The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Peres and Morality I've always completely rejected the notion that Shimon Peres and other mainstream left-wing leaders are traitors, and still do. I wonder, however, what motivates the stances of Peres and others. The need for international acclaim is probably part of the motivation, but not all of it. In a speech earlier this week in Washington, Peres said that Israel has no moral claim to the territories captured in 1967. "If you keep 10 percent of the land you keep 100 percent of the conflict... "It is not a political decision, it is a moral decision," Peres said. In other words, Peres would argue that the Clinton Plan, under which Israel would annex about 5 percent of Judea and Samaria, is immoral, since it did not require a 100 percent withdrawal. He would, then, totally agree with Yasser Arafat's rejection of Israel's concessions. After all, why should Arafat agree to the "immoral" theft of Palestinian land? Indeed, why should any Palestinian even discuss peace with Israel while Israel remains in the territories? In contrast to Peres, Ehud Barak has disavowed the Clinton Plan in favor of his original offer at Camp David, which would keep about 8-10 percent of the territories and all of the Old City under Israeli control. Interestingly, Peres does not explain why in the 1970's he spearheaded the construction of many new settlements if Israel has no moral claim to Judea and Samaria. What's disgraceful about much of the Israeli Left is not their worldview, that peace requires withdrawal, perhaps all the way to (or close to) the '67 borders. It's their insistence that Israel has no right to any of the disputed territories, thereby undermining their country's negotiating position and ultimately, by raising Palestinian demands, making peace impossible. Similarly, it's one thing to oppose settlement of Judea and Samaria, but now that 230,000 Israelis already live there, there is no justification for not at least seeking - as Barak claims to - a peace agreement in which most would be able to stay. Labor used to stand for the principle that Israel should make territorial concessions for peace, but had to retain the Jordan Valley, Western Samaria, Gush Etzion, the settlements near Jerusalem and, of course, an undivided Jerusalem. That was Yitzhak Rabin's position. The Rabin assassination forced Likud to moderate its views, but since then, whenever the Israeli right-wing moves leftward, the Left simply takes a more extreme leftist position. When Netanyahu accepted Oslo and gave up Hebron, the Left attacked him for tying progress in the peace process to Palestinians compliance with Oslo's provisions, particularly an end to terror and incitement. When Sharon accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, the Left attacked him because he did not explicitly offer any major territorial concessions. Now that Sharon has done just that, announcing that Israel would unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria, the left-wing has responded by saying that too is not nearly enough, that instead the withdrawal from be to the '67 borders. The motive for this, I believe, is ideological hatred for Likud and Herut (Likud's predecessor), which Labor will forever blame for all of Israel's problems. Leftist leaders see that they are winning the battle over partition of Israel, and are anxious to vanquish any trace of the fulfillment of Herut's ideology. Once Labor and Peres proudly led the idea of settlement, but now that Likud is identified as the supporter of a presence in Judea and Samaria, Labor and Peres oppose and undermine that presence. Column of the Week A number of people who have e-mailed in response to my weekly critique of a column have questioned the description of such feature as the "Stupid Column of the Week." Since I do not mean to unnecessarily offend, henceforth the word "Stupid" is being omitted. This gives me more flexibility to criticize columns, such as those discussed below, that are not necessarily stupid, but perhaps only silly. In this week's Jewish Week, David Klinghoffer writes that Christians should thank Jews for their rejection of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah. After all, since most Jews did not accept Jesus, "the church turned to the gentiles and freed Christians from the restrictions of Torah law." "The Jesus movement could not have spread wildly across the Roman Empire, later across all Europe. Judaism is simply not suited to be a mass religion. Its rewards ascend to the heavens, but its requirements are precise and demanding." As a result, "there would be no Christian Europe" and instead Islam would have become the dominant religion in Europe. I liked Klinghoffer's book and a lot of his writing, but lately he's been less on target, as this column demonstrates. He makes one wild assumption after another - and insults his own religion - just to make what is a weak and irrelevant argument. Next is Ron Rubin's Jewish Press column. Rubin is interested in how Joe Lieberman's "candidacy forced American Jews to face their spiritual selves" and believes that "Senator Lieberman`s piety confronted other Jews, at least on some level, with challenges, curiosity and, perhaps, doubts about their basic life choices." Rubin writes that an intermarried secular Jew might view Lieberman's observance as a "clear throwback to the superstitions of this man`s black-hatted European grandfather," even as that person's Christian spouse would express admiration for Lieberman. A traditional but not fully observant Jew, would, in Rubin's view, "study more, observe more and affiliate with his people more based on Joe Lieberman's positive role model." All of this sounds good, but in reality, with the exception of Orthodox critics of Lieberman, nobody paid much attention either to Lieberman or his level of observance. I very much doubt Lieberman was the subject of much spiritual angst among secular Jews or that he inspired others to be more observant. Finally, Isaac Kohn has a satire in the Jewish Press about Shimon Peres's objection to transferring Israeli Arab cities to PA control. I'm in no mood to defend Peres, but Kohn apparently misunderstands the nature of any such transfer: The people would not be physically transferred. They would remain where they are, but sovereignty over the city (and its residents) would turn over to the PA. In any event, Prime Minister Sharon has now apparently disavowed the whole idea. Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Four Comments on 'Passion' I haven't seen the 'Passion' and certainly won't go to see it, but have the following thoughts based on what I've heard: 1. The most objectionable aspect of the movie is its portrayal of the Romans as too weak to withstand the pressure of the Jews. These were the same Romans who massacred at least 1.6 million Jews, who brutally occupied Israel, destroyed the Temple, emptied the land of Jews, and tortured hundreds of thousands of Jews, such as Rabbi Akiva, the great Talmudic sage who was murdered by the Romans. Three of the six Jewish fast days - Tisha B'av, Asara B'Tevet and Shiv'ah Asar b'Tamuz - mourn the spiritual and physical destruction of the Jews at the hands of Rome. 2. It's hard to attack Mel Gibson to the extent the film reenacts scenes reported by the Gospels. Those scenes may be politically incorrect, but they are part of Christian theology. At the same time, though it may be politically incorrect, Jews have every right to say what almost all of us think: That the issue of Jesus' divinity aside, a lot of what is in the Gospels is a false and anti-Semitic justification for persecution of Jews. Of course, there is little to be gained by saying this explicitly. Instead, the approach of reasonable Christians has been to avoid a literal interpretation of the problematic aspects of the "New Testament" and for Jews to adopt this stance. On a note related to political correctness, religion and Jewish victims, many, such as President Bush, have insisted on proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace. This conveniently ignores Muhammed's massacre of Jews in Medina, where he signed a treaty with the Jews, broke the treaty a few years later, decapitated the Jewish men and buried them in a mass grave, and distributed as chattel the surviving Jewish women and children among the masses. It's not politically correct to talk about this, but it's an insult to the memory of the many Jewish victims of Muhammed to pretend that he was a man of peace. Morally, it is no different that acquiescing in descriptions of Hamas and the PLO as peaceful would be. 3. Abe Foxman and others at the ADL may at times have gone overboard in their opposition to 'Passion', but overall their expressions of concern were appropriate. While the manner in which the opposition was expressed played into Gibson's hands by giving free publicity for the movie, in the end somebody had to speak out against him and it. 4. I often agree with Jewish conservatives when they criticize many secular Jews for automatically towing the liberal line. I certainly agree that religious Christians in the United States are not the enemy of the Jews, particularly evangelical Christians who support Israel. While I'm wary of the theological motivations of those who support Israel, I don't think the average Christian supporter of Israel is insincere in his or her support, and we can use all the help we can get. Yet lately it seems as though it's some of the Jewish Conservatives who are automatically towing the Christian line, regardless of the circumstances. Daniel Lapin and Michael Medved have strongly defended 'Passion' in both Jewish and Christian media outlets, as though trying to prove their bona fides to the Christian right. Similarly, and also troubling, some Jews, including Lapin, insisted on working with a Muslim group to oppose gay marriage, even though the Muslim group has supported terrorism. Friday, February 20, 2004
Olmert's Shift When he initially called for unilateral withdrawal, Ehud Olmert did not offer a detailed plan, but indicated that Israel would keep all of the major settlement blocs, as well as Ariel. He insisted that Israel must retain full sovereignty over the Old City, but expressed willingness to cede outlying Arab neighborhoods there. At the time, which was just a few months ago, his comments were regarded as a radical shift. His position now appears to have shifted much further to the Left. In a speech last night, Olmert said that "building Ariel might have been a mistake." He voiced his support of the Clinton plan and stated that Israel should leave all the settlements except for Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, Kiryat Sefer and Beitar Illit. Later it was clarified that Olmert would keep parts of Gush Etzion too, consistent with Clinton's plan. While Olmert apparently did not mention Jerusalem, the Clinton Plan would leave Israel with control over only a tiny portion of the Old City. Interestingly, Olmert's position places him to the Left of Ehud Barak, who has disavowed the Clinton Plan in favor of his Camp David proposals, under which Israel would have retained 8-10 percent of Judea and Samaria. Barak also always insisted on Israeli retention of Western Samaria, where Ariel is the largest community. In December, I wrote a column critical of Olmert's plans, but also critical of those who attack him as "a political opportunist, a leftist, a fraud, a traitor to Likud`s ideology" while ignoring the substance of his arguments. The truth is that Olmert has always been a two-faced phony - and not only a matters relating to settlements - but going after him on that alone is not sufficient and won't succeed. 'Secular' Israelis and Kosher Food An interesting poll in today's Maariv demonstrates the silliness of the myth that most Jews in Israel are secular. The poll shows that 43 percent of Israeli Jews keep a completely kosher home, while 28 percent keep a "partially" kosher home (the term "partially kosher" is not defined and is admittedly vague). Outside the house, 38 percent only eat in kosher certified restaurants, while 25 percent keep kosher but will eat in restaurants without certification. Only 34 percent eat nonkosher food. Thursday, February 19, 2004
Report: US Approves Transfer of Gaza Settlers to Judea/Samaria I'm skeptical that this report is accurate. However, according to Maariv, Israel's Channel 2 reports that: The United States would agree to transfer settlers from the Gaza Strip to the main settlement blocs on the West Bank, administration officials told Channel 2 news. However, the officials said that Washington would insist on dismantling of settlements on the West Bank. During the first stage of withdrawal, the settlements of Sanur, Homesh, Ganim and Kadim would be dismantled. No financial aid is to be given to Israel during this time period. This would make evacuation of Gaza much more palatable to more moderate right-wingers. It would give up Gaza, whose demographics render it less likely to be retained in any agreement, while essentially ensuring that the large settlement blocs will be annexed to Israel. Given that under the Geneva Accord large communities such as Efrat and Ariel would be evacuated, the infusion of several thousand new residents to Ariel, Gush Etzion (in which Efrat is the largest town) and Ma'aleh Adumin is necessary, and would be very beneficial. Such a move would also prevent Palestinians from viewing a Gaza evacuation as a victory for terror. Hopefully this report is accurate. Channel 2 is often highly off base. Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Stupid Column of the Week In this week's Jewish Week, Aaron Ziegelman mentions that he "attended the launch of the Geneva Accords" and that the Palestinians in Geneva "were the cream of their society: Fatah officials, government ministers or former ministers, prominent businesspeople, lawyers, doctors and academics." As Palestinian society glorifies terrorists and terrorism more than any other, Ziegelman is right that officials of Fatah - the original and leading terror group headed by Yasser Arafat - are "the cream of their society." But that's precisely the problem. Indeed, at the Geneva Accord ceremony that Ziegelman flew to, Palestinians took turns bashing Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported that Israel was referred to as "an apartheid state," a Palestinian speaker called Sharon a "fascist," and Zuheir Manasra of Fatah defended Palestinian terror as legitimate: "The Palestinian fight is a fight for peace," he said. Ziegelman argues, fairly, that if Palestinian "moderates were to gain influence and power, clearly it would be in Israel's interests" and concedes that "Arafat and his cronies from Tunis are not partners worth talking to." He also is not wrong to criticize "Israeli and American Jews who oppose any territorial compromise." Unfortunately, his article suggests that anyone who opposes full acquiescence to Palestinian territorial demands belongs in the rejectionist camp. He writes that "Even Likud leaders like Ehud Olmert are saying that the solution of two states with well-defined borders is the only way to ensure the survival of a majority Jewish democracy," forgetting that Olmert completely rejects Geneva, and wants to keep about 25 percent of Judea and Samaria, along with all of the Old City of Jerusalem. While deploring overwhelming Palestinian support for violence - including by "moderates" - Ziegelman cites a December poll of Palestinians in which, he writes, 77 percent "favored reconciliation between the two peoples after reaching a peace agreement with Israel, 87 percent supported 'open borders between two states' and 83 percent endorsed a 'mutual cessation of violence.' And if there were an agreement to stop violence, 53 percent would support a crackdown on those who would continue violence." As a result, he concludes, "The evidence is fairly clear: For most Palestinians, armed confrontation is viewed as a short-term tactic leading to an end to the occupation and, eventually, to two states, not one." Ziegelman neglected to mention other aspects of the same poll suggesting just the opposite, including the following: - 63 percent rejected the notion that under an agreement "An independent Palestinian state would be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; the Palestinian state will have no army, but it will have a strong security force. Both sides will be committed to end all forms of violence directed against each other." - 72 percent rejected Palestinian compromise on the refugee issue. - 55 percent rejected the statement that "When the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side. The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples." - Even if the Palestinian state would have sovereignty over land, water, and airspace, 76 percent rejected the presence of a multinational force and Israeli maintenance of two early warning stations for 15 years. - Not only did 87 percent as Palestinians support the murder of IDF soldiers and "settlers," 48 percent supported continued terrorism against Israeli civilians within the Green Line. - 88 percent rejected adopting a "school curriculum in the Palestinian state that recognizes Israel and teaches school children not to demand return of all Palestine to the Palestinians," even after the implementation of a full peace agreement. - 54 percent reject outlawing incitement against Israel, even after the implementation of a full peace agreement. - According to the poll, the two most popular Palestinian leaders were Yasser Arafat and Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. A majority supports either Arafat or Yassin as the President of the Palestinian Authority. If Ziegelman would have mentioned at least some of these poll findings instead of just those that he likes, I'd strongly disagree with his premise, but at least he'd have made an honest argument. Instead, he cited the few potentially positive aspects of the poll, while ignoring almost all of what he didn't want to hear and ultimately distorting the poll itself. Ziegelman also writes: Even if the worst happens and the Palestinians in charge do not completely destroy all the terror cells, their state would still lack the kind of army needed to threaten the existence of Israel, one of the top military powers. Whatever threat they might pose pales in comparison to a more serious and current threat: Palestinians will soon outnumber Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Even if it were true that the Palestinians could not threaten the existence of Israel, following the implementation of something like Geneva, the IDF would no longer have a presence in Judea or Samaria and would have much less ability to stop terror. Furthermore, half of Jerusalem would be under PA control, including the gates to the Old City, greatly worsening the already precarious security situation there. Nor would Israel have control over the borders with Egypt and Jordan. Ziegelman's mention of Israel's demographic problem is trendy but misleading. There is no intention by any but the most extreme in Israel to ever annex the heavily populated Palestinian areas. While the demographic situation cannot be ignored, it can be alleviated in ways other than a withdrawal to the '67 borders. In any event, as the poll shows, Palestinians are willing to support a two state solution only if refugees are allowed to flood Israel. The result would be the destruction of Israel via ostensibly democratic means. Aaron Ziegelman may be well intentioned, but his naive impressions about a society that glorifies mass murder, and his glossing over of data that conflicts with his opinion, render the column he wrote while wearing his rose-colored glasses to be quite off base. Meir Kahane in the Jewish Press It's unfortunate that this week's Jewish Press republished a 1989 column by Meir Kahane, about the failure of Ariel Sharon and the mainstream Right to defend their ideological views. The column itself is tame by Kahane standards, but the forum that the old Jewish Press provided for Kahane's extremist views was shameful, and is not something that should be revived. Thursday, February 12, 2004
Children Protecting Terrorists Today's Times has a long article about Israel's elimination yesterday of 15 Palestinian terrorists. More interesting than the article is a picture accompanying it, which appears both in the paper and in the web article. The AP photo shows Palestinian children trying to keep a terrorist firing a rocket at Israel from being spotted. The fact that children were in the vicinity obviously did not give the terrorist any pause. There could be no better explanation of why Palestinian youths sometimes die during battles. UPDATE: IMRA points out that Haaretz's web site includes a similar picture. Jewish Press Headline The headline in the Jewish Press's lead front page article is 'Sharon Gov’t Barely Survives Four No-Confidence Votes.' The article correctly points out that the Sharon government narrowly defeated four no-confidence votes, including two by a margin of 47-45. The headline might be misleading, because to have any actual effect, a no confidence vote must be supported by 61 Knesset members, a majority of the entire Knesset, rather than just a majority of those voting in the no confidence motion. Therefore, Sharon was not in any danger of falling, as 16 more votes were required. Stupid Column of the Week This week in the Forward, Scott Lasensky expresses strong support for Ariel Sharon's plan to dismantle the Gaza communities. While I don't agree with much of his analysis, his opinion is a legitimate one. However, toward the end of the piece, Lasensky writes: Remember the bodyguard from your schoolyard days? The big, tough guy ready to swing fists at any sign of provocation. The role of a bodyguard begins and ends with protection. But a big brother must also keep his ward's best interests at heart. The bodyguard deals only with present, visible dangers, but a big brother also keeps an eye on the horizon. Stop for a moment and consider this fact. More Israelis - men, women and children - have been killed or injured in the last three years than in any comparable period since Israel's founding. Still, many supporters of Israel inside the Beltway continue to lobby against a more active American role. Rather than a bodyguard like George W. Bush, what Israel really needs is a friend like Bill Clinton, or even Richard Nixon - American leaders willing to extend whatever Israel needed for its defense, and to put America's military might behind Israel, but at the same time ready to encourage leaders in Jerusalem to take reasoned and responsible risks for peace. This is just idiotic. Lasensky completely ignores the fact that the Palestinian war began in September 2000, during the Clinton Administration, which responded by refusing to veto a UN Security Council Resolution blaming Israel. Then, 6 weeks before elections in Israel and after Bush's election in the U.S., Clinton forced the Clinton Plan on the Barak government, even though Clinton and Barak were both lame ducks just weeks from their respective departures. Despite the fact that the concessions required under Clinton Plan went much further than Camp David, the attacks on Israelis continued to intensify. If Israelis were asking for the U.S. to interfere in their sovereign affairs, Lasensky might have a point. But they don't want America to force it to suspend defensive military activity or come up with new peace plans for the sake of pretending a peace process exists. And in reality, the Bush Administration - with its support for a Palestinian state; its Mitchell Plan, Zinni Plan and Road Map; its April 2002 demand that Israel withdraw from Arab cities that Sharon ultimately accepted, before going back in following yet another series of bombings; its opposition to the fence; its opposition to any settlement activity, even in areas that would be annexed to Israel under the Clinton Plan; and its implied support for the Geneva Accord - has been far from inactive or fully supportive of Israel. Where it differs from Clinton is a recognition that terror is illegitimate and must end. Perhaps if Yasser Arafat had not been the most frequent guest at the White House during the Clinton Presidency that Lasensky has such nostalgia for - a time when numerous suicide bombings occurred and the PA violated Oslo each and every day - Israel would not be in the situation in which, as erroneously described by Lasensky, "more Israelis - men, women and children - have been killed or injured in the last three years than in any comparable period since Israel's founding." Not to nitpick, but Lasensky is wrong on that claim too. 6500 Israelis - then 1 percent of its population - were killed in the 1948-49 War of Independence, and almost 3000 in the Yom Kippur War. It may be that more Israeli civilians have been murdered in the last three years than any prior period, though even that is questionable. Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Jewish Press Letters This week's Jewish Press has three letters about my January 30 column disagreeing with Steven Plaut's vitriolic attack on "the Left" in his January 16 column. Here they are, with my comments: Razor-Sharp Schick I agree with op-ed contributor Joseph Schick ('Don't Demonize All on the Left,' Jan. 30) that Steven Plaut in a previous article went too far in his criticism of opponents of Prime Minister Sharon`s security fence. Plaut is obviously correct that there are some ideological "crazies" on the Left who do not have Israel`s best interests at heart and are going to extremes. However, they should not be seen as representing all of the opponents of the fence. I support Sharon's plan one hundred percent, but I recognize that there are principled people who disagree with either the concept of separation itself or the prime minister`s precise formulation. In closing, I must tell you how much I welcome the addition of Mr. Schick to your pages; his mind is as sharp as the razor of the same name. Joshua Kaminer (Via E-Mail) I appreciate the compliments, though as the first item in my current column indicates, I am skeptical about Sharon's plan. The fact that he revealed his plan to evacuate all of Gaza in an interview with Yoel Marcus, a hostile Haaretz columnist, rather than in a national address does not inspire confidence in his judgment or leadership. Plaut Knows The Left I enjoy Joseph Schick's intelligent op-ed pieces, but must vehemently take issue with his criticism of Steven Plaut. Of course there are Israeli leftists who are well-meaning, patriotic citizens, and they and their families have sacrificed much for Israel. But Plaut writes of the large numbers of media and academic leftists who've internalized all the arguments of our enemies and spew them out with barely concealed hatred for anything that smacks of traditional Zionism. Anyone who regularly reads Haaretz, the paper of Israel's left-wing elite, is all too familiar with this phenomenon - and no one can convince me that most of Haaretz's columnists aren't more sympathetic to the Palestinians than they are to Israel (as P. David Hornik demonstrated so well in his Jewish Press page-one essay last week). Steven Plaut knows Israel's ugly radical Left as only a professor at Haifa University can. And Plaut knows there's a difference between the old-style Mapai leftists and the unreconstructed Chomskyites who have such an inordinate influence on Israeli politics and culture. Reuven Chertok Jerusalem A few of Haaretz's columnists - but not all or even most of them - may be "Chomskyites." Some "intellectuals" and academics are too. But they don't represent the mainstream Israeli left. Ariel Mitzna? Steven Plaut and Joseph Schick both got it wrong. I don`t question Ariel Sharon`s desire to save Jewish lives, but the whole idea of unilateral disengagement makes no sense. Not only does it reward Palestinian banditry and savagery, it also effectively cedes land that belongs to us for absolutely nothing concrete in return. Sharon`s plan is almost the same as the one pushed by Amram Mitzna in the last Israeli election. Mitzna was overwhelmingly repudiated by the voters, but Sharon has no shame in pursuing the very policy Mitzna championed. Daniella Klonitzky (Via E-Mail) I'm not sure what this letter has to do with my piece about Plaut's column. If it related to my column about the Sharon plan, I certainly did not express unquestioned support for the plan. And Plaut is absolutely opposed to it. Jewish Press Column Here's my latest Jewish Press piece. It is available online here. Six Comments On The Situation By Joseph Schick 1. Sharon Plan Redux In his interview with Haaretz last week, Prime Minister Sharon announced plans to dismantle almost all of the Jewish communities in Gaza, as well as “three problematic settlements in Samaria.” Those three are presumably Ganim, Kadim and Homesh. Meanwhile, in the New York Post, Uri Dan, one of Sharon's closest confidantes, wrote, “The ‘relocation’ of Jewish settlements won't be limited to 17 in the Gaza Strip, but will extend to the West Bank and may total 30, possibly more.” Sharon has amplified his disengagement plan as it pertains to dismantling settlements, but he has not addressed its other key aspects. When he introduced his plan in December, Sharon said that “Israel will greatly accelerate the construction of the security fence” and that “Israel will strengthen its control over those same areas in the Land of Israel which will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement.” Yet while Sharon proceeds with his plan to unilaterally dismantle settlements, construction of the fence has slowed amid confirmation on Sunday from Zalman Shoval, a Sharon advisor, that Israel will change its route. The fence will stand much closer to the Green Line than originally planned and will not encompass the Ariel bloc, or, according to some reports, Gush Etzion. Sharon has also offered no indication of how he intends to strengthen Israel’s control of any part of Judea or Samaria. While his office has suggested that Israel will ask for U.S. support for the resettlement of the Gaza residents in Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel, a positive American response is unlikely. It is puzzling why Sharon introduced his withdrawal plan only recently as a unilateral step, rather than as a peace proposal during his negotiations last summer with Abu Mazen, when Israel might have received something in return. 2. Times on the Hezbollah Deal The New York Times had a long piece about Israel's deal with Hezbollah, accompanied by a large heartwarming picture of Anwar Yassin - one of the terrorists who were released - being embraced by his parents. Yassin expressed his excitement in the Times article, which mentioned only that he had been “held since 1987.” The Times neglected to print that Yassin was “held” for murdering Alex Singer, Ronen Weisman, and Oren Kamil. The three - IDF soldiers in Lebanon - were killed while preventing a major terrorist attack on Israeli civilians. Singer, who had made aliyah two years earlier, was killed on his 25th birthday. He is the brother of Jerusalem Post editorial page editor Saul Singer, and the son of Suzanne Singer of Moment Magazine. The article mentioned that the fate of Ron Arad - who has been missing since bailing out of his downed plane over Lebanon in 1986 - remains "unresolved," but said nothing about Zachary Baumel, Yehuda Katz, and Zvi Feldman, who were captured in 1982 just a few days into the Lebanon War, paraded through Damascus, and have never been heard from since. It’s hard to blame the Times for that, though, since the Israeli and Jewish media also generally ignore Baumel, Katz and Feldman. 3. Ron Arad and Iran There is some cautious optimism that information about Arad may be forthcoming and, if he is still alive, he may be released in another exchange. Some of the optimism comes from the notion that Iran wants to improve its image. Israeli intelligence has determined that Mustafa Dirani - another Hezbollah terrorist released by Israel - sold Arad to Iran around 1989. Unfortunately, Iran’s desire to improve its image may render Arad’s safe return very unlikely. The last thing Iran wants is for an Israeli it held captive for nearly 15 years (and who overall has been a hostage for 18 years) to come out alive, able to tell the world about the brutality with which the Iranian government treated him. Furthermore, Iran has little incentive to release Arad alive, given that Israel has demonstrated a willingness to release scores of terrorists for the bodies of murdered soldiers. Perhaps sensing this, and in any event quite selflessly despite their suffering, Arad's family has announced that if Ron Arad is no longer alive, they do not want Israel to release any terrorists in exchange for his body. Yet Israel appears to be hell bent on doing so anyway, stating only that it will take the Arad family’s wishes into consideration. One can only hope that Arad, Baumel, Katz, Feldman, and Guy Hever - missing since 1997 – will soon return home safely. 4. Verbal Restraint Regarding Arad, Israeli President Moshe Katsav said that he would pay “any price” for his release. All Katsav’s statement will achieve is subject Israel to further blackmail in future negotiations with Hezbollah, and provide additional incentive for terrorist groups to kidnap Israelis. A few weeks ago, in an interview with Israel Army Radio, Deputy Defense Minister Ze’ev Boim announced that Hamas leader “Sheik Yassin is marked for death, and he should hide himself deep underground where he won't know the difference between day and night. And we will find him in the tunnels, and we will eliminate him.” The elimination of Yassin and the rest of Hamas would be welcome, but empty threats do nothing to deter Hamas from targeting Israelis. Indeed, since Boim’s interview, 11 were murdered in the latest Jerusalem bus bombing, and Yassin has called for more suicide bombings and for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Far too often, Israelis ignore Teddy Roosevelt’s axiom to speak softly and carry a big stick, instead doing the opposite. 5. ‘Moderate Injuries’ When word spreads about a suicide bombing, discussion usually centers on those who are killed, such as the 11 in the Jerusalem terror attack two week’s ago. In that attack, more than 50 others were wounded. Some were described as “seriously wounded,” which means that their injuries are life threatening, or that they lost a limb, were severely burnt, or will otherwise suffer for their entire life. Most were described as being “moderately” injured. One of those was Erik Schechter, who writes for The Jerusalem Post. Bret Stephens, the paper’s editor in chief, wrote, “Erik's wounds were described as ‘moderate.’ What that meant was that his knee-cap had been shattered and that he had sustained shrapnel wounds and vascular damage. He will spend between three and six months in recovery.” At the April 2002 pro-Israel rally in Washington, Mark Sokolow, who safely escaped the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 only to be wounded months later - along with his wife and two daughters - in a bombing on Jerusalem's Jaffa Street, stated: "We were all rushed to different hospitals, and for several agonizing hours I didn't know whether the rest of my family was alive. Thank God we all survived with what the press called ‘minor injuries.’ My wife has a severely fractured leg on which she still can't walk. My daughter and I just had surgery to reconstruct our eardrums, and my youngest daughter has lost some vision in one eye. And we all have significant shrapnel injuries and scars, not to mention the mental trauma we have all suffered." Unfortunately, with so many people murdered by Arab terrorists, many of us overlook those who have been injured, or assume that the wounded will fully recover. Some eventually do, but many remain permanently maimed. 6. Time For Another Rally Speaking of the DC rally, it is shameful that no similar rally has taken place since, and that it remains the only major pro-Israel rally since the start of the Palestinian war against Israel. Scores of Israelis have been murdered since, but as the media becomes less interested in the continued suicide bombings, and the Bush Administration fails to support the fence, another major rally is desperately needed. While the 2002 rally successfully brought as many as 200,000 to the Capitol on a weekday just after Pesach, and on very short notice, it was dominated by politicians and special interest group figures. The most important speeches, those by terror victims or their survivors, were relegated to the very end, hours into the program. For example, Sokolow’s speech was the 21st of the day, while Rabbi Seth Mandell, who spoke movingly about his son, Koby Mandell, was number 25. By then, most had left, probably having been bored by John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO and Hugh Price of the National Urban League, each of whom offered even-handed rhetoric rather than anything pro-Israel. If and when the next rally occurs, Rabbi Avi Weiss, who with no budget and to limited recognition has tirelessly led numerous smaller but feisty rallies on word of mouth and e-mail only, should play a role. Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Jordanian View On Gaza Evacuation In a column in today's Jordan Times, Hassan A. Barari writes about Ariel Sharon's plan to evacuate the Jewish communities in Gaza. Barari believes that Hamas will be the big winner: Regardless of how one interprets this move, its impact on the Arab world is detrimental. In the battle between those who back the militarisation of the Intifada and those who ask for at least the demilitarisation of the resistance, I believe the radical forces that back the former will have the upper hand in the internal debate. They would cite three examples to support their case: former Prime Minister Ehud Barak had to withdraw unilaterally because of Israel's inability to withstand more losses in south Lebanon; Hizbollah tactics of employing force have paid off, as demonstrated by the recent prisoner swap; and finally, a hardliner such as Sharon has to give in under fire. Thursday, February 05, 2004
Comments Due to yet another server malfunction by the comments provider, this blog has been down all day. Instead of waiting to see if the problem gets fixed, I've switched to yet another provider. Unfortunately, previous comments will again be lost. Zionists Win Again Good news from the Tehran Times, whose lead editorial today states that in light of Western Europe's opposition to the International Court of Justice in The Hague's consideration of Israel's security fence, "it is clear that despite two decades of making a show of independence of the United States, unfortunately, by taking the measure, the European Union has proven that in its international and regional policies it is controlled by the Zionist lobbies." The paper's other editorial today writes about internal bickering within Iran concerning national elections. While a naive observer might think this has nothing to do with Isra... er, the Zionists, the Iranian daily says they'd be wrong: "Undoubtedly, the resentful enemies of Iran, particularly the destructive and racist Zionist regime, are delighted by the current disagreement between governmental officials, small as it might be. They intend to take advantage of the current circumstances and damage the reputation of the Islamic Republic through further mischief." Uri Dan In today's Maariv, Uri Dan, one of Ariel Sharon's closest friends, calls on Sharon to "go down to Gaza and explain to them why you have chosen to evacuate them from their homes." Much of the column is a not so subtle explanation of Sharon's plan. In any event, Dan is certainly correct that, "you must explain your actions to the residents of Gaza, face to face, despite the fact that it is clear how difficult this will be." Stupid Column of the Week While I could take issue with a couple of them, none of this week's columns satisty the criteria for the SCOTW award. Tuesday, February 03, 2004
More On Sharon's Plan In today's New York Post, Uri Dan, one of Ariel Sharon's closest confidantes, writes that "Sharon is preparing more surprises. The 'relocation' of Jewish settlements won't be limited to 17 in the Gaza Strip, but will extend to the West Bank and may total 30, possibly more." In contrast, in an interview published today with Haaretz's Yoel Marcus, Sharon indicated that three 3 West Bank settlements, all in Samaria, would be "moved" pursuant to his plan. The three are almost certainly Ganim, Kadim and Homesh. Monday, February 02, 2004
Gaza Evacuation Prime Minister Sharon's plan to dismantle almost all of the Jewish communities in Gaza does not address the other aspects of his disengagement plan. When he introduced his plan in December, Sharon said that "Israel will greatly accelerate the construction of the security fence" and that "Israel will strengthen its control over those same areas in the Land of Israel which will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement." Unfortunately, while Sharon proceeds with his plan to unilaterally dismantle settlements, indications are that there will be no annexation of even the largest settlements, and that the route of the fence will be changed so that it will be constructed much closer to the Green Line, and won't encompass Gush Etzion and the Ariel bloc. Under these circumstances, despite Sharon's claims that his plan is adverse to the Palestinians' interest, it is difficult to understand how the Palestinians are paying any price at all. As The Jerusalem Post editorializes in tomorrow's paper: Why should the Palestinians make peace with Israel if they can get the land without making peace? To withdraw in the face of terror is to inspire further terror. Whatever peace Israel gains on its southern front it will surely lose elsewhere, as Palestinians intensify their efforts to drive Israel to the Green Line - at least. Nor does it help that the timing of this announced withdrawal seems to coincide with the prime minister's burgeoning legal difficulties. It sends the signal that it is the Palestinians who can afford to wait Israel out, not vice versa. That's not a signal this government, or any future government, ought to send. Sunday, February 01, 2004
Miracle In second grade I was sick and missed school for about 3 weeks, perfectly coinciding with the 1980 Winter Olympics. I spent all day in bed watching the Olympics and therefore have been looking forward to 'Miracle,' the new movie about the 1980 United States Olympic hockey team. I went to see it last night. The best thing about Miracle is that the actors have played hockey and know how to skate. Most sports movies completely fail in this regard and immediately lose any credibility with sports fans. Adding to its authenticity is that the film uses the actual original call of the game by Al Michaels and Ken Dryden. Overall this will be a very enjoyable movie for sports fans, especially those who remember the 1980 Olympics. It has a few contrived scenes, including two involving exchanges between Jim Craig - the star goalie - and coach Herb Brooks, but if anything it is unsentimental, and is certainly not sappy. I do have two quibbles, however. First, the movie essentially ends with the victory over the USSR, with the gold medal victory over Finland mentioned over in passing, as though it was inevitable. In fact, not only was Finland favored to win the gold medal game, it led 2-1 going into the third period. Ignoring that game is like ending a movie about the 1986 World Series with Bill Buckner's error in Game 6 and ignoring Game 7. Second, the movie showed the growing excitement among Americans about the hockey team, but a lot of the excitement and interest in the 1980 Games - and therefore the hockey team's run - were directly due to the incredible five gold medals won by U.S. speed skater Eric Heiden. If my memory is accurate, Heiden's fourth victory occurred a night before the match vs. the USSR, and his fifth the night afterward, with the Finland game the next morning. If not for Heiden, there would have been much less interest in the Olympics generally and the hockey team's success in particular, and the film should have recognized this. In fact, the U.S. won six gold medals in the '80 Olympics - five by Heiden, and the other by the hockey team. It'll be interesting to see the reviews for 'Miracle,' which officially opens on Friday, and whether those who are not hockey fans will find it enjoyable. My guess is that they will. | "
