"
The Zionist Conspiracy

A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
 
Frumster and DosiDate

Further to my recent post criticizing Frumster (the dating site for observant Jews) for having all its members identify themselves by one of eight categories, I have discovered that Frumster is essentially a copy of a site in Israel, DosiDate.

DosiDate also asks members to place themselves in one of eight categories. While that is excessive, it is much more sensible in Israel than in North America. While not ideal, in Israel observant Jews are categorized as dati or charedi, and then further categorized within those groups based on whether they serve(d) in the IDF and if they do or did, whether they are or were in a regular army unit, in a hesder yeshiva, or in a charedi Nachal unit; as well as by what kashrut certificates are acceptable to them, i.e. only badatz, rabbanut, rabbanut mehadrin, etc.

There are no similar distinctions in the U.S., where the social gap between, say, a guy living in Flatbush who went to college, wears a hat and calls himself "charedi" and a girl in Stern College who calls herself "modern Orthodox machmir" is quite often nil. In contrast, in Israel, a guy learning in a yeshiva in Bnei Brak on an army deferment is unlikely to date a very religious female Bar Ilan university student who did a year of sherut leumi (national service).

UPDATE: Upon further reflection over shavuos, Frumster's attempts to copy DosiDate are especially curious in its addition of a category called "Yeshivish Modern." DosiDate has a category called "Charedi Dati" (or "chardal"). A very large number of black-hatters in America probably fit within the category of chardal, which generally means someone who is very strict with regard to halacha, but is also a Zionist who serves in the IDF (or performs sherut leumi) and is open to secular education.

 
'Zionism' As An Epithet

On the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein writes:

One thing I've noticed is that the Muslim/Palestinian/Campus Left (an odd alliance, to say the least) has managed to make the words "Zionism" and "Zionist" into epithets, so much so that people don't even know what the word means, they just know it's something bad. More than once I've seen Jewish students quoted as saying things like "I support Israel's right to exist with secure borders as a Jewish state, but I'm not a Zionist."

No doubt the situation is far worse now, but even in 1994, during my first semester at Columbia Law School, upon overhearing a heated discussion in which I was defending Israel, a non-Jewish friend of mine asked me, "What are you a Zionist or something?"

For different reasons, in right-wing Orthodox Jewish circles, the term "Zionism" is also often deemed as negative. That's mostly because the early Zionist leaders were - with a few exceptions - staunch secularists who derided religion and promoted Zionist activities as an alternative to religious observance. Theological questions about whether a Jewish state should be formed in Israel also played a part. While today the overwhelming majority of charedi Jews inside and outside Israel support Israel (with a small but vocal minority continuing to express hostility to the State's existence), the rabbinic leadership continues to feel ambivalence (or worse) toward the State. In the U.S., most charedi Jews feel a close connection to Israel, yet decline to identify themselves as Zionist, even though in reality they are among Israel's most reliable supporters.

 
Pluralism on Israel's Supreme Court

Haaretz has a feature about the selection process for Justices on the Supreme Court of Israel. Essentially, most of the Justices are secular Ashkenazim, but a slot is reserved for a Sephardi, an Arab, and a religious Judge.

When I interned at the Israeli Supreme Court for a summer in 1995, clerks would routinely identify Justice Eliyahu Tal as "the religious Judge." While there was no apparent intention to be condescending, it is unimaginable that a religious or ethnic minority would ever be publicly (or even privately) identified in a similar manner in any United States court, let alone in the Supreme Court. Tal later headed the Tal Commission, which recommended guidelines for integrating charedi Israelis into the IDF and general civil society.

Thursday, May 20, 2004
 
Uri Dan on Uncle Tom

Uri Dan has the last word on Thomas Friedman in today's Jerusalem Post:

It is not surprising that New York Times columnist Tom Friedman this week compared the head of the Shi'ite terror in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is murdering Americans in Iraq, to the Jewish settlers in Israel...

As if any comparison could be made between the murderer Al-Sadr and the chaos of Iraq, and the settlers – the ongoing victims of Palestinian terror, who used the Likud referendum to democratically express their opinion. If a gentile had written such words, he would have been accused of anti-Semitism.

However, Friedman is a Jew and can therefore only be accused of narcissistic self-love and of hatred for those who do not hold his views...

This conceited Jewish journalist boasted of the Saudi plan that he concocted in a friendly dinner with the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, a plan that Friedman claimed would lead to peace with the Palestinians. By the way, this same Prince Abdullah recently said in a TV interview after Muslim extremists renewed their attacks in Saudi Arabia, "I am 95% certain that the Israeli Mossad was behind these attacks." This libel by Friedman's "man of peace" was topped only by the columnist's own writings this week, comparing settlers to Muqtada al-Sadr and his terrorists.

 
Steven Plaut's Latest Column

In an otherwise good piece in the Jewish Press, Steven Plaut could not help writing the following unnecessary and crass paragraph about the parents of Lior Vishinski, an IDF soldier who was killed in Gaza last week:

"Lior was the son of two actors from Israel's bohemian Tel Aviv theater set. The divorced parents are hardly right-wingers and are not Orthodox. Indeed, like the leftist father of Nick Berg, the Jew from Philadelphia murdered in Iraq, Lior's own father tastelessly attempted to exploit the death of his son to make political capital and promote the political agenda of the Left."

"Exploit the death of his son?" Apparently just as Tom Friedman is capable only of disdain toward the "settlers" and their supporters, Plaut cannot consider that an Israeli leftist might be acting out of motives other than self-hatred.

Wednesday, May 19, 2004
 
Stupid Column of the Week

In this week's Jewish Week, M.J. Rosenberg of the leftist Israel Policy Forum makes two moronic statements:

First, he writes that the fact that nearly 1000 Israelis have already been murdered since September 2000 "just proves the old adage that even a bad peace is better than a good war."

Rosenberg completely ignores the fact that the terrorism has occurred as part of the "bad peace" he refers to. While he writes of "the terror wave that began after the collapse of the Oslo accords in the fall of 2000," the Oslo Accords never had a formal ending. Despite the peace agreements and while those agreements were in effect, the Palestinians engaged in war against Israel.

Second and more egregiously, Rosenberg writes:

"Every poll of the Israeli public showed overwhelming support for getting out of Gaza. Every poll of Likud Party members showed the same thing. Israelis across the spectrum want out." (emphasis added)

Huh? If every poll of Likud Party members showed overwhelming support for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, why did the referendum of the same members result in overwhelming rejection of withdrawal?

So how does Rosenberg explain this apparent discrepancy? By blaming the "settlers" and their supporters, who, he writes, were "determined to thwart the will of those majorities and the prime minister. So they hustled and organized and defeated the Gaza withdrawal in the Likud vote."

In other words, using the democratic process and convincing Likud members to reject unilateral withdrawal is illegitimate because... well, Rosenberg doesn't like the result. And since he doesn't like the result, he ignores it, and continues to insist that Likud members actually believe exactly the opposite of how they vote.

Incidentally, Rosenberg recently had an anti-Sharon opinion column published on the web site of Al-Jazeerah. Lest one think that the column was picked up by Al-Jazeerah but that Rosenberg did not specifically seek publication with them, the column specifically states: "The article was submitted to Al-Jazeerah by the author on April 9, 2004."

Nice to know that Israel Policy Forum deems Al-Jazeerah to be a worthy media outlet.

 
Jewish Press Editorial on Thomas Friedman

In the same week that my op-ed column (in the latter portion) criticized the New York Times' Thomas Friedman, the Jewish Press published an editorial stating:

"We have never understood the Jewish community`s fascination with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Indeed, when he was chosen by the Anti-Defamation League as an award recipient some months ago, we agreed with the Zionist Organization of America`s expression of dismay. To our mind, Friedman`s skepticism of Israel`s position vis a vis the Palestinians, and his questioning of America`s acknowledgement of a special relationship with the Jewish state, hardly commends him for worthy mention."

After quoting two recent offensive statements in Friedman's columns, including his comparison of "settlers" with Iraqi terrorists, the editorial asks:

"Who is this guy? His columns are typically bereft of fact. Is he a Kissinger or a Powell, with a substantive diplomatic background? Why should we really care about what he has to say? Does his status as a New York Times columnist give him special provenance?"

The Jewish Press seems to be lamenting the acclaim given to Friedman by the ADL, as well as liberal Jewish groups like Israel Policy Forum, at whose recent dinner Friedman served as keynote speaker.

As for the question of whether it is worthwhile to pay much attention to Friedman because of "his status as a New York Times columnist," I agree that any op-ed columnist is only expressing an opinion, and one need not take any particular column by any particlular columnist too seriously. Yet it is important not to ignore the fact that as many as millions of people read a typical Thomas Friedman column. Not only is he published in the Times, but often also in the International Herald Tribune and, at times, in other newspapers across the world.

When Friedman unleashes his vicious hatred of the Israeli right-wing and its supporters - which he does with extreme frequency even in columns having little or nothing to do with Israel - his readers are likely to construe his rantings as accurate statements of fact, precisely because he himself is Jewish and is not seen as hostile to Israel. And Friedman is viewed as an impartial Middle East expert by many, as evidenced by the way he has been treated on programs like Meet The Press and Charlie Rose.

Therefore, while I believe it generally suffices to simply point out the bias of any influential columnist, without overreacting, when blatantly false statements are made, it is our duty to respond and challenge the writer. That's why my column did not delve into Friedman's hateful views, but did demonstrate that his claims about Israeli "settlement" construction were absolutely false.

 
Jerusalem Day

In honor of Jerusalem Day, which is celebrated today, below is my column in this week's Jewish Press.


United Jerusalem and Uncle Tom’s Columns

By Joseph Schick

Jerusalem Day, in honor of the reunification of the city in 1967, is celebrated on the 28th day of Iyar, which this year is Wednesday, May 19. The following are statements from Labor Party leaders - all made after the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords - about the necessity of keeping Jerusalem permanently undivided under Israeli sovereignty.


· “Jerusalem is politically closed, religiously open. No serious person will suggest to make out of Jerusalem another Berlin, to have a wall, a split. Jerusalem is united politically, is the capital of Israel, and you cannot have two capitals in one city.”

- Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, in a July 25,1994 interview with MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour.

· “We did not then succeed [during the 1948 War of Independence] in liberating the Old City, and over the years, we lived with the painful feeling that the city was divided and that the remnant of the Temple was in the hands of foreigners. For 19 years, the paths to the Western Wall were desolate: ‘The market square is empty, and no one visits the Temple Mount in the Old City,’ in the words of poet Naomi Shemer.

“We are divided in our opinions, on the Left and the Right. We argue over courses of action and over purpose. I believe that there is no argument on one matter - the wholeness of Jerusalem, and its continued existence as the capital of the State of Israel. I said yesterday, and repeat today, that there are not two Jerusalems; there is only one Jerusalem. From our perspective, Jerusalem is not a subject for compromise. Jerusalem was ours, will be ours, is ours - and will remain as such forever.”


- Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in a May 29, 1995 Jerusalem Day address to the Knesset.

· “If they told us that peace is the price of giving up on a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, my reply would be ‘let's do without peace.’”

- Rabin, in a speech to Tel Aviv students, on June 27, 1995.

· “Where do you exactly draw the line between calling someone a ‘traitor’ and saying [he will] divide Jerusalem?

“These statements lead to [other] statements I've already heard: ‘Peres wants to burn Jerusalem.’ This whole campaign, with the slogan of ‘Peres will divide Jerusalem,’ is character assassination.”


- Peres, then Prime Minister, in February 1996, angrily rejecting the Likud election campaign slogan, “Peres will divide Jerusalem”.

· “The government's position is clear. Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel. I call on everyone to show a sense of national responsibility and stop putting question marks around the subject of Jerusalem.”

- Prime Minister Ehud Barak, at a March 12, 2000 cabinet meeting.

· “Jerusalem shall forever remain ours because it is in our souls. Never again will Jerusalem be under foreign sovereignty. Only someone who has no sense of reality, who does not understand anything about Israel's yearning and longing and the Jewish people's historical connection to Jerusalem for over 3,000 years would even consider any making concessions over the city.”

- Barak, at a ceremony at Ammunition Hill on June 1, 2000 marking Jerusalem Day. Barak shattered the consensus on Jerusalem six weeks later at Camp David.

· “Yitzhak is certainly turning over in his grave. He never would have agreed to compromise on the Old City and the Temple Mount, because for him Jerusalem was sacred from a strictly national and historic point of view. He was thankful that in 1967 he was the army chief of staff who liberated it.”

- Leah Rabin, widow of Yitzhak Rabin, in a September 9, 2000 interview with Yediot Ahronot, criticizing Barak’s concessions at Camp David.

* * *

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times regularly spews hatred of Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, such as on Sunday, when he compared “settlers” with Shiite terrorists in Iraq, writing: “Both movements combine religious messianism, and a willingness to sacrifice their followers and others for absolutist visions, along with a certain disdain for man-made laws, as opposed to those from God.”

As an op-ed columnist, Friedman has a forum to express whatever opinions he wishes, however bigoted. But sometimes he makes completely false statements, such as last Thursday, when he wrote: “Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank?”

Putting aside that “settlements” are neither illegal nor comparable to terror, the notion that Sharon is involved in a “massive building of settlements” is absurd. The Sharon government has not established any new settlements and Sharon wants to remove at least 25 existing ones.

Even if Sharon is deemed responsible for the several dozen outposts that have been erected in Judea, Samaria and Gaza – and he has expressed opposition to them and they were built without government approval – the total population in the outposts is in the hundreds, hardly a “massive” enterprise.

In the established settlements, overall there has been moderate population growth since Sharon’s 2001 election, largely due to the birth of children. With the exception of a few major communities like Beitar Illit and Ma’ale Adumim – each of which has more than 25,000 residents – there has not been substantial construction within Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This is mainly because, contrary to Friedman’s claim, the Bush Administration has repeatedly called for “an end to settlement activity” and Sharon has agreed to severe limits on new construction, including in a letter to President Bush during Sharon’s April visit to the White House.

Perhaps Friedman thinks it is still 1991, when Sharon was indeed building new settlements. More likely, either he has no hesitation to libel, or is ignorant of realities. Regardless, he is far from the Middle East expert some consider him to be.

Tuesday, May 18, 2004
 
Jerusalem Post Sale

Interesting article about the impending sale of The Jerusalem Post in the business section of yesterday's New York Times.

In the article, the Post's editor in chief, Bret Stephens is quoted as saying that "It is primarily a paper read by people abroad." Moshe Arens, the former Likud foreign and defense minister, said: "It's a newspaper for people who don't know enough Hebrew. It's not very important as far as Israeli politics are concerned because most Israelis don't read it." The piece states that only 35 full time reporters and editors remain at the Post.

Despite this, Hollinger, the current owner, is seeking as much as $40 million. I wonder whether some of the prospective buyers overestimate the political influence of the Post. Months ago, when it ran an editorial calling for Yassir Arafat to be killed, the paper was lambasted by John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Report, suggesting that the U.S. media elite read it and take it seriously, even if they don't like the paper's line.

Finally, I wonder if the sale is affecting the paper's editorial line. Stephens ran two long columns in favor of the Sharon plan, and in an editorial, the paper urged Likud members to vote in favor of the plan. Likely, a more centrist editorial stance is being forced by management to help it sell the Post to a wider market.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004
 
Frumster

Given that I am married, I have never paid any attention to Frumster, an online dating site for observant Jews.

Protocols has a post discussing changes to Frumster by its new management. In the comments to that post, "Jim" writes, "my gripe with frumster is that they are now trying to put the 'frum' in frumster. They now crop out pictures that show women wearing pants, and everything is now under 'rabbinic' supervision. The having stories and inspiration makes me feel like im on a dating site at a religious revival."

A check of the Frumster site confirms Jim's statement. The site proudly states that "each photo is individually processed for sincerity and adherence to Orthodox modesty standards."

Admittedly, there may be certain photos that are inappropriate for display on a website for observant Jews. But censoring pictures of modern Orthodox women wearing pants is rather pathetic. It's yet another manifestation of the condescending attitude of those doing the "supervising" toward observant Jews (i.e. their constituents) generally, and those that are single, in particular. Regardless of whether someone is modern Orthodox, charedi, neither, or somewhere in between, if they are on an Internet dating site, they presumably can (or should be able to) handle the different standards of others in the community.

Now that I've had a chance to see Frumster, my other criticism is their division of observant Jews into no less than eight separate categories. When searching for a potential date, one must pick from just one of these eight groups. An unfortunate and extreme example of the human tendency to factionalize, which to anyone outside of Orthodox circles would, appropriately, be seen for how idiotic it is. And as good an illustration as any for the increasing difficulty experienced by many in finding a spouse.

Tuesday, May 11, 2004
 
Blogger Improvements

Blogger has added a number of new features. For my purposes, the main result is that the formatting on a number of my old posts is completely screwed up. For example, quotation marks appear as a rectangle.

UPDATE: The problem now seems to be fixed.

Saturday, May 08, 2004
 
5/8/03-5/8/04

I don't like the term bloggiversary, so let's just say that today is one year since I whimsically started this blog.

My first of 384 posts, below, is at least as apt today as it was on May 8, 2003.


Painful Concessions

Interesting series of columns in Friday's Jerusalem Post on what kinds of "painful concessions" Israel would have to make, whether for peace or to alleviate its difficult demographic situation.

It seems clear to me that the trends currently are very unfavorable toward the Jewish communities ("settlements") in Judea and Samaria. PM Sharon strongly implied he'd dismantle large communities like Beit El, where people have lived for more than 25 years. As Yossi Klein Halevi pointed out in The Jerusalem Post, the religious community in Israel will be devastated by the destruction of towns in Judea and Samaria.

Unfortunately, nobody is doing anything to stop this trend. I'm not necessarily referring to stopping the trend by trying to stop the entire process toward a Palestinian state and a withdrawal from territory. Rather, there needs to be a pragmatic recognition that Israel is not forever going to retain all of the West Bank land it currently holds, with some of that land going to a Palestinian state. Once this is recognized, the key will be to try to retain as many communities as possible (i.e. Ariel, as much as possible of Gush Etzion, the Binyamin region, including Beit El; and strategic areas such as the Jordan Valley). Every "settlement" that is eventually annexed to Israel will cease to be a settlement and will thrive and grow by leaps and bounds. Gush Etzion has the potential to become a key region within Israel over the next decades. But this will only happen if people recognize and soberly accept the threat to the Jewish enterprise in Judea and Samaria, and act not to completely eliminate that threat, but to limit its results by fighting to save as much as possible.

Friday, May 07, 2004
 
Israelis On Unilateral Gaza Withdrawal

Colin Powell's statement that "the Likud party didn't vote for it. But when we look at the Israeli public, there's an 80 percent approval rating for" the Sharon plan, is directly contradicted by a poll for Maariv.

According the poll, which included Arab citizens of Israel, 54 percent support the Sharon plan, while 35 percent are opposed, with the rest undecided.

Thursday, May 06, 2004
 
Bush Disengages from Israel

As The Jerusalem Post and Maariv report, it only took a few weeks for President Bush to retract the letter he gave to Prime Minister Sharon. While that letter was essentially meaningless, Sharon claimed it was a historic achievement for Israel.

Haaretz adds that Bush will also send a letter to PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia "to balance the letter of understanding he had transferred to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon." This despite the PA's refusal to disengage from terrorism.

The Haaretz report also quotes Secretary of State Colin Powell as claiming that "when we look at the Israeli public, there's an 80 percent approval rating for" the Sharon plan. That's false; polls have indicated that a majority of Israelis support unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, but nowhere near 80 percent.

Hopefully this will at least dispel for some the sophomoric myth that President Bush is a great friend of Israel. Bush may be better for Israel than John Kerry, but his administration has forced an Israeli retreat to the '67 borders as much as any other.

 
More Jerusalem Post Mistakes

I don't mean to go after The Jerusalem Post, but this week's column by Calev Ben-David makes yet another significant mistake. Ben-David wrote:

In the days immediately following the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six Day War, the government approached the building of settlements as the logical fleshing-out of a country that was dangerously thin in the mid-section.

Thus the early focus by then-Labor governments on settling such areas as Gush Etzion, the Jerusalem suburbs, the Jordan valley, and the central Samarian hills region hugging the Green Line.

That relatively sensible "eating approach" was subsequently abandoned by the Likud, which under the influence of Gush Emunim went on a settlement-building binge whose raison d'etre was to simply render impossible any future attempt by Israel to reduce any of the territorial weight it acquired in 1967. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Gaza settlements.


In fact, it was Labor - not Likud - that formed the Gaza settlements. For example, Kfar Darom, one of the more isolated Gaza settlements, was formed in 1970 by the government led by Golda Meir. Kfar Darom had originally been established in 1946, but was destroyed by Arabs in the 1948 war. Labor later formed five other settlements in Gaza.

Certainly, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon are responsible for the significant expansion of the Gaza settlement enterprise, but Ben-David's suggestion that Labor pragmatically only established settlement in places like Gush Etzion, the Jordan Valley and western Samaria, and not Gaza, is completely inaccurate. Indeed, Labor leader Yigal Allon, who served us Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, called for annexation of Gaza.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004
 
Democracy and the Left

In a column in Thursday's Jerusalem Post, Larry Derfner, a left-wing columnist for the paper, writes that "it should be clear now that the settlers and their allies are much too strong for the Israeli majority. They can bring down governments, run circles around the IDF, and now, as the Likud referendum proved, take a voting public that started out solidly against them and browbeat it into submission."

Derfner has every right to his opinion that Israel should unilaterally dismantle the Gaza communities, and to lament the defeat of the Sharon plan in the Likud referendum. Indeed, if the polls are accurate, his view is in the majority. But his attack on "the settlers and their allies" is a disgrace. How exactly did they "take a voting public that started out solidly against them and browbeat it into submission"? Did they threaten the Likud members with any sort of harm? Did they riot and attack Arabs, or their political opponents in Israel? No, they simply had the gall to run an effective campaign against the plan. The Likud members who voted for or against - and those who chose not to vote at all - did so entirely of their own free will.

According to Derfner's logic, opponents of the Sharon plan had no right to express any criticism, especially since initial polls were against them. I guess his view of a democracy is one in which only those with political opinions similar to his can express, and struggle for approval of, their views. One wonders whether he objects to right-wing Post columnists such as Sarah Honig and Caroline Glick having written that, in their respective opinions, the plan is a disaster.

 
Jewish Press Column

Here's my column in this week's Jewish Press. There may be a few minor edits in the published version.


The Sharon Plan’s Defeat

By Joseph Schick

When he introduced his “disengagement plan” in December, Prime Minister Sharon listed its key components as:

1. "The relocation of settlements... [that] will not be included in the territory of the State of Israel in the framework of any possible future permanent agreement."

2. "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."

3. "Israel will greatly accelerate the construction of the security fence."

Sharon called his plan a package deal. He asked the United States for agreement to Israeli annexation of Ma'ale Adumim, Givat Ze'ev and other Jerusalem suburbs, as well as Gush Etzion and western Samaria. That request was rejected. So was the request to allow Israeli expansion of those areas.

Eventually, Sharon proclaimed President Bush's statement that Israel need not withdraw exactly to the 1967 borders to be a historic achievement. But even the Geneva Accord, under which Israel would retain 1.5 percent of Judea and Samaria (in exchange for an equivalent amount of territory in the Negev), would satisfy these criteria. Furthermore, Presidents Johnson, Reagan and Clinton have all already explicitly proclaimed that a withdrawal to the 1967 borders is not warranted.

Bush did not name even one post-1967 community that Israel would keep, and Sharon promised not to expand any of the settlements, including those in the large blocs. It is difficult to understand how a virtual ban on building within settlements “strengthens” them.

As for construction of the security fence, as a result of international pressure it has slowed, not accelerated. The fence is now slated to run close to the 1967 border. While Sharon promised Benjamin Netanyahu that the main settlement blocs would be included within the fence, he has also agreed to consult with the Bush Administration before extending parts of the fence to include Judea or Samaria communities.

When early polls indicated strong support for him, Sharon announced that a Likud referendum would be held, saying: “All Likud representatives, me included, will be bound by the results of the survey among all Likud members... The Prime Minister holds the ultimate responsibility, but critical decisions of this nature should be brought to a democratic vote.”

Once it became apparent that Likud members would likely defeat the Sharon plan, Sharon retracted his agreement to be bound by the results. Initial reports are that he may try to circumvent the Likud vote, possibly by holding a national referendum.

Political machinations of that sort would be reminiscent of the 1972 Olympic gold medal basketball game between the USA and the USSR. The Soviets trailed by one point with three seconds left, and failed to score. The referees decided that the clock should be reset. The Soviets missed again. However, the clock was reset yet again, and on their third try, the USSR scored to win the game.

Of course, Sharon has to make fateful decisions and Israel’s problems are not akin to a basketball game. But while issuing an alternative, scaled back plan would be acceptable, an effort by Sharon to ignore his promise to respect the referendum results and to push the same plan again should not be countenanced.

In any event, media reports suggesting that a large majority of Israelis support the Sharon plan, and that he would easily win a national referendum, should be viewed with great skepticism. Polls do show that by a margin of about 20 percent, a majority of Israelis support unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. But Sharon lost the Likud referendum by a twenty-point margin despite initial polls indicating an overwhelming victory for him. A coalition of Russians opposed to acting weak in the face of terror, Likud members and supporters, and right-wingers would make a national vote a close one.

Many critics of the Sharon plan – including this writer - are not opposed to withdrawal from Gaza and parts of Judea and Samaria under all circumstances. But Sharon never explained to Israelis generally, or to the Gaza residents particularly, why he, who was responsible for the building of many of the communities, now insists that they must all be unilaterally dismantled even as terror against all Israelis continues.

That Sharon first revealed that his plan entailed a full withdrawal from Gaza and from four Samaria communities in an interview with Haaretz's Yoel Marcus, rather than in a national television address to his citizens, was very disturbing.

In “Warrior,” his autobiography, Sharon wrote: “Gaza at this point is our southern security belt. What will we do once we withdraw from Gaza and find, as we inevitably will, that Arafat or his successors have stepped in and that squads of terrorists are again operating from there into Israel, murdering and destroying? What will we do when Katyusha fire starts hitting Sderot, four miles from the Gaza district, and Ashkelon, nine miles from Gaza?”

Do Israel’s demographic problems now override those concerns? Does defense of the Gaza settlements require more IDF manpower than Israel can afford? Perhaps, but Sharon didn’t say. Nor did Sharon explain why he previously rejected similar plans for unilateral withdrawal. Sharon's aides issued leaks that Likud ministers who opposed the plan (such as Natan Sharansky, Yisrael Katz and Uzi Landau) would be fired, and labeled Likud members who disagreed with Sharon as fanatics, senselessly and unfairly marginalizing members of their own party. Sharon desperately warned that rejection of his plan would cause both a crisis in Israel’s relations with America and severe economic damage.

All of these tactics backfired. In the end, Likud’s rejection of the Sharon plan was not a statement of political intransigence but an objection to Sharon’s attempt to force a radical ideological shift on the party and its members without offering an adequate basis for the change.

 
Amazin' Management

Grant Roberts, who is 26, makes about $300,000, very little for a major league pitcher, and when healthy, was one of the Mets' more effective relief pitchers over the last couple of seasons. While his failure to stay healthy has been frustrating, on a rebuilding team it made sense to give him a chance to finally prove his value.

Instead of doing that, after just four poor relief appearances, the Mets have placed Roberts on assignment, meaning that they must imminently trade or release him.

This is obviously great news for Roberts, as Mets rejects routinely promptly flourish with their new teams upon being discarded by the Mets.

Monday, May 03, 2004
 
Sloppy Reporting in TNR

Janine Zacharia does some very poor reporting and analysis in an online column in today's New Republic. Zacharia, who is also the Jerusalem Post's Washington correspondent, wrote about yesterday's Likud referendum.

Zacharia repeatedly got her facts wrong about the referendum:

1. Zacharia wrote: "Of those eligible, only 40 percent voted, or roughly 77,000 Israelis." In fact, it was 51.6%, or 99,652 Israelis.

2. She wrote: "One hundred percent of Gaza settlers participated in the vote, while in Tel Aviv suburbs like Ramat Gan and Petah Tikva only 38 percent cast ballots." This suggests that all adult members in Gaza voted, which is extremely misleading. Only a few hundred Gaza residents are Likud members and only they were eligible to vote. So the total vote from Gaza had no real effect on the result, in which Sharon lost by 20,000 votes. And furthermore, even in Gaza some voted for the plan. Indeed, in the settlement of Alei Sinai, the vote was split 50/50, 26 for and 26 against.

3. Contrary to Zacharia's implication, even in secular liberal cities, there was large opposition to the Sharon plan. In Tel Aviv, the vote against was 57.5%, while in Haifa, supporters edged opponents by just a few votes, with a 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent margin.

And most interestingly, in Israel's "development towns," which the media has claimed suffers because of funds that go to settlements. an overwhelming majority rejected the Sharon plan. In Sderot and Ofakim, 73 and 69 percent, respectively, supported the settlers.

As Daniel Ben Simon writes in today's Haaretz: "For the first time, the referendum pitted the settlers against the development towns. It was a battle everyone had been waiting for. For years the parties had fanned emotions on both sides, waiting to see them climb into the ring. When they did, the unbelievable happened - the two sectors fell into each others arms like family."

4. Zacharia claims that "an election decided by a far-right subset that makes up 2 percent of Israeli voters doesn't say much about where the country stands" since "polls have consistently shown that a majority of Israelis back the disengagement plan."

Labeling the majority of Likud members as "a far-right subset" is simply inaccurate. Most are pragmatists who would support territorial compromise if Israel had something to gain. And as for polls indicating that a majority of Israelis support the Sharon plan, none have been taken in months. Those that were taken a few months ago - such as this February Maariv poll that indicated support for Gaza withdrawal by a 52-36 percent margin - are no longer relevant. After all, as Zacharia writes, just weeks ago polls - such as an April 15 Dahaf poll indicating Likud support for Sharon by a 54-32 percent margin - showed that Likud members overwhelmingly supported the Sharon plan, and were obviously proven wrong. And besides, in December, another poll showed that 51 percent of Israelis opposed a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, with just 37 percent in support.

5. This doesn't stop Zacharia from stating that "the only voters this weekend were perhaps the most hawkish 2 percent of the Israeli electorate" and that Sharon therefore achieved a victory by convincing 40 percent of that purportedly fanatical group to support withdrawal.

Of course, this is nonsense. There are a number of political parties to the right of Likud, including the National Religious Party, which holds six Knesset seats, and National Union, which has seven. Members of those parties were, of course, ineligible to vote in the Likud referendum. So were Shas party members - who tend to hold political views far to the right of their party's leadership, as well as members of United Torah Judaism, which has also moved to the right.

Zacharia's notion that Likud and its members are extremists is especially off base given that Likud holds 40 Knesset seats, despite the fact that only 4 percent of the electorate are party members. Obviously, in the 2003 elections massive numbers of Israelis rejected Zacharia's thinking.

Sunday, May 02, 2004
 
Sharon Must Accept Results

It is exactly 3 P.M. in New York. The vote has just ended, and Likud members have - by a very wide margin - wisely rejected the Sharon plan.

When he announced his intention to hold a Likud referendum, Prime Minister Sharon said:

"All Likud representatives, me included, will be bound by the results of the survey among all Likud Members... The Prime Minister holds the ultimate responsibility, but critical decisions of this nature should be brought to a democratic vote. That is why I decided to accept the proposal submitted by Agriculture Minister, Yisrael Katz, and hold a survey among all Likud members, who will have to decide in favor or against the plan I will present."

Once it became apparent that the Sharon plan would likely be defeated by Likud members, Sharon retracted his agreement to be bound by the results. As today's Haaretz reported: "Sharon vowed over the weekend to continue pushing his disengagement plan forward even if he fails to gain the support of his own party in the Likud internal referendum Sunday."

Apparently Sharon will ignore the Likud vote he called for and will either hold a national referendum or simply ask for cabinet approval for the plan. His attempt to hijack the Likud party must be stopped.

Sharon's antics are reminiscent of the 1972 Olympic gold medal basketball game between the USA and the USSR. The Soviets trailed by one point with three seconds to go, and failed to score. The referees decided that the clock should be reset. The Soviets missed again. However, the clock was reset again, and on their third try, the USSR scored to win the game.

Media reports have been suggesting that a large majority of Israelis support the Sharon plan and that he would easily win a national referendum. In fact, those suggestions are conclusory. Polls show that by a margin of about 20 percent, a majority of Israelis support unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. But a majority of Likud members also initially supported Sharon. While Sharon might well win a national referendum, that is far from certain. It is likely that a coalition of Russians opposed to acting weak in the face of terror, Likud members furious at Sharon's refusal to accept the party's rejection of his plan, and right-wingers, will, at the very least, make a national vote a close one. Further, it would be almost certain that those opposed to the plan would be more likely to vote than supporters. Even supporters of unilateral withdrawal are generally not too enthusiastic about evicting thousands of Jews from their homes and watching Hamas leaders triumphantly take over the communities.

Given that Sharon lost the Likud referendum by a double digit number, it is quite possible that he would also lose a national referendum.

Many opponents of the Sharon plan are not necessarily opposed to eventual withdrawal from Gaza - and parts of Judea and Samaria - under the right circumstances. But Sharon never bothered to explain why unilateral withdrawal is necessary now, in middle of an unrelenting terrorist campaign against all Israelis. He simply said that he wanted to withdraw, and others must accept his decision and support him. He did not bother to explain why he previously lambasted similar plans by others, or why he built the Gaza settlements in the first place. Sharon's aides issued leaks that Likud ministers who opposed the plan, such as Natan Sharansky, Yisrael Katz and Uzi Landau, would be fired immediately after the plan was approved in the referendum. They also labeled those who disagreed with them as fanatics. In the end, Likud members chose the integrity of Landau, Sharansky, Benny Begin and Moshe Arens over the arrogant and pompous attitude of Sharon, his son Omri, and Ehud Olmert.

Sharon now must either accept his defeat, or resign. After promising to be bound by the results, he cannot continue to push a plan that his party rejected.