The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Kollel Students In this week's Jewish Week, Rabbi Avi Shafran laments the fact that most people would respect a PhD student in Scottish literature, but would be critical of somebody who devotes his life to Torah study. To the extent that kollel students are ridiculed and labeled as "parasites," Rabbi Shafran is absolutely right. However, he ignores the fact that whereas only a small number of people in any society pursue a PhD and that it is in fact rather difficult to get into a PhD program, in the charedi world thousands of young men have decided to learn Talmud full time, with the doors of massive yeshivas like Mir Jerusalem wide open for anybody to join. While the standards for entry to Beis Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, New Jersey are higher, several thousand men are in kollel there. Outside of Israel, the result is an unsustainable system, in which middle-class parents are expected to subsidize (and sometimes fully support) the lives of their children, while a mother of six or eight works full time for a relatively modest salary. As the size of the kollel families grow and the grandparents age, many families will slip into poverty. Once it comes time for the kollel families to marry off their own children, there will be nobody to pay for the weddings, let along support another generation of kollel families. Even now, young men who intend to learn in kollel usually look to marry a woman whose parents are wealthy, rather than one whose own father is in kollel. In Israel the situation is worse. Charedi society, while at least publicly shunning Zionism, has for decades relied on government support of yeshivas and for large government payments to families with many children. Under the current government those benefits are being reduced, ensuring that many families will be unable to put food on the table or pay their electricity bill. Rather than seek a solution, the charedi rabbinic and political leadership, and charedi newspapers such as Yated Neeman, have responded by blasting the Sharon government as being anti-religious for phasing out Israel's erstwhile socialist system. The obvious solution, in Israel and elsewhere, is for only the best learners to learn full-time (just as only the best Scottish lit scholars enter a PhD program), with others spending a couple of years in yeshiva after their marriage. In Israel, after an army deferment of a few years, most charedi men should do a few months of basic training and a few weeks of reserve duty each year, and then enter the work force. While the economy is currently weak, there are many areas in which charedim would succeed. Rabbi Shafran baldly asserts that the IDF does not want charedi soldiers. Such assertion may have had a kernel of truth in 1999, but in the current situation is nonsensical and is contradicted by the growth of charedi Nachal combat units. The IDF is severely undermanned, especially now with thousands of soldiers in Palestinian cities. There is no reason why 40 year old reservists should spend a month in Jenin with a combat unit, while 25 year old charedim avoid the IDF entirely. Indeed, on the army issue the position of the charedi leadership lacks any moral basis, and those of us who are religious - whether charedi or not - should not accept the burden of having to defend it. The sad thing is that many charedim in Israel do not want to be poor, and are eager to contribute to Israel in a positive way. Ultimately, these sentiments will prevail. In the meantime, tragically, by turning down millions to build centers to train charedim and pressuring young charedim to avoid the army, their leaders are forcing their constituents into poverty, which will cause many in their late teens and early 20's to leave religious observance, as an alarming number have done in the last few years. Ultimately, while Torah study is certainly worthwhile and praiseworthy, full-time learning is not appropriate for everyone, or even for most. Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Sharon/Bush Meeting It seems that every time Prime Minister Sharon is to meet with President Bush, rumors that the latter will be applying strong pressure precede the meeting, and that every time such rumors prove to be vastly exaggerated. Reports over the last few days were that the U.S. would insist that Israel remove the security fence, and that it was softening its demand on the PA to dismantle the terror groups. These reports had a legitimate basis. Bush strongly criticized the fence at his meeting on Friday with Abu Mazen (calling it a "wall"), and Colin Powell hinted that if Hamas ceased killing Israelis, there would be no need to dismantle it. In fact, however, the press conference following today's meeting indicates that the U.S. pressure on Israel is relatively mild. From Sharon's comments, it appears that Bush called for - but did not strongly demand - the removal of outposts, the ceasing of settlement activity, and a stop to construction of the security fence. Sharon will likely accede to the first request, and seek to reach a compromise on the other two. This does not mean that in the future the U.S. will not demand that Israel make dangerous concessions. It appears that Bush's vision includes an Israeli withdrawal from almost all of Judea and Samaria and the sharing of Jerusalem. While some believe that Bush will accept the creation of a provisional Palestinian state and will not push for a final status agreement, there is reason to be concerned that in a second term, the Bush Administration will zealously pursue a comprehensive settlement to the Israeli-Arab conflict, with the expectation that Israel make dramatic compromises. It is therefore a mistake for Israel to not make absolutely clear now that the '67 borders are not secure, and that while territorial compromise is necessary, Barak's offers to Arafat will not be the basis for future negotiation. Monday, July 28, 2003
Still A Terrorist Tuesday's Jerusalem Post reports that Ahmed Jbarra, who killed 14 Israelis in a Zion Square bombing in 1975 and was prematurely released by Israel last month, is now calling for Palestinians to kidnap Israelis. One of the conditions of the release of prisoners is that each sign a pledge not to support or commit terror. Presumably Israel's governent is shocked that Jbarra is violating the pledge he signed. Reasonable people can disagree about the concessions Israel should make. However, releasing murderers in exchange for a 3 month cease fire is a disgrace and undermines Israel's moral arguments concerning the illegitimacy of Palestinian violence. Bob Murphy Retires After 42 years as Mets announcer, Bob Murphy announced yesterday that he would retire at the end of the season. Murphy has been around since the formation of the Mets in 1962 (and for eight seasons before that, with the Red Sox and Orioles). It is truly impossible to imagine the Mets without him. While at 78 retirement would seem appropriate, he is in fact retiring too early, and will be very sorely missed. I've always been an avid Mets fan, but in the 80's I was an especially fanatical fan. Aside from games on the Jewish sabbath and holidays, I very rarely missed one and even when I watched on TV, I'd often also have the radio on. Once my brother moved out of our room around 1984 (when I was 11), when games went into extra innings or the Mets were playing on the West Coast and it was past my bedtime, I'd put a small radio under my pillow and listen to games on WHN. Sometimes I'd fall asleep during the (hopefully happy) recap and wake up to the country music played by that station, which became defunct when WFAN commenced broadcasting in 1987. That radio is still in my old room in my parents' house, right next to my bed. In 1990, I was hired by The Jerusalem Post to be some freelance sportswriting. Press access includes many nice perks, and for me, the two biggest ones were walking around the Shea Stadium field and dugouts to watch batting practice before the game, and encountering Bob Murphy. Aside from the '86 season, my favorite memories of listening to the Mets come from the 1983 season. The Mets actually finished last that year, with a 68-94 record. But they improved throughout the season, and played very well in the second half. Murphy conveyed an optimistic feeling that after seven bad seasons (which was all that I, then 10 years old, ever knew), the Mets would soon be the team to watch, a feeling which of course was true. Keith Hernandez was acquired that season, and Darryl Strawberry and Ron Darling were called up to the majors. Rusty Staub set the (then) record for pinch hits and the (still standing) record for pinch hit RBIs. Tom Seaver came back to the Mets (though he was gone by '84), while Jesse Orosco had a career year, with a 13-7 record and a 1.47 ERA in 110 innings pitched. Murphy hinted that he may come back next season for a game a month. That'd be better than nothing, but not enough. A game a week should be the minimum, with the stipulation that he announce key September and postseason games when the Mets return to contention. Marla Bennett Article Last week I posted about an offensive article in the San Diego Union-Tribune, which essentially equated the murder of Marla Bennett in last year's bombing at Hebrew University with the accidental death of Rachel Corrie, an anti-Israel and anti-U.S. militant who was protesting the bulldozing of the home of a terrorist. (Note: The paper appears to have removed the article from its website.) Apparently many agree that the article was a disgrace, as is evident from the many letters to the editor in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The letters included the following points: - "Rachel Corrie was trying to protect the vacant home of a known terrorist, where smuggled weapons were hidden so more Israelis could be murdered. If she were truly for peace, she would have helped to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza." - "Marla Bennett never joined any group intent on fighting the Palestinians, let alone hurt them, whereas Rachel Corrie did choose a group that unequivocally declares its full support to fight the Israelis." - "From a global perspective, both girls' deaths were tragic, as are all deaths at such a young age. Yet there is a difference when an innocent person dies of a car accident by a drunken driver and when a person dies in a car accident and is the drunken driver." - "You probably would not take an example of a young woman who was murdered by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2002, and compare it to the death of a young woman that day in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan who was killed by a U.S. soldier while knowingly standing in front of a tank after being warned to move." - "Perhaps you consider the Sept. 11 suicide terrorists who crashed into our buildings and killed so many innocent Americans as also acting on their beliefs as moral people?" In the meantime, the writer of the article, Sandi Dolbee responded to my critical e-mail with an apparently form e-mail, as follows: From: Sandi.Dolbee@uniontrib.com [mailto:Sandi.Dolbee@uniontrib.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:07 AM To: Joseph Schick Subject: RE: First, forgive my delay in responding. I've been on vacation. I appreciate your email but I think you misunderstand the story. THe story is not about politics, not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about the loss of two American daughters to two American families. It puts a human face -- or faces -- on what is happening half a world a way. Meanwhile, please note that I wrote separate items in advance of Marla Bennett's anniversary memorial here and I covered the event as well for a separate story. I just wanted to make you aware of the fullness and fairness with which this story is being covered. Sandi Dolbee In fact, it is simply false that the article was not political. First, no article about people killed in the Middle East could be apolitical. Second, while the paper seems to have pulled it from its website, the article included quotes from an Israeli friend of Corrie who agreed with Corrie that the balance of power was unfairly tilted in Israel’s favor. What could be political than that? Finally, the fact that the article refused to differentiate between “who is right and who is wrong” is precisely the problem. Bennett was a student who was killed while having lunch. Corrie was an anti-American and anti-U.S. supporter of terror. It should be recognized that there is a difference between the two. Bush and the '67 Borders Newsweek has an interview with Mahmoud Abbas in which the PA Prime Minister states that President Bush "told us that he will stick to his vision of a Palestinian independent state and Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 borders, and I believe he means what he says." If true, this would obviously be very disturbing. Given President Bush's opposition to any deviation of the security fence from the Green Line, there is reason to be very concerned. While many assume that large "settlements" such as Maaleh Adumim, Efrat and Ariel will never be removed, it would be a grave error to be complacent about their futures. In fact, every Jewish town in Judea and Samaria is up for negotiation. Release of Terrorists The Jerusalem Post reports on Israel's decision to release 540 terrorists, including 210 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists. The paper quotes Health Minister Danny Naveh, who voted in favor of the release, as defending the decision to release Hamas and Islamic Jihad prisoners, rather than only Fatah terrorists as originally called for, because "he does not believe there is a difference between Hamas terrorists and Fatah terrorists... who he said are 'equally contemptible.'" In other words, since Israel has foolishly agreed to release terrorists from one group, there is no reason not to release more terrorists from other groups. The main thing, of course, is that Naveh has a comfortable cabinet post. Friday, July 25, 2003
Arabs For Pipes An article in this week's Pakistan Today, a pro-Israel weekly published in California, reports that a number of Christian and moderate Muslim Arab groups are calling for Daniel Pipes' appointment to the U.S. Institute of Peace. A joint statement issued by these groups rejected the opposition to Pipes: "We deplore the orchestrated campaign by Jihadist lobbies who have for decades hijacked the representation of our communities. We call on you to look around your communities and realize that the millions of Maronites, Lebanese, Egyptian Copts, Assyro-Chaldeans, Southern Sudanese and moderate Muslims have suffered from so-called scholars who have betrayed the legacies of these communities and eventually America by siding with Oil-money at the expense of Human Rights... "The Senate will have to chose between a number of vocal Jihadist activists-who have endorsed all dictatorships in the Middle East, and the ideologies of the Terrorists in the US-and the majority of Americans from Mideast descent as well as moderate Muslims. As we approach the second anniversary of September 11, we hope the Senate would send the right message to our communities, and through us to the American people, so that in turn we send back our messages to Congress next year." Thursday, July 24, 2003
Marla Bennett Next week it will be a year since the bombing at Hebrew University. Among the victims of the bombing was 24-year-old Marla Bennett of San Diego, of blessed memory, who was studying at Hebrew U and at Pardes. This past Sunday's San Diego Union-Tribune had a truly despicable article, comparing Marla with Rachel Corrie, the fanatical International Solidarity Movement activist who came to Gaza to protect Palestinians seeking to kill innocents such as Marla from the IDF. Corrie, who was accidentally killed in Gaza as she tried to stop Israel from bulldozing the home of a terrorist, hated not only Israel but also America, as is evident in this picture, in which she has a crazed look while burning an American flag. The article caused immence pain to Marla's family. It stated that "the Bennett family declined to be interviewed for this story. There is sadness in Linda Bennett's voice when she says that it just wouldn't be appropriate to write about her daughter and Rachel together. Their deaths, as some family friends put it, are not 'morally equivalent.'" To Sandi Dolbee of the San Diego Union-Tribune, who wrote the article, the murder of a peaceful young woman and the accidental death of a terrorist supporter apparently are indeed morally equivalent. Perhaps Dolbee also views the deaths of the Hussein brothers as morally equivalent to those of the victims of the September 11 terror attacks. Israel and Muslims Today's Arab News includes a letter from reader Hamood A. Aleem of the United States, expressing opposition to Pakistan's possible recognition of Israel: "Pakistanis have recently started to debate whether or not to recognize Israel. How can Pakistan think about recognizing and accepting Israel as a nation when the very land they are enjoying the benefits of was snatched from Muslims who had lived there for centuries? They kicked out our brothers and sisters and occupied the land. How many of the “liberal” commentators in Pakistan would like to leave Pakistan and let India occupy it and then let it enjoy its benefits? And, in turn, would they like their Muslim brothers to abandon their cause and recognize a country built on land stolen from Muslims? Have some people stopped thinking rationally? "Palestine is not, as some people seem to assume, an Arab issue. It is a Muslim issue. Pakistan should not bring shame to our dignity and honor by recognizing the Jewish state for reasons like money and technology. Does it really think that by accepting Israel, Pakistan will become rich and powerful? "Definitely not." Aleem's statement that "Palestine... is a Muslim issue," is precisely why peace in the Middle East appears to be impossible. Even in the unlikely event that Israel could negotiate a solution with the Palestinians, that agreement would be rejected by tens of millions of Muslims around the world, whose worldview and religious beliefs are uncompromisingly against any non-Muslim entity in the Middle East. Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Jewish Racism This week's Jewish Week reports that three Orthodox converts were asked not to attend services at an Orthodox shul because they are black. Apparently, the shul - which is apparently in bad shape and lacks air conditioning - was to hold summer services at another congregation, “with the strict stipulation that no Jews of color attend.” The rabbi of the other shul, Yehuda Levin, has become infamous with such moronic stances as his staunch support for Pat Buchanan. Given that this is coming from The Jewish Week, there may be reason to be skeptical about the veracity of this article. If it's true, however, then the conduct of the rabbis involved is a disgrace, and they should face responsibility. Incidentally, in shul this morning, an Ethiopian Jew sat next to me at morning services, and asked for help with the services. The congregants were very welcoming to him. Ex-Mets and the Yankees Only four players from the 2000 team that won the NL Pennant remain with the Mets: Al Leiter, John Franco, Timo Perez and Joe McEwing. Meanwhile, the Yankees have four players from that same team, Armando Benitez, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile, and Bubba Trammell. Trammell is on the restricted list after going AWOL from the team, so perhaps he doesn't count. Acquiring 2000 Mets is one thing, but it's tough to stomach the Yanks' trade for Jesse Orosco, who will always remain an all-time favorite among Mets fans - especially those of us who weren't around in '69. Not only did Orosco get the final out of the 1986 NLCS and the World Series, without him they would not have won either series. He won 3 games in the NLCS, and pitched 5 2/3 innings in the Series, gave up no runs and just two hits and picked up two saves. Instead of bunting, he even lined an RBI single in the eighth inning of Game 7 to give the Mets an 8-5 lead. Interestingly, Orosco will be reunited with Joe Torre, who managed the Mets in 1979 when Orosco made his big league debut, and Mel Stottelmyre, the Yankees pitching coach, who served in that role for the '86 Mets. NY Magazine Article On Sieger Divorce This week's New York Magazine has a long feature about the Sieger divorce, from the perspective of Mrs. Chayie Sieger. I don't know much about the case, so won't render an opinion about who's in the right. Suffice to say that the tapes Mrs. Sieger has appear to place her husband in a negative light, and that anyone who marries a second time via a heter meah rabbanim (decree of 100 rabbis, allowing a second religious marriage for a man whose wife refuses to accept a divorce) is suspect, as are rabbis who sign a heter. While there may be a place for a heter, it's legitimate only in very limited circumstances. Still, it's hard to be sympathetic toward Mrs. Sieger when she complains that her children barely speak with her. Who would be happy with their mother after she gives a tell-all interview for a tabloid style magazine feature about her divorce? And given that her children are Bobov chasidim, stating that "Bobov is a cult and my children need to be deprogrammed,” would not appear to be a way to win their support. Tuesday, July 22, 2003
European Support For Israel Great news from tomorrow's Tehran Times, which reports that "the Zionist lobby" has successfully influenced the European Union to take a pro-Israel position. After decades of pandering to the Arabs, the paper reports that a dramatic shift is underway: "It is crystal clear that in a bid to detract world attention from their problems, both the U.S. and the Zionist regime have intensified their assaults on Iran. "Regardless of the fact the European Union's recent statement on Iran is an open interference in a sovereign state's domestic affairs, basically the EU has proved that it is heavily influenced by the U.S. and the Zionist lobby with respect to its political stance. "Unfortunately, it looks as though the union is concerned more about the fate and interests of the Zionist regime, than being concerned about its own interests in the Islamic countries in the Middle East region. The EU should bear in mind that even if the regime in Israel accepted the Road Map peace plan, it would not have a place among the Islamic nations in the region." Jewish Action Review of Making Of A Gadol The latest issue of Jewish Action, the quarterly magazine published by the Orthodox Union, has a generally favorable review of Making Of A Gadol, by Rabbi Aaron Rakefett-Rothkoff. Making Of A Gadol Thread I have been referred to an interesting thread from last month about Making Of A Gadol in a website called frumteens. The teens had different opinions about the book and the ban, and while their opinions were not necessarily well-informed, I'm not sure that those of adults are any more informed, and it was nice to see frum teens expressing their views about the issue. In middle of the discussion, the (presumably adult) moderator came in to blast R. Nosson Kaminetzky, "what the author did in this book is disgusting... trying drudge up closet skeletons of our Tzadikim - never mind that they are imaginary - is something for the National Enquirer, or for the secular world, but not for Torah Jews... The book is not only a total misrepresentation of the truth, it is a terribly disgusting and disrespectful thing to do." While a moderator is appropriate in a website for observant teenagers, he should have at least tried to take a more diplomatic approach in opposing the book. Apparently the moderator takes a very uncompromising charedi view on other issues, including Zionism, relations with non-Jews, etc. His opinions probably are not even representative of most charedim. In response to the moderator's comments, two of the teens confused R. Nosson Kaminetzky with his father, R. Yaakov Kaminetzky. "No one can dispute that R' Yaakov is an amazing gadol, so how is it that we can say that something he wrote is disgusting?" asked one. Another stated "R' Yaakov is a great man and did not mean to write a 'tell-all' book - this wasnt like a tabloid advertising waht the gedolim do behind closed doors or something." Perhaps it's unfortunate that (at least some) frum teenagers don't know that R. Yaakov passed away in 1986; on the other hand, it may be understandable. Monday, July 21, 2003
Saudi Anti-Semitism Today's Arab News published an anti-Semitic column by Mark Glenn of the U.S. The column blames Israel for "extorting" $16 billion a year from the U.S., for September 11, 2001, for the anthrax attacks, killing Americans in Egypt, for the Gulf War and the "Gulf War Syndrome," for "blackmailing President Clinton through one of your intelligence agents, Monica Lewinsky, in order to prevent a coherent peace program from being pushed forward between yourself and the Palestinian people that you have brutalized and murdered for the last 50 years," and for "using your influence in our media and academia to flood our minds with pornography and lies, as well as inculcating in us a hatred for our history, religion, and culture, for dividing our nation between races and sexes, and for releasing into our society all of your plagues and filth that have left us a rotted out corpse of a once great nation." If you would like to respond to Mark Glenn's column, Glenn can be e-mailed at mglenn@mediamonitors.org In my view, Arab News' publication of this nonsense is much more interesting than what Glenn wrote. Glenn is a paranoid lunatic. Arab News purports to be a legitimate newspaper in Saudi Arabia, but in fact will publish anything that espouses blood libels against Israel and Jews. Making Of A Gadol It has come to my attention that some visitors have found this blog via a search for Making Of A Gadol (a/k/a Making Of A Godol), only to fail to find anything about the book in the main blog page. That's because my posts about MOAG are from May, and can be located in the May archives. If going through my writings from a few months back is too time consuming, then my posts about Making Of A Gadol can be accessed here and here. If you are interested in the letter banning the book, it's available here. Friday, July 18, 2003
Victory for Evil Today's Times reports that New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey has decided to support Rutgers University's decision to host a conference held by New Jersey Soldiarty. Rutgers President Richard McCormick is quoted as saying "The governor and I agreed that we find the views of New Jersey Solidarity to be reprehensible. But we also agreed that the best way to counter deplorable arguments is more discussion, not less, and that the appropriate place for this kind of discourse is the university. Governor McGreevey and I share the belief that the strength of our society depends on such openness." While New Jersey Soldiarity may have a constitutional right to call for the destruction of Israel, the notion that the strength of our society depends on Rutgers hosting its conference is deeply offensive. The 1st Amendment does not require every evil idea to be given a wide forum to express its hatred. Furthermore, while the Times article quotes from the website of New Jersey Soldiarity, including its statement that "we unconditionally support Palestinians' human right to resist occupation and oppression by any means necessary," the Times failed to quote the most offensive statement: "We are opposed to the existence of the apartheid colonial settler state of Israel, as it is based on the racist ideology of Zionism and is an expression of colonialism and imperialism, and we stand for the total liberation of all of historic Palestine." Sadly, however, calling for the destruction of Israel is deemed a legitimate political position. The Times therefore also has a favorable feature about Charlotte Kates of NJ Solidarity, even as it matter-of-factly notes Kates' call for Israel's destruction and her support of suicide bombings. The article was written by Chris Hedges, whose objectivity about Israel can be gauged from an article he wrote for Harper's Magazine, in which he claimed that Israeli soldiers "entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport" and compares Israel unfavorably to Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic. Who Won The War? There has been debate in Israel about whether Israel or the Palestinians won the war waged by Arafat in September 2000. While such discussion may be premature, as it assumes the war to be over, among Palestinians consideration of this issue is also occurring. In today's Jordan Times, Daoud Kuttab writes that "there is no doubt that Palestinians were badly bruised during the past two and a half years. The Palestinian economy is in ruins, the infrastructure in shambles and people's faith in the leadership and in the eventuality of peace has been dealt a bad blow. The hard work of erasing the terrorism image of the 70s has been wasted as that image has returned to haunt the Palestinians. And the Israelis have not ended their occupation of Palestinian lands. "But for better or worse, the Palestinians have not surrendered, they have not thrown in the towel, and despite hurting all over, they remain standing. "Israelis are also bruised, their economy is also hurt (not as much as the Palestinians') and their confidence in peace is still rather low. The powerful Israeli military machine has not won the battle on the ground, as Israeli soldiers, settlers and civilians continued to be killed and injured. While Israel can't claim to have won the battle, it has not lost it either. Some would call the result a draw. "To be honest I would say that the Palestinians have lost the latest round in points rather than through a knockout, which means that they still have a chance to regroup themselves." Kuttab's assessment about the war itself is about right, but ignores the context in which it was waged. Following Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the PA believed that it could force Israel to withdraw unilaterally from Judea and Samaria through violence and/or force Israel to make concessions on refugees at the negotiating table. The Palestinians could have had a state on most of Judea and Samaria, and parts of Jerusalem, yet refused to accept Barak's concessions or the Clinton Plan and instead resorted to violence. That they are "still standing" and "still have a chance to regroup" does not change the fact that they could have achieved much of what they claim to strive for without the damage they caused to themselves and to Israelis. As a result, while there is no victor in the war, the Palestinians are the clear loser. Thursday, July 17, 2003
Jewish Terrorists The latest issue of The Jerusalem Times also has an article by Ivor Dembina, a British Jew who is an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, a group that provides cover for Palestinian terrorists. Dembina writes that "when I came out to work with ISM I had no fear of the Israeli army, Hamas or spontaneous violence on the Palestinian streets, but I was scared of the settlers all of whom I imagined to be gun-crazy zealots who would shoot you quicker than an Israeli jumping a bus queue. My fear was not just physical but also intellectual and emotional. Could I face up, as a Jewish person to a group of other Jews committed to the point of violence, to a religious ideology I did not share?" Dembina does not identify how "settlers" are "committed to the point of violence" to living in their homes in the Land of Israel, or explain why he assumed them to be eager to murder him. Dembina describes meeting Mark and Sheila, olim from Britain living in a settlement, who were wounded (along with one of their children) in a terror attack. He concludes by stating that he "saw a chink of humanity" in Mark and Sheila and therefore hopes that they are not "among the statistics" of "the death toll of this conflict." Unfortunately, Dembina's group protects and supports snipers such as those who shot at Mark, Sheila and their children. Conspiracies and Arabs An article by Mohammed Shaker Abdallah in the latest issue of The Jerusalem Times, an Arab weekly, demonstrates the unfortunate Arab paranoia about conspiracies to undermine the Arab position. Abdallah expresses pessimism about the road map, in light of the Bush Administration's focus on controversies involving Iraq. He wonders whether the debate about Iraq is a result of "influential powers inside American society who want the Israeli occupation to continue forever and the Jewish settlements to swallow the entire Palestinian territories and identity." Abdallah laments that "every time the prospects for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East arise and hopes seem to be high, some kind of mishap or trouble engulfs the American Administration... The first was when former US President George Bush dared to challenge the Israeli settlement policy and canceled the guarantees for loans then slated for the Israeli government unless given proof that these funds would not be used for settlement construction. Bush senior paid a costly price for this position and he lost his re-election campaign despite his stunning victory in Iraq. Another example was when former President Bill Clinton prepared to meet President Yasser Arafat in the White House after Clinton's infamous visit to Gaza and his speech before the PLC- this time and before the meeting, the first episode of the Lewinsky scandal exploded tarnishing the president's reputation for three more years." Abdallah's thinking is interesting, as it is typical of Palestinian refusal to face reality. First, George Bush did not lose the 1992 election because of his pressure of Prime Minister Shamir (who himself was ousted by Yitzhak Rabin earlier in 1992), but because of an economic recession. As for the Lewinsky scandal, that did not stop Bill Clinton from calling a summit at Camp David in July 2000, for Barak to make unprecedented offers, for Clinton to issue his own plan requiring even further concessions by Israel, and for Barak to, egregiously, express support for the Clinton Plan. Abdallah forgets, ignors or refuses to accept the fact that an agreement was not reached in 2000 because of Yasser Arafat's refusal to make one, rather than because of "influential powers inside American society." Arafat's Isolation Today's Arab News features a column by Fawaz Turki, about Yasser Arafat's confinement to Ramallah, and the Bush Adminstration's support for Mahmoud Abbas rather than Arafat. Turki expresses anger "that an American president, colluding with our foreign occupiers, would come to our crushed part of the world, throw stink bombs at our leaders and then depose them in favor of ones he prefers. Lest we forget, this is the year 2003, not 1903, when colonial overlords could pick and choose indigenous rulers responsive to their geopolitical whims." Turki admits that "as a national leader, [Arafat] had chalked up a dismal record over the years, leading his people from one diplomatic disaster to another, one military defeat to another, and one act of social grief to another, without it once occurring to him to fold his tent and head into the sunset, leaving new blood to lead ... I personally regard his abrupt departure from the dinner table as appropriate, since he had worn out his welcome somewhere into the soup course. As the host, however, I alone determine the propriety of my guests’ behavior. Not some pugnacious Texan." Turki's point might be well taken if the PA were a democracy, or even if democratic institutions were not absolutely nonexistent in the Arab world. After four decades of murder and mayhem, in Israel, Jordan and Lebanon, it is time to end the danger Arafat poses to millions of Jews and Arabs. Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Yeridah This week's issue of the Jewish Week reports on olim moving back to North America, and criticizes Israel's lack of support for immigrants, including its recent changes in the tax law, and the elimination of various benefits previously offered to new immigrants. One person who made aliyah and is now in his early 40's and unemployed is quoted is saying "it really bugs me that people like me, people who have served in the army, lived through wars and waves of terror, have left or are on the verge of leaving because we can’t afford to pay our mortgages and feed our families." Another, Brucha Rutner, who made aliyah with her husband five years ago shortly after their marriage and is now moving back to the U.S. said that she is "very disillusioned. There is a joke that says, the best way to cure a case of Zionism is to make aliyah. Unfortunately for me, this happened." The Kohen Gadol and Boro Park A letter in this week's Jewish Press from a Yaacov Silver of Brooklyn offers a novel explanation as to why few Boro Park residents say "good shabbos" to those whom they pass by on the street: The writer starts off making sense: "It is difficult to say 'Good Shabbos' to hundreds of people passing you (compared to living in a remote area where there are relatively few Yidden). Moreover, you would never make it home for the chulent if you stopped to greet each passerby." Then, however, he goes completely off the wall: "But there is another reason why in frummer areas people don`t say 'Good Shabbos.' Simply stated, in frummer crowds people are more focused on the holiness of Shabbos. I see many frum people (unlike many of the Modern Orthodox ilk) who are almost in a state of awe. When you are so focused on the holiness of Shabbos, you tend not to notice many things around you in the mundane physical world. In short, it`s not that they don`t want to be friendly to a fellow Yid. Rather, it`s that they are in an intense, uplifted state. "If one would see the kohen gadol doing the avoda in Yerushalayim, it would be easily understood why he couldn’t be distracted with greeting everyone. The same is true of the lofty spiritual people of Boro Park. They are no different than the kohen gadol in the bais hamikdash." I'll resist the urge to comment on Silver's thoughts, lest it mitigate his absurdity. Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Eliyahu Gurel Rescued By IDF Near Ramallah Haaretz reports that Ramat Gan cab driver Eliyahu Gurel was rescued tonight by heroic IDF soldiers in a refugee camp near Ramallah. Gurel's kidnappers were arrested. It is taken for granted that Israel can enter Palestinian towns and villages to save terror victims such as Gurel and arrest the terrorists, but in fact, once a Palestinian state is formed it will be nearly impossible for Israel to do so, as any such operation would be deemed an invasion of a foreign state. Ultimately, therefore, as long as the PA refuses to take action to dismantle terrorist groups (including Fatah), Israel must not make irreversible concessions. Ode To America Hussein Shobokshi writes of his appreciation of America in today's Arab News, an English language newspaper in Saudi Arabia. Shobokshi's article is entitled "People Who Make America Special and Beautiful." While he laments e-mails "that come from Jewish Americans who, in response to my critique of Sharon, Israel and the neo-cons in the American administration go in for the fiery and predictable accusations of anti-Semitism," he praises Hamas supporter Stanley Cohen and Saudi supporter Chase Freeman as fine Americans "that make America special and beautiful." Indeed, Shobokshi notes, "America is not Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle, who see Arabs as evil and wicked and are clearly manipulating policies to protect Israel." Monday, July 14, 2003
Guardian Interview With Sharon Prime Minister Sharon gave an interview to the (London) Guardian, which appeared in yesterday's paper. The article is typical of European malice toward Israel: Some examples include the following excerpts. Italics are added: - "When he turns on his charm, you can see the point of him. Even with the knowledge of all his bloody history, of all the dead left in his wake, you can see why he has carried it off for so long... Even as his powers fail, you can still see how he has managed to connect. When he talks about the land and its history, he radiates a kind of heat. There is a love there that you can see, for all that it is brutal, selfish." - "his powers are failing. Ariel Sharon looks all of his 75 years. Despite his famous bulk, there is a frailty about him, a passivity... he is an old man. His skin has the translucent sheen of age. When his face becomes still, his eyes disappear beneath the weight of his sagging features. He knows it. And seems to fear it as a sign of weakness." - "He reminds us this is the Promised Land. Promised to the Jews - no one else." - "while Sharon has signed up to the US-inspired 'road map' ... it is not the vision of the document that Sharon has really embraced, but the mechanism that, one suspects, he regards as a useful tool for getting the international community off Israel's back. And it is here that his repetitions are not folksy or confused, but cynical." - "In Sharon's mind, all the onus is on the Palestinians, because that, too, is where all the guilt resides." - "If there is another absolute constant in Sharon's universe, beyond his identification of his own and Israel's destiny, then it is in his obsession with his great enemy - Yasser Arafat." Sunday, July 13, 2003
TNR Letter This week's issue of The New Republic has published my letter about the Samaria town of Ariel (the "Esq." was included only because of an automated signature in my e-mail): Peter Beinart quotes Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assuring a lawmaker from the settlement of Ariel, "You can build [there] for your children and grandchildren, and I hope even for your great-grandchildren." Beinart points out that "Ariel sits well inside the West Bank," suggesting that Sharon's statements might contradict his desire for peace ("Empty Cabinet," June 16). However, even under the Clinton plan in which Israel would have relinquished more than 95 percent of the West Bank Ariel, which has nearly 20,000 residents, would have been annexed to Israel as part of the Western Samaria settlement bloc. Therefore, Sharon's comments about Ariel should certainly not be seen as contradicting his support for territorial compromise for real peace. Joseph S. Schick, Esq. New York, New York Thursday, July 10, 2003
Sexual Harassment and Sherut Leumi Haaretz's weekend magazine has a very disturbing feature about observant girls who have been sexuallly assaulted or harassed during their two years of national service (sherut leumi). It is possible that Haaretz is sensationalizing or exaggerating the problems it identifies, but it seems apparent that the problem is growing, and that it has not been dealt with by the national-religious rabbis. For example, Haaretz quotes Ayelet Cohen-Wieder, the former head of an organization that sent girls to sherut leumi, who offered an example of the situation, and how those in charge of sherut leumi ignore the problems: "There was a girl who worked in education, she was responsible for a certain field in a high school, and there was an older man working there, who was responsible for that same field. And he put his hands on her all the time, and she said she `observes negiah' [the prohibition against touching members of the opposite sex], so he starting to have philosophical debates with her, and explained to her how it wasn't good for her to observe negiah. It was very hard for her to deal with this and she came to me and told me. We spoke to the woman in charge and they sent her away from there." International Solidarity Movement, Rutgers and the Murder of Jews In an article in today's Jordan Times, William Thomson calls for Palestinians to adopt non-violent resistance as a strategy, writing that "Palestinians have wide experience in nonviolent strategy and tactics" such as "the International Solidarity Movement, organised and led by Palestinians." At least Thomson is honest in stating that the ISM is organized and led by Palestinians, in contrast to claims by people within the terrorist group that claim ISM to be a neutral group that supports neither Israel or Palestinians. While ISM has expressed support for non-violence as a tactic, it also supports the use of violence. The website of its New Jersey chapter, for example, states that "we are opposed to the existence of the apartheid colonial settler state of Israel, as it is based on the racist ideology of Zionism and is an expression of colonialism and imperialism, and we stand for the total liberation of all of historic Palestine... We unconditionally support Palestinians' human right to resist occupation and oppression by any means necessary." ISM is apparently more PR conscious than its New Jersey chapter, as it attempts to hint that it is merely against "the occupation," thereby fooling honest observers to believe it to be a peace movement. Shockingly and disgracefully, Rutgers University is hosting the Third National Conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement at its New Brunswick campus, from October 10-12. Presumably, Rutgers, a state university, would not host a conference calling for the violent overthrow of the United States, or of the destruction of any other country. Sadly, however, calling for the mass murder of Jews and the liquidation of Israel is deemed to be a legitimate political position. 330 Make Aliyah As reported in today's Haaretz, 330 new olim from the United States and Canada arrived in Israel yesterday. More than 600 other people will be arriving later this summer, thanks to the good work of Nefesh B'nefesh. Those who are moving to Israel from North America are truly heroic. Rather than watch anxiously from the sidelines as I do, they are choosing to participate in the extraordinary effort of the Jewish people to establish and secure a state in the Land of Israel. The new immigrants know that at least in the short-term, life may be diificult in Israel, that they will sacrifice economically and be thousands of miles from family and friends, but they have decided to face the many challenges instead of rationalizing why moving to Israel is not feasible for them at this time. Monday, July 07, 2003
The Jordan Valley Until Ehud Barak's concessions at Camp David and Taba in 2000-01, when Israel reportedly agreed to withdraw from the Jordan Valley six years after a peace agreement, there was a consensus in Israel that the Jordan Valley must remain under Israeli control. As Dore Gold has written "it was Israel's foreign minister under the first Rabin government, Yigal Allon, who specified what 'secure borders' meant in the pages of Foreign Affairs in October 1976. Allon, one of Israel's greatest military minds, argued that Israel would need to preserve a strategic zone in the eastern West Bank running up from the Jordan Valley to the eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge. This area would allow Israel's small standing army to hold off an assault from a combination of Arab states to Israel's east for enough time for Israel to mobilize and deploy its reserve forces, which constitute the bulk of Israel's military power. For 'secure borders' Allon envisioned that Israel would need some 700 square miles of the 2100 square miles that make up the West Bank (about one-third). Allon's thinking guided the peace plans of both Labor and Likud governemnts: Rabin described his goals before the Knesset in 1995 in terms that closely resembled the ideas of Allon, who was both his mentor and his former commander in 1948." In today's Haaretz, Akiva Eldar writes that the argument that Israel must keep the Jordan Valley is now obsolete, in light of the fall of Saddam Hussein and the peace agreement with Jordan. Others have made arguments similar to Eldar's. During the negotiations relating to the Clinton Plan, Shaul Mofaz - then Israel's Chief of Staff and now its Defense Minister, was very critical of the concessions on the Jordan Valley. According to a Haaretz report at that time, following a cabinet meeting to discuss the Clinton Plan "ministers commented that according to Mofaz, the Clinton plan would expose Israel to great danger and is almost out of the question from a security standpoint. One of those present at the meeting said he emerged 'stunned' after hearing Mofaz's assessment. Senior IDF officers expressed surprise and leveled harsh criticism at the American plan." I'm not a military expert, but at the very least it would seem that in light of the Palestinians' tendency to smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza and Egypt's failure to prevent such activity, despite its peace treaty with Israel, relinquishing control of the Jordan Valley would likely result in similar smuggling by Palestinians between Jordan and the West Bank. Sharon: Not An Enigma Many observers continue to deem Prime Minister Sharon an enigma, believing it to be unclear what his plan is. In fact, Sharon's plan seems to be quite clear, at least to me. The prime minister has apparently concluded that Israel's demographic problems are such that Israel must relinquish most of Judea and Samaria even in the absence of a full peace agreement. While Sharon probably would not agree to the concessions offered by former PM Barak, he would give up much more than 40-50% of the disputed territories, as some believe his limit to be. Sharon is instead seeking an agreement, as part of Stage 2 of the road map, in which a limited Palestinian state is formed on about two-thirds of Judea and Samaria, and all or almost all of Gaza. Some settlements would be dismantled under this agreement, which would not result in an end to the conflict, but, Sharon hopes, would limit the conflict to a border dispute over Jerusalem and the remaining 30-35% of Judea and Samaria. Areas that would remain under Israeli control following the interim agreement would include all of Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, Maaleh Adumim, Givat Zeev, most of Western Samaria (including, in particular, Ariel), and most (but not all) of Gush Etzion. Thursday, July 03, 2003
Hamas Jamal Khashoggi, who I have written about previously, also writes in the Beirut Daily Star. Khashoggi offers strong praise for Hamas, and rejects the notion that Hamas is an extremist group, in contrast, he says, to the terrorists who have committed attacks in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Khashoggi contrasts "Hamas’ martyrdom operations with Riyadh’s suicide attacks" and refers to Hamas as a group that "belongs to the 'mainstream and middle of the road Islamic trend. Its tenets are at the core of the legitimate Islamic movement and have nothing to do with irreverent and angry movements. It seeks to liberate a nation and build a state, while the nonbelievers want to destroy a nation, unravel a legitimate state, and create discord between them." President Bush should listen to what Khashoggi is saying: that rather than a fanatical fringe, Hamas is at the core of what Islam is, with goals deemed mainstream within the Islamic world. Iraq's Jews Of all places, an editorial appears in today's Beirut Daily Star about the Jews of Iraq. Unfortunately, the editorial makes sure to blame the "Zionist lobby" for being "willing to profit from and even to help foment mistreatment of Jews in any form in order to further its extremist agenda." However, it also states that "the country’s tiny Jewish community is living in fear... the Jews’ infinitesimal numbers make them especially vulnerable. This state of affairs is unacceptable, and it is not for the US-led occupation authorities to remedy it. It is for Iraqis themselves to disprove notions of Muslim intolerance by treating the Jews among them as what they are: citizens of Iraq who happen to practice a minority faith. Primary moral responsibility for the welfare of Iraqi Jewry rests with the influential figures who lead the country’s majority Islamic communities and nascent political parties. By both word and deed they should leave no doubt in the minds of their followers and supporters that their Jewish compatriots deserve the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else." Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Tom Friedman and Chabad First it was Ozzy Osbourne, and now Tom Friedman has been pictured wearing a black hat, apparently at his nephew's wedding in Crown Heights. Friedman has previously written about his Lubavitch sister in Miami, including in his book, From Beirut To Jerusalem. The Third Intifada Those of us who do not believe that the road map will lead to anything resembling real peace will not find comfort in an article in today's Jordan Times by Hasan Abu Nimah, Jordan's former ambassador to the UN. Nimah laments the pressure on Hamas to agree to a temporary ceasefire, launches into an anti-Israel tirade and concludes that "Israel should prepare for the third Intifada." Responsibility for the Refugees In today's Beirut Daily Star, the paper's executive editor, Rami Khouri, writes that for there to be a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel must accept responsibility for the refugee problem. Khouri implies that Palestinians would concede on the refugee issue if Israel accepted moral responsibility, writing that "Palestinians for their part increasingly accept that Israel will remain predominantly (about 80 percent) a Jewish state" but argues that "signs of mutual realism and flexibility are offset, however, by the central blockage that continues to defy a resolution: The vast majority of Israelis still refuse to acknowledge their country’s role in the expulsion and disenfranchisement of the Palestinians in 1947-48. Israelis are terrified that admitting historical and moral responsibility for some or much of the Palestinian refugee problem will automatically open the floodgates to millions of Palestinians exercising their 'right to return' to their original lands and homes in pre-1948 Palestine, now the state of Israel." There is, in fact, no moral basis for Israel to accept responsibility for the refugees and Israel must not apologize for its victory in the 1948-49 War of Independence, i.e., its very existence. As this excellent piece by Mitchell Bard explains, the refugee problem resulted from the Arabs' rejection of the UN partition plan of 1947 and the invasion of Israel upon Israel's formation. Some Arab residents left on their own accord after being assured by the invading Arab armies that they would soon return to their homes, while others were expelled when Israel successfully defended itself from attack. When Israel failed to successfully defend against attack, such as in the Old City of Jerusalem and in Gush Etzion, the Jewish residents of those areas were all either killed or forced to leave. Tuesday, July 01, 2003
A Unique Visitor One of today's visitors found this site via a Google search for "Zionist Media Agenda." Something tells me that reader is not in agreement with the political views expressed in this blog. Perhaps (s)he has learned that I am a key part of the Zionist Media Agenda. Regardless, (s)he has inspired me to - at least temporarily - change the Blogger title of this blog, though not yet the official title as it appears on web searches. Israel's PR The editorial in today's Beirut Daily Star calls on Arabs to emulate Israel's purportedly "flawless" PR strategy. The editorial states: "How can one not be impressed by the success with which a tiny nation like Israel navigates the turbulent waters of international diplomacy and media coverage? It is this magnificent skill that allows the Jewish state to escape virtually unscathed when its 'righteous indignation' is followed by debacles like that of Monday, when The Associated Press revealed the existence of a secret Israeli detention facility that, by its very nature, violates the Geneva Conventions. It is not magic that shields Israel from the consequences of its behavior. Nor is it solely US influence that keeps it from being the object of scorn for engaging in activities that cause other countries to be isolated by the international community and/or invaded by the United States. Their 'Westernism' is not enough to explain the protection the Israelis enjoy, nor is their faith. What makes their strategy work is that simple fact that they work diligently to implement it. They study their audiences, their allies and their enemies with equal diligence, then craft a flawless message." June Stats In its first full month, there were 1090 visits to this blog, and 1166 page views. Visitors came from 15 countries, including Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. I realize that the major bloggers get thousands of visitors a day, but appreciate the interest of this blog's readers. | "
