The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Self-Hatred Here's what Doron Rosenblum writes in his column in this week's Haaretz Magazine: How did the State of Israel, once one of the most promising, riveting and admired countries in the world, plunge from the heights of promise and hope into the depths of despair, bereavement and failure? What caused a country where, everyone agrees, there are intelligent people - and in any event, human material of equal caliber to that of any other country - to deteriorate, willingly and with full awareness, down the slope of the sewage of history? What made it become, gradually but systematically, one of the most hated, most isolated and most miserable places to be on the planet? Rosenblum eloquently expresses the view of Israel's media elite toward their own country. That view has very little to do with mainstream Israel, which recognizes that these are very tough times and that it will be necessary to fight and sacrifice to defeat their enemy. Arab and European readers of Haaretz might misconstrue that paper's self-hatred to be representative of the Israeli people's, but that perception would be inaccurate. Indeed, a recent survey showed that 83 percent of Israelis are "satisfied or very satisfied with their lives." Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Extremism The following are excepts from a letter by a leader of a Middle East group that appears in today's Arab News: The assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, with its accompanying killing of passers-by, is a mad, provocative act by a government which has lost all restraint... Prime Minister Sharon's talk of "withdrawal from Gaza", which had caught the headlines in the past months, is now revealed to be no more than meaningless chatter. Far from seriously intending to evacuate even a bit of occupied territory, this bankrupt prime minister - faced with police investigations into a myriad of corruption concerning himself and his sons - seems determined to bequeath to his country a legacy of eternal war with the Palestinians and the entire Arab and Muslim World. Every day that this man remains in power poses a grave danger to the future of Israelis and Palestinians alike. [We call] upon all sane and responsible forces left in the international community to intervene, urgently and forcefully, to save our region at the edge of the abyss and halt the monstrous cycle of bloodshed which now threatens to engulf us. The letter was written by Adam Keller of Gush Shalom, a fringe left-wing group in Israel. Abdel Aziz Rantisi has replaced Yassin as the head of Hamas in Gaza. Perhaps Keller would like to found Hamas' Tel Aviv branch. Soft Israeli Targets A number of Israeli newspapers, including Haaretz and Maariv, have published articles claiming that certain important sites are especially vulnerable to a massive terror attack in which hundreds or more could be killed. I'm not sure if that's responsible. Obviously the media's job is to report, but these articles could easily alert Hamas and other terror groups to potential targets. I wonder what the reaction here would be if the New York Times "proved" that security of Grand Central Terminal or the Empire State Building was terrible. When I was in Israel in 2002, I attended a conference at which a number of very prominent Israelis spoke, and was surprised by the apparent lack of security. I say apparent because there may well have been Shin Bet agents and undercover officers all around. But to be on the safe side, I wouldn't reveal specifics regarding my concerns. It's unlikely that Hamas reads this blog, but plenty of anti-Israel crazies do, judging by the many Google and Yahoo searches by some such visitors. Media Coverage of Yassin Liquidation Aside from Jennifer Griffin's suggestion that Yassin was a relative moderate, Fox News' coverage of the assassination has been fair. As far as I could tell, they made it clear that Hamas has killed scores of Israeli civilians and that Yassin wants Israel destroyed. In contrast, CNN claimed that unnamed "Palestinian sources" not only referred to Yassin as a moderate, but also claimed that he was about to call for talks with Israel. That is obviously preposterous; Yassin just last week called for Israel to be destroyed and for a "mega-attack" on Israelis. Most moronic of all was WABC-TV in New York (Channel 7). Their reporter on the 11:00 news last night covered the story as if a venerable religious leader had passed away. Her tone was somber and respectful when she interviewed Yassin supporters in New York, and she even informed viewers that a memorial service would take place tonight. In fact, she gave the address: 5602 6th Avenue, in the Sunset Park section of Brooklyn. Pretty scary considering that's just a few blocks outside of the heavily Jewish Boro Park section. Monday, March 22, 2004
Yassin Liquidation Thoughts on the Yassin assassination: 1. On an emotional level, the removal of this arch-terrorist from the world initially might satisfy some of the rage against Hamas. Yassin repeatedly taunted Israelis, promising that masses of civilians would be murdered, even in their own homes, and that Hamas would destroy Israel. In this regard, it is somewhat disappointing that Yassin was killed instantly, with his head blown off, probably not suffering and never knowing what hit him. 2. Presumably, the killing of their leading symbol will have a significant emotional affect on Hamas and its supporters too. Motivation to kill Jews could increase, though it was very high already. 3. Israel tried to kill Yassin and several other Hamas leaders in September, but used a relatively small bomb and the operation failed. At the time, Hamas threatened to kill Prime Minister Sharon and said Israel had opened the "gates of hell." They weren't lying. Two days later, two Hamas suicide bombings occurred, including the Cafe Hillel bombing that killed Dr. David Applebaum, ER chief of Shaare Zedek Hospital, and his daughter Naava, who was to get married the following day. Of course, the Cafe Hillel bombing may well have happened even if Israel hadn't tried to kill Yassin. After all, Hamas was already in the midst of a massive campaign of terror, including a Jerusalem bus bombing in August. 4. Since its failed attempt to kill Yassin and the Cafe Hillel tragedy, Israel had refrained from killing Hamas leaders, but Hamas did not stop suicide bombings. Another bus bombing occurred in Jerusalem in late January, and attacks have also taken place in Tel Aviv, Netanya and Ashdod. Hamas leaders also began appearing in public in Gaza. Indeed, Yassin had resume his routine of going to morning mosque prayers, which is where he went this morning before his elimination. 5. It's reasonable to fear that Hamas will try to kill Israelis in response to the Yassin liquidation. In the short-term, terrorism could increase. 6. It is difficult to imagine Israel ever reaching even a cease-fire of more than a few months with Hamas. Hamas will continue to kill Jewish civilians and try to destroy Israel, and ultimately, Israel is going to have to engage in war against them. The Yassin assassination only makes sense if it is part of a strategic decision to kill all Hamas terrorists - political and military, junior, senior and mid-level, and if Israel is able to successfully implement that strategy. Killing Yassin alone will only inflame the situation without stopping or deterring future attacks. Following today's decision with the elimination of others, including - but not limited to - Muhammad Deif and Abdel Aziz Rantisi might create a vacuum in the Hamas leadership, and cause Hamas terrorists to spend more time hiding from Israel than planning terrorism. Camp David/Taba Confusion People routinely confuse the concessions Israel offered at Camp David in July 2000 with those it made at Taba in January 2001. Under the latter, based on the Clinton Plan, Israel would have withdrawn from 94-96% of Judea and Samaria, and as well as an amount of territory within Israel's 1948 borders equal to 1-3%. Under the Clinton Plan, 80 percent of the settlers would have remained under Israeli rule in settlement blocs. Israel would have retained the settlements around Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion settlement bloc, and the Ariel bloc in Western Samaria. The concessions called for under Taba/Clinton Plan were much more radical than those offered at Camp David. At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered 90-92 percent of Judea and Samaria, and only the outlying Arab sections of Jerusalem; all of the Old City would have been annexed to Israel. In the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein misunderstands Taba and Camp David, when he writes, questioning a Haaretz article, that, if accepted, Sharon's request that President Bush agree to U.S. recognition of Israeli recognition of the Gush Etzion bloc "would be a huge victory for Israel" since it would annex territory that Israel would have kept under Camp David, but not under Taba. Bernstein is wrong. In fact, Gush Etzion would have been annexed under either plan, and even the recently proposed Geneva Accord would have retained Gush Etzion, albeit with the exception of Efrat, the area's largest community. UPDATE: In the comments, reader Zev asks, "Would Israel have kept additional settlements under Camp David? If so, which ones?" Indeed, Israel would have retained many more settlements under the Camp David proposals than under Taba. Under Camp David, Israel would have retained a bloc of settlements in the Binyamin region, including Beit El, Ofra and Shilo, as well as Kedumim, and a security zone along the Jordan Valley (but not the Jordan Valley in its entirety). At Taba (which was based on the Clinton Plan), all of these were conceded. Not only would this result in fewer settlements, it would isolate the surviving settlement blocs from either other making them somewhat unattractive places to live even after annexation. In contrast, under Camp David, the fourth surviving bloc in the Binyamin area would have connected the various Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria. Also, as mentioned, Israel would have kept all of the Old City of Jerusalem at Camp David, but not at Taba. Check out this site for some of the differences between Camp David and Taba - though keep in mind that it's written by Palestinians from a Palestinian perspective. UPDATE 2: David Bernstein responds: You have a very useful summary of the differences between Taba and Camp David, but I didn't state, and didn't mean to suggest that the Gush bloc wouldn't have gone to Israel under either plan. I merely meant that since Israel already made further concessions at Taba, to get back to Camp David, and with someone committed to peace unlike Arafat, would be a great victory. Friday, March 19, 2004
Jack Kelley Today's USA Today essentially concedes that Jack Kelley's 2001 report about settlers in Hebron shooting at Palestinians was a fabrication. The article claimed that Avi Shapiro was the leader of the Jewish terrorists, and quoted Shapiro calling for "Muslim filth" to be killed: [USA TODAY] traveled to Israel to try to find Shapiro. But in failing to find him, reporters learned that no detail of Shapiro's life - contained in the story or offered by Kelley in interviews - could be verified. Israeli authorities say they have no record of an Avi Shapiro who fits the description Kelley offered. Hebron, where the settler community is close-knit, has no record either. Shin Bet looked into the alleged incident after Kelley's story and found it had no merit, says Daniel Seaman, a government spokesman. Israel's National Police, questioned by another news outlet about the incident just after Kelley's story, could find no record of a complaint either, even though Palestinians in the Hebron area logged about 250 other complaints in the preceding nine months. The Palestinian State Information Service also found no record of the incident. Shortly before Kelley's story, however, The Jerusalem Post reported Jewish terrorists were suspected of four shootings against Palestinians on area roads since mid-June. USA Today also concludes that a number of other prominent Kelley pieces were frauds, including Kelley's article claiming that he witnessed the bombing of Sbarro in Jerusalem, also in 2001. Initially, USA Today believed the Sbarro piece to be accurate, though common sense suggested otherwise. Now, the paper concedes that "what really happened that day, based on police records and interviews with rescue workers and others at the scene, differs substantially from Kelley's Aug. 10 account." I posted in detail on the matter in January, while Jason Maoz wrote a Jewish Press column that quoted me extensively: "Kelley was considered fair in his reporting from Jerusalem," says attorney Joseph Schick, who revisited the issue on his blog, The Zionist Conspiracy. "When the Hebron community charged that his piece about Hebron residents attacking Arabs was totally false, many doubted that he had made it all up. A few days later 9/11 occurred, ending discussion of the topic until Kelley's recent resignation." Schick, an op-ed contributor to The Jewish Press, says it's clear the story is fake. "Kelley wrote that 13 'extremists' attacked Arabs, while their wives actively aided and abetted the crimes, and their children stood by. The ringleader of the settlers is identified as Avi Shapiro, originally from Brooklyn. The attacks were reported to have occurred on Highway 60 - the main road in Judea and Samaria, going from the Ramallah area in the north to the Hebron area in the south. Many Palestinians drive through, and there are a number of IDF checkpoints on the highway. Yet USA Today's investigation could not come up with a single witness to any aspect of the alleged incident. Nor could it confirm that Avi Shapiro exists." Schick says he also has doubts about Kelley's Sbarro story. "Kelley's claim in that article to have practically bumped into the bomber just prior to entering Sbarro seems unlikely. He also claimed to be with 'an Israeli official' whom he was interviewing at lunch. When USA Today asked him for verification, he told them it was an 'Israeli undercover agent,' and the paper was satisfied when he provided an Israeli phone number at which someone picked up and confirmed Kelley's account. They also said that since he called his superior shortly after the bombing, he was probably telling the truth. Come on. How long does it take to find out about an attack and get over to King George and Jaffa?" Curiously, the Kelley scandal has received much less attention than the ones involving Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. After all, Kelley was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2002 and a five time nominee, and therefore a much more prominent reporter than either Blair or Glass. Even after Kelley was forced to resign in January, only the Washington Post offered significant coverage. Most likely - in contrast to Blair and Glass who were in their 20's - Kelley was well known and well liked in the journalistic world and therefore immune from serious examination and criticism by his peers. UPDATE: Saturday's Washington Post reports that Kelley tried to cover up his fraud by pretending that "David," an ex-Shin Bet officer, could vouch for the accuracy of his Shapiro and Sbarro stories. Yet "David" is in fact a businessman in Israel. USA Today found an e-mail from Kelley to the businessman, saying: "Hey, bro! How are you? Thanks for helping me out with this story. I appreciate it. I need you to be 'David,' one more time. This will be it. I promise. No more." Kelley suggested David gives certain answers to a reporter looking into the stories' accuracy, including that in response to the question: "'Where is Shapiro?' Please tell him that all you can say is that he is not in Israel anymore." Thursday, March 11, 2004
Stupid Letter of the Week The Jewish Week published a moronic letter from Mariane J. Nicosia, who wrote: I’m 27 years old and I think it’s refreshing that Mel Gibson has created a film for young Christians such as myself who don’t know the history and orthodoxy of Christianity and is willing to tell the story of Jesus as “it is as it was.” I just want to go on the record and say that any anti-Semitism that comes out of me won’t be coming from his movie “The Passion of the Christ.” It will come from Jewish groups who have contrived and convinced the media that audiences should fear anti-Semitism in the film, knowing full well the strong anti-Christian sentiment that exists in our secular society. The real fear of “The Passion” is not anti-Semitism but acceptance of Christianity in the Jewish community, or to put it more precisely, fear of rejecting Judaism to conversion to Christianity. And overall it’s really sad that the controversy has divided people among religious beliefs and has suppressed Mel Gibson’s original intention to bring people together to discuss Christianity beyond the superficialities. Rather than reject anti-Semitism but argue that "the Passion" is not anti-Semitic - as Mel Gibson himself does - Nicosia indicates that Jewish groups who supposedly "contrived and convinced the media" in a manner she disagrees with justify her own hatred for Jews. Perhaps less hateful but certainly no less stupid is Nicosia's argument that criticism of "the Passion" comes from Jewish fear of conversion to Christianity. Columns of the Week 1. David Ellenson, president of the Reform movement's rabbinical school, has a column in this week's Jewish Week that perfectly demonstrates why Orthodox Jews must reject Reform views on religious issues as illegitimate. Ellenson argues that Judaism supports same sex marriage. His argument boils down to: A tradition that demands "You shall do that which is upright and good" can surely be construed in such a way that the ethos of Jewish tradition can be said to trump a single statement in Leviticus 18:22 that condemns homosexual behavior as an abomination... At the time when the biblical prohibition regarding homosexuality was written and in subsequent classical rabbinic commentaries on that passage, the rabbis could not imagine a monogamous, procreative same-sex relationship. This is surely part of the rationale behind the condemnation contained in Leviticus. Putting aside Ellenson's claim that doing "that which is upright and good" somehow must include gay marriage, from the Orthodox perspective, the Torah is divine and an explicit law in the Torah cannot simply be ignored. There is no alternative but to completely reject all of Ellenson's argument that Judaism supports gay marriage. Ellenson sees the Torah is having written by "rabbis" and therefore subject to alteration by other rabbis, but it is impossible for observant Jews to accept that. 2. I've criticized his work in the past, but while Steven Plaut gets carried away a few times in his latest Jewish Press cover piece, overall the column is a fine one. Here are some excerpts: It has become vogue in many circles to represent Middle East savagery as part of some sort of "war of civilizations." It is not. In fact, it is simply a war by barbarism against all civilization... It has been repeated so endlessly and so mindlessly that Palestinian terror is a consequence of Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza that the most glaring and obvious fact of all is being gnored: the Palestinian terrorism of these past eleven years was not caused by Israeli occupation but by its removal. As a result of Israel's offering to allow the PLO control over the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel's willingness to acquiesce in Palestinian statehood in the medium run, the PLO and its affiliates have murdered 1,300 Israelis, most of them civilians and many of them children, since foreswearing the use of violence. The notion that the terror is coming from "renegade" organizations outside the PLO and which the PLO cannot control is little more than an insult to the world's collective intelligence. In recent months the bulk of the violence (including many of the suicide bombings) has come from the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, from Fatah, and from the Tanzim. All of these are under the direct personal command and control of Yasir Arafat... The world media largely ignore the fact that the PLO operates a large military-industrial complex, many from out of North-Vietnamese-style underground tunnels. These have produced large numbers of ground-to-ground rockets... Part of the world's problem in understanding the Middle East is that most people have no idea of how small Israel really is. Without the West Bank, Israel is at its waist about as wide as the length of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. All of the West Bank is smaller than the New York City borough of Queens. If Israel were to turn the West Bank over to complete PLO control, many of the landing routes into Tel Aviv would pass unavoidably over the Palestinian territories, making every flight vulnerable to the very same terrorists who have made those nine recent attempts at firing shoulder-held missiles at landing jetliners... The fact of the matter is that the West Bank and Gaza are hardly "Palestinian lands," and even if they were, why should Israel not build its fence on such lands? The same people insisting that these are Palestinian lands never quite seem to come to terms with the notion that it is Palestinian terrorism that Israel is fighting. Were it not for the terrorism, there would be no need for any fence... Even if one is inclined to the notion that the Palestinians might at some point have had some legitimate claim to statehood, the Palestinians themselves forfeited any right to sovereignty over those territories as a result of their decades-long war of atrocity and terror. True, Israeli governments in the 1990`s were, naively and foolishly, willing to grant the PLO control over these territories in exchange for peace. But rather than peace, Israel got war and mass murder of its civilians in exchange... While I have my strategic doubts about the fence, if Israel is going to build it at all, it should definitely not follow the lines of Israel's pre-1967 Green Line border. That would only reward the terrorists by signaling that Israel is acquiescing in acknowledging everything on the other side of the wall as somehow "Palestinian." If the past decade has taught us anything, it is that appeasement of terror simply breeds more terror... Palestinian "suffering"? If the Palestinians are unhappy with Israeli fences and checkpoints and military incursions, let them stop the terror and desist from murdering Israelis... The endless post-Oslo Middle East violence and terror was triggered because Israel indicated that it was on the run, exhausted, unwilling to fight, and ready to capitulate. It will end only when Israel gets back its determination to end the terror through military victory and force of arms. The United States, which has understood that there is only a military option for dealing with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, must back up such a return by Israel to pre-Oslo sanity. Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Maariv and Sharon After Maariv repeatedly bashed Prime Minister Sharon and charged him with overpaying for the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum because of business ties to Tennenbaum's former father-in-law, the newspaper's chairman responded with an unusual op-ed supporting Sharon. Here are excerpts of the column by the chairman, Yaakov Nimrodi: The current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was my commander in the army and is a personal friend. Despite everything written in Maariv, and other media outlets, I trust him completely and believe that he is an honest, upright man, unsullied by the smallest speck of corruption... I am affronted by the attempt to make a connection between past relationships and the critical decisions that the Prime Minster must make about the fate, character and security of the State of Israel... Moreover, I vehemently disagree with the attempt to portray the Prime Minister’s decisions about the prisoner exchange as dependent on this relationship. I believe totally that the Prime Minister’s considerations in the case were pure and completely free of extraneous factors; that he acted solely in good faith and on a firm, palpable evaluation that the exchange was an essential, important thing to do for the security of the state, in accordance with its Jewish and humanitarian values. I am neither a journalist nor a commentator. As publisher, I do not interfere with the articles written by Maariv’s reporters and commentators. However, the publisher also has the right to express his opinion. My firm opinion is that there was no reason to accuse Ariel Sharon of scheming and pressing for approval of the prisoner exchange deal because of some old, convoluted relationship with Tennenbaum’s former father-in-law. Friday, March 05, 2004
Column of the Week None of the columns appearing in the three New York Jewish weeklies this week seem objectionable, though admittedly I often do not bother to read all of the Forward's columns. While The Jewish Week has been publishing lots of stupid columns in recent months, this week's crop is quite good, particularly the pieces by Stephen Flatow and David Makovsky. Thursday, March 04, 2004
New York Rangers The sudden dismantling of the New York Rangers is infuriating in light of the fact that just a few weeks ago, the Rangers acquired Jaromir Jagr, their latest overpriced bust. Obviously, Rangers President and GM Glen Sather has no strategy, let alone a cohesive one. If upon taking over the management reigns four years ago Sather would have sought to put together a mix of young and veteran talent, there would have been no need to trade Brian Leetch last night. Indeed, if he had bothered to acquire a decent goalie following Mike Richter's retirement, the Rangers might at least be a playoff contender and Leetch a key player. Now that so much damage has been done, the moves make sense, even the departure of Leetch. After more than 16 years as a Ranger, it's hard to imagine Leetch no longer leading the Rangers' power plays. But while still a good player, Leetch is on the decline and is better suited for a team with a chance to win. The Rangers will be worse in the short term without Leetch, but they're terrible anyway. I was at Leetch's last game as a Ranger on Tuesday night - all four games I've attended this season have been losses - and the energy and excitement are completely gone from Madison Square Garden. Hopefully a new coach - preferably Larry Robinson - and a few of the future draft choices accumulated by Sather will help restore the Rangers' past glory, but Sather's performance in New York does not inspire confidence in the organization's ability to recognize and develop talent, or to hire the right coaches. Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The Tennenbaum Scandal I've been opposed all along to the asinine deal with Hizbullah, but think Maariv's latest expose exaggerates the importance of Prime Minister Sharon's working relationship with the ex-father-in-law of Elhanan Tennenbaum, a relationship that apparently ended around 30 years ago. The notion that Sharon's brief acquaintance with Tennenbaum's ex-father-in-law is proof that there was a corrupt motive for the deal strikes me as unfounded, at best. But it didn't stop Maariv from publishing three columns calling for Sharon's resignation. Furthermore, almost everyone is forgetting that the Israeli cabinet approved the prisoner exchange. While Sharon certainly pressured the cabinet members, ultimately they are as responsible as Sharon is for the deal. | "
