The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Thursday, October 30, 2003
More on the Geneva Accord First there was the 1995 Beilin-Abu Mazen plan, under which Israel would give up 94 percent of Judea and Samaria. Then came the 2000 Clinton Plan, under which Israel would give up 94-96 percent of Judea and Samaria, plus territory in the Negev near the Gaza border (within pre-1967 Israel), for a total of 97 percent. Recently, again courtesy of Beilin, came the Geneva Accord, which proposes that Israel withdraw from 98 percent of Judea and Samaria plus an additional (equivalent of) two percent from the Negev, for a total of 100 percent. If Israel accepted this plan and negotiations resumed, would its concessions be enough for Palestinians, or would they demand yet more? The answer, from former PA minister Ghassan Khatib is absolutely clear. In a Beirut Daily Star column, Khatib writes: "The Geneva Accord ... should be perceived as another step in an ongoing political process aimed at reaching an agreement between the official representatives of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples... future compromise between the different groups on the two sides should be based on these substantially improved positions. "That is not to say that these improvements have reached the point of perfection. The actual text requires more tweaking and work, however, as those efforts are pursued, there is no doubt that when the two official governments sit for final status negotiations, they will benefit greatly from the ideas embodied in the Geneva Accord." Then and Now The Looking Back feature in this week's Forward notes that 75 years ago the Forward reported on a scuffle "at a Labor Zionist Simchat Torah literary event" between Laborites and supporters of Jabotinsky. While Simchat Torah is a national holiday in Israel, one wonders how many people identify as a Labor Zionist, and whether those who do mark Simchat Torah in any Jewish manner, even in a non-observant way. The Forward also writes that 50 years ago it reported that Secretary of State Dulles announced an end to aid to Israel because of a project the five-year old state was conducting on its border with Syria, and because "Israel had acted against the wishes of the U.N. when it moved its Foreign Ministry offices from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem" which "only served to worsen the situation." Monday, October 27, 2003
Red Sox Manager It's fair to criticize him for leaving Pedro Martinez in during the 8th inning of Game 7, but Grady Little deserved much better than to be fired for losing that game to the Yankees. The Red Sox have a superb offense but inconsistent pitching, yet they finished the season strong and with the Yankees about to lose Roger Clemens, David Wells and possibly Andy Pettite, the Bosox may be favored to win the AL East next season. Little deserved a chance to lead them in 2004. One of the names mentioned as a possible replacement is former Mets manager Bobby Valentine. Hiring Bobby V would be a wise move. Valentine is a great baseball mind, is hungry for his first World Series title, and during most of his reign, the Mets overachieved. Valentine never got the credit he deserved for making players such as Benny Agbayani, Todd Pratt and Rick Reed into key contributors. New York Magazine Letter Following is (i) the letter I sent to New York Magazine and (ii) the letter as it was published in the October 20 issue. The latter is a poor and sloppy rewrite of my original: In his article about evangelical Christian support for Israel (“Israel’s Christian Soldiers,” September 29, 2003), Craig Horowitz notes that when in 1980 Menachem Begin presented an award to Jerry Falwell, liberal Jews were outraged, but today support from the Christian right is embraced, because “Israel's situation has worsened.” Horowitz's assumption that "Israel's situation has worsened" since 1980 is commonly held, but largely inaccurate. Palestinian terror is certainly worse than ever, and Israel faces demographic problems and the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Overall, however, Israel’s strategic situation is far better than it was in 1980. Then, Saddam Hussein was developing the Osirak nuclear facility, which a year later was destroyed by Israel, and today Iraq is not a military threat at all. The threat from Israel's east has also been reduced as a result of Israel’s 1994 peace treaty with Jordan. In 1980, the Soviets were 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 problems. Finally, 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 many other Middle Eastern states remain mired in Third World economic conditions. The letter as published stated: Craig Horowitz claims that some Israelis welcome support from the Christian right because "Israel's situation has worsened" since 1980. I disagree. Though Palestinian terror is certainly worse than ever, overall Israel's strategic situation is far better than it was then. At that time, Saddam Hussein was developing the Osirak nuclear facility (destroyed by Israel a year later), and today Iraq poses no military threat at all. And the threat from Syria, Israel's other main enemy, has also been reduced, as Syria no longer receives significant military aid from Russia. In any event, Israel now possesses vast military superiority over the Arabs. And while Israel is now in a deep recession, its per capita income is far higher today than it was in 1980, even as many other Middle Eastern states remain mired in Third World economic conditions. Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Western Wall Access There are many objectionable aspects to the Geneva Agreement: the abandonment of large towns such as Ariel, Efrat and Beit El; the end of the Jewish presence in Hebron; the relinquishing of sovereignty over the Temple Mount; the division of Jerusalem; and that Palestinians do not give up what they call the "right of return," but instead Israel is given the "option" of deciding whether to allow Palestinian "refugees" to enter Israel. However, the most outrageous aspect of the Geneva Agreement has hardly been mentioned: The fact that Jews would no longer be able to go to the Western Wall. Now, wait a second, you might respond. Doesn't the accord give Israel sovereignty over the Western Wall? Technically, the answer is yes, though the Palestinians have stated that only the Wall itself would be Israel's, not the Western Wall Plaza. But even if Israel had control of the Western Wall Plaza, Jews could no longer go there, because their access would be cut off. Shockingly, the Geneva Agreement would transfer sovereignty of Jaffa Gate to Palestinians. If you drive or take a bus to the Wall, you enter through Jaffa Gate and go through the Old City via the Armenian Quarter and the Jewish Quarter. If you walk, you also enter Jaffa Gate and then walk through either the Arab shuk or the Armenian and Jewish Quarters. Regardless, to get to the Western Wall, it is necessary to go through Jaffa Gate. While in theory one of the other gates to the Old City could be entered, all of them are in hostile Arab neighborhoods in which very few Jews enter even today, and Yossi Beilin and Co. have also agreed to transfer those areas to Palestine. Jaffa Gate is the only gate on the western side of the Old City, and thus is essentially the only one that people use to get to the Western Wall. When Jordan had control of the gate between 1948-1967, it simply closed it. Palestinians could do the same, or could simply refuse entry through the gate by Jews. Friday, October 17, 2003
Mutombo The Nets' buyout of Dikembe Mutombo's contract results in the team having much less front-court depth and therefore little chance of winning a championship. Mutombo is obviously past his prime, but remains a defensive force. The Nets are apparently relying on Alonzo Mourning to remain healthy. That strategy is risky at best, given Mourning's kidney ailment. The Knicks' signing of Mutombo provides them with desparately needed defensive help and will return the team to the playoffs this year. Return I got back from Israel last night in time for the epic Yankees vs. Red Sox finale, though I was too tired to stay up for the whole game. Apparently so were the editorial writers for the New York Post, which published an editorial lamenting a Yankees loss. This editorial appeared in the paper I bought this morning, though the Post has removed it from its website. I was also just informed that New York Magazine's latest issue published a letter about Israel from me. Unfortunately, the letter as it appears in the magazine is a sloppy and somewhat incoherent edit from my original. I'll post my original letter and the published letter on Monday or Tuesday. Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Geneva Accord I'll have more time to post about the Geneva Accord between Israeli leftists and PA members when I return to the U.S. In the meantime, suffice to say that it is a mistake for people to take it lightly. In outrageously making even more concessions than were called for under the Clinton Plan (i.e. Ariel, Efrat and Har Homa would be lost), it further shatters the consensus that the large settlements would be retained. It will also increase international and Arab expectations and demands if real negotiations ever occur, and weaken Israel's desire to annex even small portions of Judea and Samaria. Succot in Jerusalem and Hebron While the Ben Yehuda/Zion Square area is still not crowded by pre-October 2000 standards, things have picked up here. In the Old City, many walked to and from the Western Wall on Friday night, and as many as 40,000 were on hand yesterday for birchat kohanim (the priestly blessing) at the Wall. The Arab shuk (market) and Jaffe Gate area were filled with Jews. The stores in the shuk remain virtually empty, evidencing the fact that Arabs continue to pay a high price for the useless war their leaders are waging against Israel. More than 15,000 came to celebrations in Hebron both yesterday and Sunday, as the main sanctuary, Ohel Yitzhak, was open to Jews, two of only seven or eight days each year that Ohel Yitzhak has been open to non-Muslims after Baruch Goldstein's murder of 29 Arabs there in 1994. Thursday, October 09, 2003
Today in Jerusalem Disappointingly, even on the eve of the Succot holiday - for which tourists used to come in large numbers - Jerusalem remains relatively empty of visitors. The Ben Yehuda/Zion Square area is sparsely populated, mostly with Israelis and American Orthodox teens spending their post high-school year here. In the Old City and at the Western Wall, I only saw a handful of visitors. A taxi driver told me today that there are almost no Americans here. On the other hand, the flights were full, so perhaps things will pick up next week. In the Jewish Quarter near the Western Wall, an elderly Arab man approached the few tourists asking to give them a tour of Jerusalem, where he said he lived for 75 years. When I declined his request, he begged for money, explaining that he has earned very little money over the last three years because of "the problems." I gave him a shekel (a little less than 25 cents). Afterward, when I visited the small museums commemorating the Arabs destruction of the Jewish Quarter during Israel's 1948 War of Independence, I wondered what role this man (who was then around 20 years old) played in that war? Did he kill Jewish residents, or loot from their homes? Did he move into a formerly Jewish home located in what was then the Jewish Quarter, but is now part of the Muslim Quarter? I also regretted not asking him why Palestinians have not spoken out publicly against "the problems" that their leaders, "martyrs" and "heroes" have caused. Sunday, October 05, 2003
New Conspiracies The worldwide staff of The Zionist Conspiracy will be convening in Jerusalem in an endeavor to hatch new schemes. I'll be away from October 7-16. While I will try to post a few times from Israel, the blog will be updated less frequently over the next two weeks. In the meantime, feel free to browse through the archives. Friday, October 03, 2003
Times and Settlements The lead editorial in today's Times displays the paper's typical exaggerated response to a minor expansion of several settlements. The Times writes that "Israel's announcement yesterday that it would build 600 new homes in West Bank settlements is cause for despair." It claims that "the settlements trigger" violence and "the prolongation of the conflict." The Times' main concern, however, is that the settlements cost a lot of money. "Even the cheery red-roofed bedroom settlements a few miles from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are treated as if they were distant depressed towns," and receive certain subsidies. Tellingly, the Times fails to mention that almost all of the housing units will be in Beitar Illit, located just outside of Jerusalem. The others will be in Maaleh Adumim (also just outside Jerusalem) and Ariel. The Times' claim to be concerned about how Israel allocates its funds is extremely dubious. But in any event, with regard to the new units, their despair is unnecessary and without basis. The housing units in suburban Beitar Illit are for haredim who have moved from Jerusalem - which suffers from a housing shortage - to a couple of miles outside the city, where they can afford to reside in decent living conditions with their families. Undoubtedly this is preferable to cramping a large family into a two or three bedroom apartment in Jerusalem, both for the haredi families, and for Jerusalem, whose housing problems are thus somewhat alleviated. Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Arab News On The Fence In an editorial in tomorrow's edition, Saudi newspaper Arab News lambasts today's cabinet decision to build the security fence (they call it the "security wall"). The editorial laments that "Palestinians are to be kept out of sight by a wall as though they were animals inhabiting a zoo." The analogy is in a way appropriate, because just as visitors to a zoo must, for their own safety, be kept separate from the violent animals, Israelis must, for their own safety, be kept separate from violent Arabs. According to polls, those violent Arabs are supported by a majority of Palestinians. Curiously, the editorial also complains that the fence/wall represents a "system of discrimination that amounts to apartheid by having as many Jews as possible inside the fence and as few Arabs as possible." Presumably, supporters of a two state solution - which Arab News claims to be among - would prefer that as few Arabs as possible be included within the fence. In the past I have had mixed feelings about the fence, but now believe it to be a good idea. Anything that Israel's enemies so strongly oppose can't be too bad. | "
