing four pro-Israel letters, all from United States readers, something that the New York Times and Washington Post rarely, if ever, achieve. First, Jim Ghiringhelli, in response to an Arab News editorial claiming that Yasser Arafat was "democratically elected," writes: "I find that humorous. Who were the other candidates? Who were the international observers who monitored the election and declared it free and fair?" Second, C. LeFevre-Lowry wrote that "You’d think that somewhere in the Palestinian world there would be individuals who can see that things are never going to go their way as long as Arafat and his “intifada” diehards are in control. They have made it their life’s work to not achieve peace... Apparently they would rather bury their young than do the hard work of educating them to live and prosper in cooperation with the rest of the world." Third, George Repper notes that "the Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948, placed an embargo on Israel after they lost the war, perpetuated a boycott of the state, which is a form of warfare, and expelled Jews from all Arab countries. Now you wish to have the right to return, blaming Israel for whatever happened to you instead of looking at yourselves for your misery." Finally, Tony Patterson of Kingwood, Texas states that "it is Arafat and the terrorist organizations he invited in that stand in the way of peace for the Palestinians... For you to claim that Arafat was “democratically” elected is about as much a joke as saying that the people of Iraq freely voted 99.9 percent for Saddam Hussein in the last election he staged. The Palestinian people are more afraid of Arafat and his people than they are of any Israeli tank with barrel pointed directly at their chests. For once, put peace and the interests of the Palestinian people above your hatred for Israel." Tehran Times Blames 'Zionists' for Abbas Downfall An editorial in today's Tehran Times predictably blames "Zionist intrigues" for the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas from the post of Palestinian Authority prime minister. The editorial states, in part, that "the Zionists underestimated the adaptability of the Intifada. Although the Zionist regime frustrated Abbas's efforts to establish peace in the occupied territories by violating the cease-fire, Palestinians used the opportunity to reinvigorate the Intifada." Marranos Rediscovering Judaism The new issue of The Jerusalem Report has an interesting article about Carmen Maria Rodriguez, a Hispanic woman who was born in Cuba before moving to the Washington Heights section of Manhattan. Rodriguez's grandmother observed traditions such as lighting candles on Friday night and giving away her bread on Good Friday. When an observant Jewish woman moved next door to Rodriguez, she realized the purpose for her grandmother's traditions. Many years later, she came across an article about Rabbi Manny Vinas, an Orthodox rabbi in Westchester whose family is also from Cuba and practiced Catholicism there. Vinas' entire family converted to Judaism when they moved to Miami, where Vinas went to yeshiva. Rodriguez recently converted before Vinas and two other rabbis. The Jewish Week recently featured the Yonkers shul that Vinas recently became rabbi of. NFL Picks Pending tonight's Bucs vs. Eagles game, my picks from Week 1 have an abysmal 5-9-1 record. I'll give it a shot again for Week 2, but will then stop the picks if there's no dramatic improvement. Friday, September 05, 2003
Painful Concessions Bar Ilan University Professor Gerald Steinberg has an important column in today's Jerusalem Post. Steinberg's political views lean slightly to the right - he opposed Oslo, opposes the road map and believes that Israel will have no viable peace partner "for many years, maybe decades." As a result, Steinberg argues that: "Unless Israel acts we will be ensnared by a growing Palestinian population that will soon become the majority between the Mediterranean and Jordan River, ending the concept of a Jewish state. Even if the terrorist attacks can be stopped by purely military means, the status quo, without borders and with small settlements scattered all over the map, is a dangerous political trap. "The catastrophic failures of the Oslo peace process followed by the hopeless road map show that the exit from this trap will not come via negotiations and agreements for many years, maybe decades. To escape this trap Israel must act unilaterally to dismantle some settlements, incorporate others, and create realistic borders." Steinberg calls for Israel to build the separation fence to include within its borders "the area around Jerusalem, Gush Etzion (south of Jerusalem), and Ariel." However, a number of settlements would be outside the fence, and marked for removal. In some form, whether unilaterally or during an interim part of a fraudulent peace process, Israel will likely endeavor to separate from the Palestinians along these lines. However, in doing so, Israel's government will not only face strong opposition from residents of communities that would be dismantled and their supporters, but also from the international community, including the U.S., which would oppose the fence's deviation from the 1967 borders to incorporate the major settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley. When that pressure comes, Israel will have to withstand it, and ignore demands to keep all of the "settlements" outside of the security fence. Communities located in areas in Judea and Samaria that do not have a Palestinian majority must remain under Israeli control. Unfortunately, the Sharon government has almost always refrained from going against the wishes of the Bush Administration, even when Israel's vital interests are at stake. The only exception occurred in April 2002, when Israel ignored President Bush's demand to end Operation Defensive Wall and immediately withdraw from West Bank cities. Even then, Israel withdrew within a few weeks, before returning following another series of suicide bombings in June 2002. In contrast to Sharon, the prior Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, often clashed with the Clinton Administration. Sometimes (perhaps most of the time) such clashes were unnecessary, with Israel foolishly squabbling with the U.S. before giving in, such as during the Wye negotiations, when Netanyahu refused to agree to demands to withdraw from 13 percent of Judea and Samaria, but ultimately did agree to withdraw from what he characterized as 9 percent plus 4 percent. However, on other occasions Netanyahu protected Israel's interests despite strong U.S. pressure, such as in 1997, when he insisted on building the Har Homa section of Jerusalem. As a result, Har Homa became the last major Jewish development outside of the 1967 borders, while the pressure from Clinton and Secretary of State Madeline Albright became a distant memory. When it comes time to decide whether Ariel and other key towns are incorporated within Israel's security fence, it is important that Sharon act with Netanyahu's resolve, and insist on maintaining Israeli control of the major settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley. Eugene Volokh and Jews for Jesus UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy posts about "a pet peeve," of his, the notion that Jews who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior are no longer considered Jewish. Volokh argues that "this claim is theologically unsound from Judaism's own perspective. Any person whose mother is Jewish (or, I take it, who validly converted to Judaism) is a Jew, no matter what he believes. Irreligious Jews are still Jews, albeit perhaps bad Jews, if they disobey the Law. Jews who follow a false messiah -- which, I take it, is what a convert to Christianity would be, from the perspective of a devout Jew -- are likewise still Jews." In fact, however, Jewish law treats a convert from Judaism to another religion differently than a non-observant (even atheist) Jew. As explained in detail by Shmuel Golding here, "persons who did assume another religion or formally renounced Judaism are treated differently by Jewish law from Jews who, even while sinning, have not taken such actions." For example, a Jew for Jesus may not be a witness in a Jewish Court of Law or be called to the Torah, and is buried on the periphery of a Jewish cemetery. According to Golding, a "Jewish atheist has full rights in the synagogue, a Jew who has intermarried has full rights, a forced convert to another religion has full rights as we know from the Kol Nidra prayer, all these remain with and are included in the totality of Israel. But a Jew who gladly and willingly without force embraces the Christ deity, or Allah or Krishna, such a one is cut off from his people." IDF and Bulletproof Vests When I first learned about the Save our Soldiers Fund, which was formed in 2002 by two Americans who served in the IDF, and raises money to purchase high quality bulletproof vests for soldiers, I was skeptical. Surely, I assumed, the IDF is providing such vests to their soldiers. I was very wrong. And today Haaretz reports that IDF Golani soldier Gabriel Uziel was killed in Jenin yesterday by Fatah terrorists because he was "not wearing a ceramic bullet-proof vest that could have saved his life." Uziel was 20. The article states that "military sources clarified that the IDF cannot afford to provide the superior ceramic vests for budgetary reasons." I am skeptical that the IDF cannot afford to provide superior ceramic vests for its soldiers. More likely, I think, when budget cuts are required, army bureaucrats find it easier to compromise on the safety of the boys in combat than on their own salaries, pensions and perks. Since I'm not privy to the IDF's budget, I may be wrong. Regardless, it is tragic that a soldier has died because his inferior bulletproof vest failed. The efforts of the Save our Soldiers Fund - which is a tax-deductible organization, are therefore vital and should be supported. UPDATE: The Jerusalem Post reports that according to a senior IDF commander ceramic vest would not have saved Uziel's life, "since the bullet that killed him penetrated the area between an opening at the shoulder and the vest." Same Old Jets Vinny Testarverde didn't play too well in last night's loss, but he didn't lose the game. Jets offensive coordinator Paul Hackett's playcalling did. Even when the Jets had the ball late in the fourth quarter with a chance to win, Hackett refused to let Vinny throw the ball downfield, instead predictably running into a stacked Redskins defensive line. Throughout the game, Testaverde was relegated to throwing short screen passes to running backs, or short passes to his receivers. The Jets repeatedly called seven yard patterns on 3rd and long. Last night's Jets resembled the team that got off to a terrible start last season, and nothing like the offensive machine led by Chad Pennington. Had Pennington played last night, the Jets probably would have won, but even without him, they should have. This is not to excuse the Jets defense, which could not stop the run (or anything in the first half), and allowed the Redskins to gain 24 years on a 3rd and 8 quarterback scamper in the game's key play. Yet ultimately the Jets offense needs to score more than 13 points, or the team will lose their games by much more than a field goal, and it will be a long season. Thursday, September 04, 2003
Ephraim Halevi on Sharon and the Road Map Ari Shavit has an interesting interview with Ephraim Halevi in this week's Haaretz Magazine. Halevi is a former Mossad head who recently resigned as director of the National Security Council because of deep concerns about the Sharon government's decisions. For example, according to Halevi, "there is an intolerable sense of offhandedness in Israel today in making fateful decisions." While Halevi's views are not right-wing, he is particularly critical of Israel's acceptance of the road map: "The road map is not a road map. It is a plan for an imposed settlement. It marks out a clear route that leads to an imposed settlement." Halevi emphasized that the "concessions" to be made by Palestinians under the road map were already supposed to have been made under Oslo: "In the Oslo Accords, Israel recognized the rights of the Palestinians and in return obtained their agreement not to advance their goals by force. Not to use terrorism. Throughout the entire process, the Palestinians recognized only our reality, whereas we recognized their rights. That was a mistake. The road map repeats that mistake. It demands that Israel give the Palestinians strategic assets and in return all Israel gets is a war against terrorism and another war against terrorism. That's not good enough. It's even dangerous. It is liable to lead us in the end into a situation in which we will find ourselves close to the 1967 borders without the Palestinians having recognized Israel's right of existence and without their having forgone the right of return." Before resigning, Halevi asked Sharon to present an alternative plan which would have offered significant concessions in exchange for something concerte in return from the PA, but his counsel was ignored: "I am certain that it was possible to bypass the road map. The truth is that the Americans didn't want it, either. They were dragged into adopting the road map only because Israel didn't offer them an alternative proposal. Israel did not take an initiative that could have set the agenda and shaped a process that would be more correct. I believe that Israel's basic mistake is that we yield to the temptation to adopt the salami method. At any given moment we slice a bit off the salami and then we don't get any genuine quid pro quo for it. I would put about half the salami on the table but I would demand a high price for it. I would offer more and demand more." Halevi also refutes the notion that Israel's participation in the road map is reversible: "The prime minister may be telling himself that it's better not to quarrel with the Americans now and that it's always possible to quarrel with them, but that's an optical illusion. Because the more we advance in the process, the less ability we will have to say that we're not playing anymore, the rules were broken. And with all respect to the friendship between George and Ariel, that friendship fetters Ariel, not George. And if at the last minute George should call and say, `Listen, Ariel, this is what we were able to get, sign and finish,' it will be impossible to say no. We will find ourselves in a very difficult situation." Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Katsav and Iran Haaretz has a very interesting article about a radio segment on Israel Radio's Persion service in which President Moshe Katsav, who was born in Iran, spoke with Iranians. According to the article, one of the callers "praised Israel for giving international aid but chided it for being selective." "I am very proud of the fact that a native Iranian has become the president of Israel," the listener said. "Tell me. How is it that when there is an earthquake at the other end of the world, Israel mobilizes to help, whereas you will not help us - the Iranian people - go free?" It's comforting to know the Iranians do not necessarily subscribe to the conspiracy theories and hatred expressed in their newspapers, such as the Tehran Times. Tuesday, September 02, 2003
NFL Picks Following are my picks for Week 1 of the NFL season. Spreads are as of today: Favorite Spread Underdog Pick Redskins 3 Jets Jets Bills 1 Patriots Bills Panthers 4 Jaguars Jaguars Broncos 6 Bengals Bengals Browns 1 Colts Colts Lions 4 Cards Cards Packers 5 Vikings Packers Chiefs 6 Chargers Chargers Dolphins 14 Texans Texans Giants 1 Rams Rams Steelers 5 Ravens Ravens Cowboys 2 Falcons Cowboys 49ers 7 Bears Bears Seahawks 3 Saints Saints Titans 3 Raiders Titans Eagles 3 Bucs Eagles Fenway Park I went to Fenway Park in Boston for the first time on Sunday, and had the privilege of seeing Roger Clemens' last game there (unless the Red Sox play the Yankees in the American League Championship Series). The fans ovation upon Clemens' departure was very appropriate, as was Clemens' response. The Red Sox fans are as loyal as any in sports. However, they continually chanted "Yankees suck," and as the teenager seated next to me said to his father, "you can say you don't like them, but they definitely don't suck." AidelMaidel AidelMaidel is currently the hot Orthodox Jewish blog. It's a good and worthwhile read. Since she is not currently providing an e-mail address and I disagree with two statements in her blog, I am commenting here: First, her latest post, about the death of her uncle, states that her "husband told me that [when her uncle was near death] I could not touch him, as he was a "gosios" (sp?), someone who is near death and apparently touching them is a succanah [danger] for both him and myself." I may be wrong, but believe this is inaccurate. My understanding has been that under Jewish Law a goses (someone who has less than three days to live) should not be touched because that would shorten the life of the goses, not unlike how touching a flickering flame would put it out. However, touching in a comforting manner would seem to be inapplicable. Also, I am not aware of the belief that touching a goses is a danger to oneself. Second, in a post last week, AidelMaidel wrote about observant Jews who act in improper ways, and wondered how such behavior could be explained to non-Jews and non-observant Jews. Her rabbi, she said "always says that if you take the worst 5% of chasidim/frum jews and compare them to the best 5% of the rest of the world, the chasidim/frum jews are still coming out ahead. I know it sounds like grandstanding but it's the best answer I can come up with at the moment." I don't think that's a healthy view, and I don't think many observant Jews believe it. To the extent that they do, they shouldn't. While generally following the Torah should make one a better person, being Orthodox is no guarantee of higher moral standards. And there is no reason to compare observant Jews to "the rest of the world." The better explanation of improper behavior is simply that people have free will to choose right or wrong, and that while a person who follows the Torah will act in an optimal manner, many people who identify as Orthodox do not always act in full accordance with their religion. Tehran Times Column Today's Tehran Times has another column by Kian Mokhtari, a regular at the Times. The column is a good example of the combination of paranoia and venum of much of the Arab and Islamic world. Mokhtari writes: "President Bush’s IQ grade of 91 is one less than the number of holes in Ariel Sharon’s belt. It is the lowest ever IQ recorded for a US president. His adherence to neo-conservative philosophy is therefore understandable. I was going to say his invasion of Iraq is a stain on the conscience of world community, but I thought the US public might confuse that with the stains on the dress of Monica Lewinsky and think I am talking about another president altogether... "I am only too aware of the dangers faced by the entire international community when I take into consideration the thugs, loony tunes and murderers whose positions in the U.S. administration and defense industry insure their eventual immunity from justice. To all you sci-fi “B movie” fans out there: our worst fears have been confirmed. We really do live in a world about to be taken over by a fat war criminal with a foreign accent and an ugly skinny simpleton sidekick and there is no hastily prepared spaceship or intergalactic beauty to whisk us to safety! "It is indeed a tribute to the peacefulness and patience of decent folk all around the world that the likes of Sharon and Bush have not been given the push as yet." | "
