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

 
Anti-Semitic Screed of the Day

Today's Arab News has a column by Sarah Whalen, who apparently is a former law professor at Loyola. Whalen is upset that President Bush has said that Daniel Pearl was killed for being a Jew. The article is interesting only because it is another important example of the crap published and read by the Arab intelligentsia.

Here are excerpts:

How many times can a politician use the word “Jew” or “Jewish” in a sentence? Even once gets attention...

Both Mariane [Pearl], of Jewish descent, and Attorney Kelner, Jewish, appeared on countless television programs trumpeting their cause.

And never, not once, did either ever say that Muslim terrorists killed Danny because he was Jewish. But Bush does. Bush claims the “young reporter’s” throat was “cut...for being a Jew.” Are being an “American,” a “capitalist,” or a “Jew,” all now mutually, irrevocably interconnected?

Bush is afraid that he won’t get money and the kind of support that not even money can buy if Danny wasn’t killed because he was Jewish. Did Danny’s killers cut his throat because he was Jewish?

They reportedly said so...

But what largely incenses Muslims all over the world should trouble everyone — Israel’s power to compel obedience from the most powerful nation on earth. Danny Pearl was killed not for “being” Jewish, but for what “Jewish” has come to mean, rightly or wrongly, in a part of the world that sympathizes and suffers with those the Israelis have dispossessed from land, from culture, from civil rights. Danny was killed not by powerful actors in service of some evil ideology, but by those powerless before Zionism.
posted on 4/30/2004

 
Happy Independence Day

Israelis are celebrating Yom Ha'atzmaut, their Independence Day.

Nine years ago The Jerusalem Post published an excellent piece about Israel's achievements, written by Yosef (Tommy) Lapid, who today is the leader of the anti-religious Shinui party. While I'm no fan of Lapid, his 1995 article was superb - I was in Israel that summer and saved the article - so I'm posting it here.

TO MY CANDID, ENVIOUS FRIEND
by YOSEF LAPID

THE Independence Day edition of Tel Aviv's local Ha'ir weekly ran an article by the Palestinian-Israeli writer Anton Shamas, penned with his usual fluency.

"Ladies and gentlemen," he wrote, "the time has come, on this festive day, to admit with complete candor, without shame or downcast eyes, that the whole business has turned out badly. The Zionist adventure has been a total failure."

It's a good thing Shamas came out and said it. Because an article like this, by an authoritative Arab intellectual, is a fine opportunity to express a few truths one hesitates to voice without a suitable pretext.

Shamas, my friend: Zionism is the greatest success story of the 20th century. Fifty years after the defeat of Hitler and the mufti of Jerusalem, Zionism is thriving in the heart of the Middle East, in a state of 4.5 million Jews - Jews whose survival was, for a moment, in doubt.

The Hebrew language (one of Zionism's wonders) has bonded sabras and refugees from the camps, Sephardim and Oriental Jews. Within half a century, the Zionists, starting with almost nothing, have forged a state which launches its own space satellites and provides the US Navy with pilotless drones. It exports sophisticated computer programs and teaches Latin Americans how to grow melons.

Every month this state exports goods worth a billion dollars and more to Western Europe, the US and even Japan; it has an exemplary democracy, one in which cabinet ministers fear the state comptroller, and judges fear only God.

This state has produced an army deemed one of the world's best; there is little violent crime, and many fine concerts. People of all religions enjoy freedom of worship, and non-believers are welcome too.

Ten percent of the country's citizens are new immigrants; and 89 percent think that, despite all the hardships - and the Jewish Agency - it's a good place to live in.

This is a state in which an Anton Shamas is free, on a national holiday, to publish a virulent attack on everything that the Jews living in the state hold dear.

Shamas might be able to forgive us for all this, perhaps. But what he cannot bear is the fact that, held up in the light of Zionism's achievements, the Arabs' failure appears so humiliating and depressing.

HOW MANY Palestinians are there, my friend? One million - two, three? And how many Arab states are there around you? Twenty? Twenty countries of kings and dictators, of terror and bloodshed. There isn't a single Arab democracy, one with freedom of expression and civil rights.

You talk about the failure of the State of Israel. Compared to what? Algeria? Egypt? Iraq?

How many Arabs live between the Atlantic Ocean and the Persian Gulf? A hundred million? Two hundred million? And how many Moslems are there? A billion?

All of them pray to the same Allah, in the name of the same prophet, Mohammed. And all of them together can't solve Gaza's sewage problem.

For 47 years you've been preparing for Palestinian independence, and yet you're still not collecting the garbage in Jericho.

With all the oil in the world, you can't muster the Arab brotherhood needed to build a hospital in Deir el-Balah. And all the gold faucets in Saudi Arabia and all the jacuzzis in Kuwait aren't enough to provide clean drinking water for Jabalya.

When all's said and done, my friend, you know very well that if almost a million Jews lived in Gaza, surrounded by 20 Jewish states, Jewish Gaza would be paradise on earth. Palestinian laborers would be lining up at the Erez Junction facing the other way to get work in Gaza.

If there were a billion believing Jews in the world, Gaza's Jews wouldn't need handouts from the UN; the world's Jews would have taken care of Gaza's Jews, and they would long since have converted Gaza into the pearl of the Mediterranean.

You know all this, Anton Shamas, and that's what's eating you. Envy has led you into irrationality.

Thus the time has come, with complete candor, without shame or downcast eyes, to conclude: It hasn't worked out, this whole business: The Palestinian adventure has been a total failure.
posted on 4/26/2004

 
No to the Sharon Plan

Prime Minister Sharon initially claimed his plan would be a package deal. Israel would withdraw from some settlements, strengthen others, and would accelerate construction of the fence.

Yet Sharon has failed to strengthen any of the settlements, while construction of the fence has slowed, with the main settlements blocs not incorporated.

While Sharon has promised Binyamin Netanyahu that the main settlement blocs would be included within the fence, he has also agreed to consult with the Bush Administration before extension of parts of the fence to include Judea or Samaria communities.

Sharon claims that Bush's statement recognizing that Israel will not withdraw fully to the 1967 borders is revolutionary. In fact, Bush did not mention even one post-1967 community that Israel would keep, and Sharon promised not to expand any of the settlements, including Maaleh Adumim, those in Gush Etzion, or in the "Ariel bloc" in western Samaria. It's hard to see how a ban on building within setlements "strengthens" them.

Furthermore, the Geneva Accord and Clinton Plan already recognize that Israel will not return all the way to the 1967 borders, while Presidents Johnson, Reagan and Clinton have all said that full withdrawal is not necessary.

But although I am very uncomfortable with unilateral withdrawal while terror continues, I do not necessarily advocate remaining in Gaza, even in the short term. (Whether withdrawal of settlements will actually allow the IDF to disengage from Gaza is doubtful, and another topic altogether.) While my one visit there (in October) was a very positive experience and it would be very painful if Jews are evicted from their homes, I am cognizant of the fact that many Israelis have extremely negative associations with Gaza. Those of us outside of Israel need to respect Israeli decision on this issue.

I do, however, object to withdrawal from all of northern Samaria, as the Sharon plan requires. It's hard to see the point of such a withdrawal. Without question, Israel will have to continue to engage its military in violent areas such as Nablus and Jenin; dismantling settlements there will hardly reduce the IDF's presence.

Overall, my opposition to the Sharon plan is based upon Sharon's failure to accelerate construction of the fence, and to strengthen the major settlements, along with his unabashed use of misinformation, and his failure to explain why he has changed his worldview. That he revealed his intention to leave Gaza in an interview with Haaretz's Yoel Marcus rather than in a national television address to his citizens is extremely disturbing. He has not bothered to explain to Israelis generally or the Gaza residents particularly, why he, who sent them there, now feels they must leave. Sharon believes it suffices to simply say that he has changed his mind and is right. He does not inspire confidence and does not deserve a vote of confidence.

Sharon's claim that his meeting with Bush achieved something revolutionary and assured the survival of the major settlements is nonsense. He knows this, but cynically tells Likud members that failure to ratify his plan will lead to a collapse in relations with the U.S.

As a result, I hope the Sharon plan is defeated in next week's Likud referendum. And I expect that it will be, in a very close vote amid moderate turnout.
posted on 4/26/2004

 
Rabbi Mayer Schiller on Neturei Karta and Zionism

Rabbi Mayer Schiller has agreed to my posting of my e-mail exchanges with him over the last few days. Following is the large majority of the exchange. Since this is rather long, I omitted a couple of small nonmaterial and/or redundant lines of discussion.

JS: In 2002, you wrote the following:

As one who has personal knowledge of NK activities I can testify that many NKites have, as I put it, stumbled into humanism. In other words, their work with pro peace and Palestinian groups has led them to see and embrace the humanity of all. This is not true of all of them but it is a trend and of some importance for the ACJ perspective.

I would like to inquire about your position stated above, and appreciate amplification and clarification of the same.

RMS: I stand by this statement today only as regards a handful of NK. They have come to see the humanity of all men, something Orthodox Jews sometimes struggle with, however understandable post WW II. However, I reject, utterly, the moral double standard of some in NK, ever ready to condemn Israeli misdeeds but mum on Palestinian evil. Morality is not tribal in my view and we should as the am segulah be ready to condemn evil everywhere. And, of course, praise the good.

JS: what is your view of the hesped for Sheikh Yassin given by Yisroel Weiss in Sunset Park, Brooklyn?

RMS: I find it appalling, way off base morally and to the little extent that I could, I tried, but failed to stop it. However, I will add that those NKers that I have some influence on, opposed the talk.

JS: It seems to me that NK has gone from an ideological opposition to Zionism that, pre-state, was part of the mainstream, to a lunatic fringe whose ideological views cause it to support the murderers of Jewish men, women and children.

RMS: No, that's not how they see it. It is probably best you speak to them personally. They see themselves as protecting Jews and saving Jewish lives. Indeed, this is their primary motivation. They think that humbling ourselves before our enemies is the way Jews should approach non Jews in golus.--- My own perspective is that our calling as an am Hashem obligates us to criticize evil wherever it may be. Palestinian civilian bombers are evil, as are all those who wage war against civilians. Thus, I reject the NK position on this but understand that their motivation may be misguided but it is for the good of our people as they see it.

JS: did you support the pro-Israel rally in DC April 2002, or the pro-Palestinian one days later attended, on shabbos, by NK leaders?

RMS: Actually neither. I support all efforts at reconciliation between all men and, hence, locate myself, roughly, with sympathy for the Israeli peace camp (preferably Orthodox as in Oz Veshalom, Meimad etc.), with many further thoughts that I could spell out, if relevant. This view was not represented at either rally.

JS: NK has never (to my knowledge) attempted to explain itself to mainstream orthodox Jews, and while I am admittedly disgusted by its antics, I am open to understanding why you speak positively about it.

RMS: No not of "it" only of a few of them. I am very concerned with how modern man can live with the Other whether it be Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, Serbs and Croats or Jews and Palestinians. In other words, can we fiercely love and cherish our own group identities and yet find a way to resolve conflicts when our view of reality conflicts with that of others. I have seem glimmers of this reconciliation being achieved by some (few) NKers for the right reasons. By right reasons I mean due to common humanity -- not because we should "kiss up" to non Jewish evil. Unfortunately, few NKers have this motivation.

JS: You identify yourself as being in sympathy with groups such as Meimad, etc. I assume that relates to politics, not to Zionism. In another words, with respect to Zionism (and certainly "religious Zionism"), I'd assume your position is contrary to Meimad, which, arguably, is representative of the national religious camp in Israel's approach prior to 1967.

RMS: Oh boy, this would take a long time to flesh out clearly. In brief, I am more concerned with, what I call "essences" or "meta politics" than with ideology. In other words, to me the core value is that Klal Yisrael be loyal to its calling to be a "light unto the nations." The particular political form this takes is vastly secondary to me. Therefore, if a Zionist is moral and menschlich towards other peoples (like Oz Veshalom or even secular leftists) or he is a mensch because he is a Hirschian anti Zionist or a Satmar anti Zionist or an NK anti Zionist is not the most important question for me. In fact, if a right wing religious Zionist is sincerely pained by the Palestinian plight but feels that the risk is too great to grant them statehood than he is closer to my core sentiment than a Satmerer or NK anti Zionist who hates goyim.

I understand the Satmar, Bdatz, TA, NK and, incidentally Hirschian anti Zionist position, that it violates the terms of golus etc., but I know that the other side has its share of ma-amorie Chazal and pesukim as well. I don't know, here or elsewhere in internal Orthodox disputes how one can know the truth. I think all one can do is guess. Skver/rachmistrivka don't have a coherent position on any of it so I remain, safely, agnostic.

JS: If the pro-Israel rally in 2002 had - in your view - sufficiently included dovish elements, could you then have supported it? (Rabbi Melchior, Meimad's leader, actually was a speaker of that rally).

RMS: I wasn't aware of that fact. Maybe if the "doves" were vocal. I respect Rabbi Melchior, he is bit too political for my taste, though) but if you told me that Uriel Simon or the Bereaved Parents Group was there I'd be even happier.

JS: You speak of the 2 state solution in positive terms, but isn't NK's view that there must be a 1 state solution?

RMS: Yes, absolutely.

JS: Where are the more moderate NK members/supporters?

RMS: the Jerusalem leadership that opposes Palestinian contacts has no window to the outside world.. Ditto the Monsey dissident faction.

JS: Is it fair to say that the leadership is extreme?

RMS: In NK there are several streams. There is 1) Jerusalem based NKers who oppose the state but will never speak about Palestinian rule or what should follow on the state's dissolution. (Like mainstream Satmar they have block in their ideology, that is, no Israel but no alternative!) they would never appear with Palestinians and the like. 2) Rabbi Hirsch who believes that Palestinian rule is inevitable and it is best to be nice today for who knows what will happen later. These people also based in Jerusalem in Torah V'yirah will march with Palestinians. 3) Rabbi Domb in London, very against any involvement with Palestinians although fervently anti state. 4) Rabbi Becher in London. Has his own theory on what Satmar Rov and Reb Amram really wanted. You'd have to ask him. 5) Rabbi Beck and followers. 6) Rabbi Beck's dissidents.

JS: Why do you think the vast majority of Orthodox Jews - including those who identify as charedi and don't consider themselves Zionist - object to NK?

RMS: Charedi non Zionists, that is the Agudah, want the state for its money and protection but refuse to serve in the army or participate in its patriotic rituals. They certainly fear any serious discussion of first principles since to them being non Zionist means being anti Zionist. And they want to leave matters at that.

JS: Let's say NK is right about Zionism being the root of all of our problems in Israel/Palestine. Why do they still blame "Zionists?" Isn't the "fault" that of the Jews of Israel and the world, nearly all of whom support Israel's right to exist despite Zionism's purported illegality and immorality?

RMS: They would say that the Zionists have brainwashed the masses of Jewry.

JS: Why is it specifically important to care about the Palestinians?

RMS: Well, because it seems that the Hashgocha has placed them and their hopes for self determination in our path. It's not a chiyuv on every yochid but it does seem that our destinies have become linked.

JS: Why assume that a secular leftist cares about Palestinians? Aren't there other likely motivations for left-wing stances?

RMS: Yes, self loathing. You'll never find a leftist who cares about suffering white or Christian peoples. Examples Afrikaner in the "new South Africa," whites under Mugabe, Loyalist victims of IRA terror, Sudetan Germans the list is endless. I agree that a lot of leftist agitation is due to hatred of the West, the white race and any non Third World political aspiration. However, not all.

JS: Your point about Agudah is certainly on target. The absurdity of their (non)position was illustrated at the time of the 2002 rally. Most of their "constituents" are Zionists, though they don't think of themselves as such.

RMS: It is an immoral position that wants the good of the state but shuns obligations. The Satmar, TA, NK position is far more morally consistent.
posted on 4/22/2004

 
Back

I'm back from a week in Florida. I hope to have a chance soon to post my thoughts on the Sharon/Bush meeting and its meaning and consequences, as well as a follow-up to my April 9 post about Rabbi Mayer Schiller and Neturei Karta.

For now, very briefly:

1. Contrary to media suggestion, Bush has provided Israel with absolutely nothing new. Support for the Sharon plan should be based only on whether unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and part of Samaria is, in one's view, good or bad for Israel.

2. Rabbi Schiller and I are in the midst of an interesting e-mail correspondence. I will post highlights if he consents.
posted on 4/19/2004

 
Mayer Schiller

Rabbi Mayer Schiller, a chasidic rabbi who was featured in the documentary A Life Apart, is a high school rabbi at MTA - Yeshiva University's high school- and a popular and interesting speaker.

Schiller has expressed ideological opposition to Zionism (some of his articles can be read at the web site of Third Way, a radical right-wing nationalist group), which, though YU espouses religious Zionism, is neither surprising nor particularly troubling.

However, Schiller has also expressed praise for, and indicated participation in, Neturei Karta, a fanatical group whose leaders not only support Israel's replacement with a Palestinian state and have accepted money from Yasser Arafat, but have even eulogized Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Indeed, at a memorial service for Yassin in Brooklyn, Neturei Karta leader Yisroel Dovid Weiss stated, in part:

May G-d help that our hope and dream come to fruition, speedily and peacefully, painlessly without any further bloodshed, that Arab and Jew can once again live side by side under Palestinian rule over the entire Holy Land.

We pray that tragedies should never again occur and offer our deeply felt condolences to Sheikh Yassin's family and to all our Palestinian brethren. We pray to G-d for the speedy and peaceful dismantlement of the State of Israel [and] its transformation into a Palestinian sovereignty...

Regarding Neturei Karta, Schiller wrote:

As one who has persoanl knowledge of NK activities I can testify that many NKites have, as I put it, stumbled into humanism. In other words, their work with pro peace and Palestinian groups has led them to see and embrace the humanity of all. This is not true of all of them but it is a trend and of some importance for the ACJ perspective.

Schiller was referring to the American Council for Judaism, a Reform anti-Zionist group.

As one person responded:

Rabbi Schiller seems to think that Neturei Karta's work with "pro-peace" groups has led them to "embrace the humanity of all". Neturei Karta is not "pro-peace" in the sense that your average reader would probably understand this term. One might understand from Rabbi Schiller that Neturei Karta promotes a peace deal between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Well, that's just not the case. Neturei Karta supports "peace" if it is achieved through the dis-establishment of Israel. If indeed Rabbi Schiller has "personal knowledge of NK activities", then he surely knows their ideology. Hence, the use of the term "pro-peace" and "humanism" is more than misleading. Peace includes also the rights of the Hebrew speaking community to self-determination.

Schiller is also identified, along with "Rabbi Beck" as a leader of Neturei Karta on this foreign site. Rabbi Beck was interviewed by Third Way, in which he completely rejected the right of "the Zionist state" to exist. Beck also signed a petition calling for implementation of the "right of return" of millions of Palestinians.

It seems to me that since he has praised Neturei Karta in the past, Rabbi Schiller should explain whether that praise covers all Neturei Karta stances, or if he feels that the group or some of its leaders are at times misguided (or worse). I have e-mailed Schiller asking him for his thoughts about Neturei Karta, but as of yet he has not responded. If he does, I will update this post.
posted on 4/09/2004

 
Sharon Interviews

Excerpts of Sharon's interviews with Haaretz and Maariv are out, with the full versions to be published on Monday.

Sharon proclaims that Israel will fully dismantle the Gaza communities, as well as four others in Samaria, in the next year.

When he introduced his "disengagement plan" in December, Sharon listed the key components of the plan as:

1. "The relocation of settlements... 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."

Since then, Sharon has indeed taken major political steps toward the evacuation of the Jewish presence in Gaza. But he has done nothing to strengthen Israel's control over parts of Judea and Samaria that Israel wants to permanently retain.

Sharon asked the U.S. for agreement to Israeli annexation of Ma'ale Adumim and other Jerusalem suburbs, Gush Etzion, western Samaria. That request was rejected. So was the request to at least allow Israeli construction and expansion of those areas. Then Israel asked for a U.S. nod to construction of the security fence to include those locations, yet again to no avail.

Pathetically, what Israel is now agreeing to and proclaiming to be a major achievement is a letter from President Bush stating that Israel need not withdraw exactly to the '67 borders. Of course, 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 this criteria. So would a 100 percent withdrawal from Judea and Samaria coupled with Israeli retention of large Jerusalem neighborhoods like Ramat Eshkol, Ramot. French Hill and Gilo, where more than 100,000 Jews live. While those places were captured in 1967, there is no doubt about their status, and Israel have and continues to develop in those areas without anyone objecting.

Furthermore, Presidents Johnson, Reagan and Clinton have all already explicitly agreed that a withdrawal to the 1967 borders is not warranted.

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, and is not expected to encompass either Ariel or Gush Etzion, further weakening, rather than "strengthening" Israel's control of even the largest settlement blocs.
posted on 4/02/2004

 
Final Word On Kelley

In this week's Jewish Press, Jason Maoz sums up the Jack Kelley USA Today scandal, and is kind enough to quote me extensively:

So it appears the allegations - many of them made by former colleagues - were spot on after all. Jack Kelley, at one time USA Today's star reporter, had this rather unfortunate habit of fabricating events and, apparently, entire stories.

In a detailed account, USA Today recently announced to the world that its internal investigation had left no doubt that Kelley was a fabulist of colossal proportions. Included among his concoctions were a piece he did on a group of hate-filled Israeli settlers, led by one "Avi Shapiro" - whom Kelley described as essentially lusting after Arab blood - and one on the 2001 Jerusalem Sbarro bombing, which Kelley claimed to have witnessed first hand.

Joseph Schick, who on his blog The Zionist Conspiracy (www.jschick.blogspot.com) has been on top of the Kelley story since the first glimmers began appearing in the press, tells the Monitor that "Kelley's piece about the settlers was no less than a blood libel." The story, Schick continues, "reinforced all of the false stereotypes about residents of Yesha, and is part of the reason why murder of Jews outside of the Green Line is accepted as some sort of legitimate 'resistance.' A reader of that article - which appeared on USA Today's front page - would have no reason not to equate Jewish settlers with Hamas."

Arabs, Schick recalls, had "complained about Kelley's Sbarro piece, which they saw as being sympathetic to Israel. That probably motivated Kelley to fabricate the Avi Shapiro article, which was published just a few weeks later, so that he would appear to be even-handed, reporting on violent fanatics on both sides. Of course, while both the Sbarro and Shapiro articles were fakes, the Sbarro bombing really happened, while Shapiro and his twelve cohorts are all fictional."

Kelley, says Schick, is far from alone in the media when it comes to portraying a moral equivalence between Palestinians and Israelis. "They may not fabricate events, but most of the U.S. media are as guilty of demonizing the residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza as was Kelley.

"Their motivations are generally not sinister - they simply are trying to be neutral, so they balance criticism of suicide bombings with criticism of settlers."

"When challenged, they often cannot articulate the reasons for their contempt. Obviously settlements are controversial and not immune from criticism, but the way they and their residents are depicted is appalling."

Schick notes that he was convinced of Kelley's culpability well before USA Today made it official. "When Kelley was forced to resign in January," he says, "and the paper announced it would investigate his work, I closely examined both the Sbarro and Shapiro articles and immediately concluded that each was phony, as common sense suggested."

Schick points out that when the settler piece was published, "David Wilder of the Hebron community insisted that Shapiro didn't exist and the reported incident never happened, but he was ignored by USA Today."

While it may understandable that USA Today initially stood by its star reporter, says Schick, "it remains curious that even after Kelley's resignation, his scandal received much less attention than the ones involving Jayson Blair at The New York Times and Stephen Glass at The New Republic.

"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, and his journalistic crimes of making up stories, plagiarizing articles published elsewhere, and scheming to cover up his actions were at least as serious as theirs. Only Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has 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."
posted on 4/02/2004