The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Just Statistics The apathetic reaction to today's mass murder and maiming of Jews in Beer Sheva is deafening. Israel's failure to even begin to build the fence separating the Hebron area from Beer Sheva is inexcusable. Thursday, August 26, 2004
Where's the Leadership? Israel is being bashed on campus, threatened with sanctions by the UN, and condemned as a pariah at the Hague and the UN General Assembly. Among American Jews, there may be different views on whether there is a potential Palestinian partner, whether unilateral withdrawal is a good idea, and whether Bush or Kerry is better for Israel. There's a strong consensus, however, that Israel has a right to defend itself, that the fence is a legitimate and legal endeavor, and that the international community's condemnation of Israel, despite Palestinian terror that has killed approximately 1000 Israelis, is an outrage. The anti-Israel hysteria continues unabated in full force, but nobody even mentions the idea of a mass rally supporting Israel and condemning the Hague and the European Union. For 18 months after the Palestinians launched their terror war against Israel in September 2000, no major rallies were organized by the Jewish establishment. Indeed, in the April 6, 2001 issue of The Jewish Week, Gary Rosenblatt - in one of his finest columns - lamented: "There has yet to be a major, coordinated effort to galvanize the grassroots. There has been no national event to channel American Jewry's love of and support for Israel - and distress over the Palestinian-orchestrated violence - into a powerful statement of activism. "What does it take for the leadership of American Jewry to lead? my Israeli friend asked. While reluctant to speak on the record, he expressed cynicism about the willingness or ability of national Jewish leaders to take risks and mobilize a successful, large-scale event. 'At some point,' he said, 'organizations claiming to be national have to show accountability. That's the job of leadership.' "His frustration is understandable, but several leaders say it's not so simple to stage a national demonstration. First, they caution, if they sponsored a major rally in Washington and it did not attract huge crowds - the Soviet Jewry rally in D.C. in December 1987 drew some 250,000 and was an enormous success - that would be far worse than having no rally at all, not to mention the financial costs. Second, the pros recognize that it is far more difficult to attract people to a 'pro' rally than an 'anti' rally... "Enough is enough. As the intifada enters its seventh month and the terror attacks on Israeli civilians escalate, one wonders how much longer we have to wait before expressing our commitment to Israel and indignation over the intifada in a dramatic and effective way. Not only is it vital to give vent to our feelings and draw together as a community, we need to show the administration in Washington and the media around the country that Americans Jews are united in their support for Israel." Only after another year, after hundreds more Israelis were murdered, and after 3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11, did the Jewish establishment wake up and organize a rally. There was little planning, because the rally was mobilized on little more than a week's notice. The concern that the masses wouldn't come proved wholly inaccurate. On a work day, a couple of hundred thousand Jewish Americans came to the Capitol from across the country. The 2002 rally saved lives. President Bush had been publicly demanding an immediate Israeli pullout from Palestinian towns in Judea and Samaria. He backed off after the rally. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz gave a rambling speech that spoke of the need for Israeli concessions and focused on Palestinian suffering. This at a time when the U.S. was bombing Afghanistan. The crowd didn't personally heckle Wolfowitz, but firmly stated its position: "No more Arafat" and "No double standard." Almost another year and a half has since passed. A lot has happened. President Bush got the message of those at the rally and declared that Yasser Arafat is not a partner for peace. Prime Minister Sharon defeated Binyamin Netanyahu's leadership challenge, called for the formation of a Palestinian state, and won a landslide victory over Amram Mitzna in the 2003 elections. The U.S. went to war against Iraq, Baghdad fell, and Saddam Hussein was captured, his two sons killed. Sharon decided to build the fence. Israel's standing on college campuses reached an all time low. Two Palestinian prime ministers were appointed. Israel's cabinet decided to remove Arafat, but he remains in his Ramallah compound. The road map was touted as the best path to peace. The Geneva Accord briefly emboldened the Israeli left and their supporters. Sharon called for unilateral withdrawal. Hamas leaders Sheikh Yassin and Aziz Abdul Rantisi were liquidated along with many other terrorist leaders. Statistically, terror attacks declined thanks to the fence and IDF heroism, but Jews continue to be murdered, people like Goldie and Shmuel Taubenfeld of New Square, Dr. David and Naava Applebaum of Jerusalem, Tali, Hila, Hadar, Roni and Merav Hatuel (and Tali and Dovid Hatuel's unborn son) of Gush Katif. The fence route has been substantially altered to move it closer to the Green Line. The Hague ruled, 14-1, that the fence is illegal and that the world must do all it can to have it torn down. The UN voted 150-6 in support of a resolution demanding that Israel tear down the fence and pay reparations to Palestinians. All 25 members of the European Union supported the resolution. Avi Weiss and others have organized small grass roots protests, but the Jewish establishment has done nothing. During this time, numerous "anti-war" rallies have been organized, all of which contain shockingly anti-Israel posters and invective. Its trendy to hate Israel and to call it an apartheid state. Enough is enough. As the intifada enters its fifth year and the world's animus toward Israel escalates and becomes even more ominous, one wonders how much longer we have to wait before expressing our commitment to Israel and indignation over the European reversion to hatred of Jews and Israel. It's time for another mass rally. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen anytime soon. The Jewish establishment leadership has other things to do, like engaging in self-gratifying meetings with political hacks at party conventions. Colonel Harel Knafo There is a fascinating feature in Friday's Haaretz magazine, about Colonel Harel Knafo, who has been commander of the Samaria Brigade for the past two years and is now taking leave after 21 years in the IDF. Knafo strongly rejects the myths that young soldiers lack motivation and that morale is low: "Twenty years ago, books would have been written about the amazing operations carried out here by the elite units of the Paratroops, Haruv, Egoz, the naval commandos, and Duvdevan. Today? There's not a word about it in the newspaper. It isn't newsworthy. I don't remember a single instance of messing up or of cowardice under fire. I've been in the army for 21 years and I don't remember as glorious a period. The achievements are tremendous. The tragedy is that the feeling among the public is the opposite of what the army itself feels. "There has never been professionalism such as that demonstrated by these young soldiers. They say that the motivation of the young people is declining, that they are no longer imbued with a sense of mission, that volunteerism has disappeared - and I find that the exact opposite is true. Any way you look at it, whether we're talking about esprit de corps or about standards, if I compare them to the outstanding company in which I grew up in the Paratroops - they're far better. If only I as a platoon commander had reached their level. The conclusion is clear: The generation is becoming increasingly stronger, but the country doesn't know it." The entire feature is extremely enlightening and a very worthwhile read. Kerry in the Forward John Kerry has a very pro-Israel column in this week's Forward. Kerry calls for pressure on Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran and promises an end to American dependence on Arab oil. If Kerry were to publish the same column in the New York Times, or in an Arab or Muslim newspaper, it'd be worthy of consideration. In the Forward, it's meaningless. Charedim in the IDF Interesting article in today's Maariv, citing new data from Israel's Defense Ministry showing that "a dramatic 50% rise in the number of Haredi draftees was recorded in comparison to last year." Interestingly, the new charedi soldiers include students "from the Ponivez and Viznitz yeshivas," from where students have in the past rarely gone to the army. The article states that the Nahal Haredi Battalion now includes several platoons, and the soldiers carry out combat missions in Judea and Samaria. One new charedi soldier, Nati Greenberg from Bnei Brak, told Maariv, "You would be surprised to hear that there are rabbis who encourage us." Detractors of charedim in particular, and Israelis and Jews generally, have found a negative take on all this. A European reader commented on the Maariv website: "A legal way to spread their violence and hatred? A license to kill Arabs? No surprises here." The Times and Israel's Gold Medal The obsession of the New York Times with Israel is in full display in today's paper. The front page of the sports section has a long article about windsurfer Gal Fridman's winning of Israel's first gold medal. As if that weren't enough, sports columnist Selena Roberts has a column about Israel and the Olympics, also on the front sports page. Would any other country get this kind of coverage for winning its first gold medal? Of course not. That said, I have no complaint about the article or the column. Indeed, the latter is one of the better columns the Times has ever published about Israel. Roberts slammed the International Olympic Committee for refusing to sanction Iran for its judo star's intentional binging after being matched with an Israeli so that he would exceed the weight limit and be disqualified. The I.O.C. concluded that there was no boycott of Israel by Iran, despite the judo star's proclamation that "I refused to fight my Israeli opponent to sympathize with the suffering of the people of Palestine." Roberts also tweaked at Israel's I.O.C. representative, Alex Gilady, who defended the I.O.C.'s acceptance of Iran's boycott of Israeli participants, despite Olympic regulations barring any such conduct. She wrote: "[Gilady's] defense of the I.O.C. defied logic. By the I.O.C.'s inaction, Iran has learned it can manufacture an Olympic snub whenever it fears that mixing sweat with an Israeli will result in some sinister cross-pollination." Gilady told Roberts, "We think sanctions are counterproductive." Roberts responded in her column: "But so is tolerance of anti-Semitism. While Gilady concedes that the Iranian athlete was a tool of the government, he allows the I.O.C. to hide behind a ruse, keeping in step with the pathetic strategy of silence by the Olympic gods." Roberts's common sense is appreciated, but it's unfortunate that so many Israelis and diaspora Jews take cowardly positions like Gilady instead of standing up for their country with pride. Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Beilin and Self-Defense In an anti-Sharon column in Thursday's Jerusalem Post, Yossi Beilin writes: "The obvious pullout from Gaza became so important, so central, so precedent-setting, that leftists are willing to forgive Sharon the Lebanon War and his ascent to the Temple Mount, the targeted assassinations, and his cruel economic policy, and are willing to give him a security net or even join his cabinet." Beilin - the architect of Oslo and the Geneva Accord - obviously has different views than Sharon about Israel's best approach to the conflict with the Palestinians. However, his criticism of "leftists" for being "willing to forgive... the targeted assassinations" is shocking. There has long been a consensus in Israel in support of the liquidation of terrorists who murder Israeli civilians. In early 1996, Yahya Ayyash, Hamas' chief bomb maker, was killed in a targeted assassination. Beilin was a member of Shimon Peres's cabinet then. He did not oppose taking out Ayyash; nor did he resign his cabinet position. When Ehud Barak was Prime Minister, Beilin served as Justice Minister. When the Palestinians launched their current war of terror, Barak ordered the assassination of terrorist leaders, including Thabet Thabet of Fatah. There was no protest from Beilin. Yitzhak Rabin used to say that Israel would negotiate peace as if there were no terror, and fight terror as if there were no peace process. Beilin apparently opposes fighting terror even when there is indeed no peace process. Quincy Carter A couple of weeks on Protocols, Luke Ford wrote: "That the Dallas Cowboys cut their starting quarterback Quincy Carter this week, is, in the Torah view, a call for us return to G-d." I responded, in the comments: "I disagree. Any suffering by the Dallas Cowboys is in fact a gift from G-d. In contrast, when last year in the month of Elul, Chad Pennington, the Jets' QB, suffered a serious injury during a preseason game, it was a call from G-d to repent." While none of us can understand the ways of G-d, I believe that my argument has been vindicated with yesterday's signing by the Jets of Quincy Carter. I'm actually not a big fan of Carter and if Pennington suffers a serious injury like he did last year, the Jets are likely doomed. But if Pennington misses 2 or 3 games with an ankle sprain or a separated shoulder, Carter might be able to put up enough points to win a game or two and keep the Jets in contention. It certainly makes sense to sign Carter when the other backups on the roster have never taken an NFL snap. Unfortunately, the Carter signing will likely result in Brooks Bollinger staying on as the third string QB, and Ricky Ray - the star last season of the CFL - being released. I think Ray is much more talented than Bollinger, but the latter will probably remain since he was drafted by the Jets, while Ray was picked up as a free agent. I keep reading in the papers that both Ray and Bollinger have been awful in the preseason. Didn't seem that way to me on Saturday night, when Ray went 7 for 8 (mostly on short passes, admittedly) and was able to sustain several drives. A few years ago, when Trent Green was injured during the preseason, the St. Louis Rams were lambasted from having only Kurt Warner, an Arena League refugee, as a backup. If the Rams had signed an experienced backup, they wouldn't have won the Super Bowl that season. While I don't think Ray will turn out to be another Kurt Warner and think the Carter signing is a worthwhile one, I do think Ray is going to be a productive quarterback in the NFL. Stupidity vs. Apathy Many sports philosophers are now pondering whether the fate of the Mets fan is worse than that of the Nets fan. Fortunately, as a fan of both sorry franchises (not to mention that Jets and Rangers too), I need not consider which has the more miserable front office. When the Nets dismantled their team, most notably by giving away Kenyon Martin for nothing, I wrote that being a fan of a team whose ownership had no interest in winning is worse than of a team that makes awful personnel decisions. I still think that's true. However, I am close to being fed up with the Mets. The Kris Benson and Victor Zambrano trades were terrible enough, and I posted in detail my criticism of both moves immediately after the trades were made. What's worse is the arrogance of the franchise, literally from top to bottom, and the condescending attitude toward fans. In trading Scott Kazmir last month, the Mets said that (1) he is 2 or 3 years away from reaching the majors and (2) he is bound to have arm problems because of his delivery. So the Mets traded him for a pitcher who already sustained major rotator cuff surgery, was suffering from elbow pain, and is now likely out for the season with an elbow injury. They claim they will work with Zambrano to fix his delivery, but don't explain why they wouldn't be able to do the same with Kazmir. That's bad enough, but more infuriating is the fact that owner Fred Wilpon, GM Jim Duquette, manager Art Howe, pitching coach Rick Peterson, and pitcher Al Leiter all deny being responsible for the trade - despite strong evidence to the contrary - instead blaming others or nameless scouts for the move, as though scouts were the ultimate decision makers for the team. Wilpon claims he had nothing to do with it, that it's up to his baseball people. Yet it was the same Fred Wilpon who promised Mets fans and Kazmir that Kazmir was going nowhere. He obviously gave the green light to break that promise. Duquette idiotically got caught up in the silly idea that the Mets were contenders, and overpaid both for Benson (who could be signed as a free agent after the season without giving up any players) and Zambrano. As GM, he bears ultimate responsibility for the moves. While he seems like a less swarmy fellow than his predecessor, Steve Phillips, Duquette has done little to improve the sorry state of the Mets. The players he has acquired - including players who have been somewhat productive like Richard Hidalgo - are not the guys who are eventually going to lead the Mets back into contention. Howe may not deserve blame for the trade itself, but he does deserve blame for saying yesterday that the media is turning the Kazmir/Zambrano fiasco into a story that fans would otherwise have no interest in. The truth is that Mets fans are not that stupid. The trades were wildly unpopular immediately, because it was clear that the Mets had mortgaged their future for two talented but mediocre pitchers. Howe shouldn't insult us by blaming the media. If anything, the media exaggerated Zambrano's one strong performance with the Mets, when he gave up a run in seven innings. Peterson is a good pitching coach but his involvement in personnel moves is no secret, and for him to now blame scouts for getting rid of Kazmir is pathetic, given that immediately after the trade, he arrogantly boasted that critics did not know what they are talking about, and that he and others in the organization were definitely right to make the move. Peterson now insists that the trade needs to be assessed over the next three years. In other words, according to Peterson, if Zambrano (who will make much more money than Kazmir) slightly outpitches Kazmir through 2007, the trade would be a good one, even if Kazmir - who won't be eligible for free agency until at least 2011 - then wins the Cy Young Award in 2008 and 2009 and ends up in the Hall of Fame. Leiter apparently complained about Kazmir's attitude to Peterson and others. Now he complains that those discussions were meant to be confidential. For a few years, Leiter, John Franco, and more recently, Tom Glavine have had far too much power over the Wilpons. That's mainly the fault of the Wilpons, but Leiter and others can't escape criticism when their input is used and the ultimate result is a bad one for the organization. Thursday, August 19, 2004
Defaming Dati Soldiers A disproportionate number of religious Israelis volunteer for IDF combat units. If Israel were a normal society and Jews a normal people, this would be praiseworthy. Yet even as charedi men who don't serve in the army are criticized for their failure to defend the country, religious soldiers who risk their lines in dangerous units are criticized for being disloyal to the State. Leonard Fein's column in this week's Forward is an unfortunate example. According to Fein: "It is [the settlers], together with their allies in the national religious movement, who today provide some 30% of the officers' corps of Israel's ground forces and 30% of Israel's front-line troops." In other words, Fein is making an accusation against all religious soldiers, that they will disobey government orders. Not only is there no basis for the accusation, even the Yesha Council - the mainstream leadership of Jewish residents in Judea, Samaria and Gaza - has rejected the notion that soldiers should refuse orders. Interestingly, the exact same argument, with the exact same statistic, appears in the current issue of The Jerusalem Report, which was published about 10 days ago. Hirsch Goodman wrote: "Some 30 percent of the officers’ corps of the ground forces and a similar number of front-line soldiers are either from the settlements or have a national religious background, and have grown up in the ideological bubble of Greater Israel.. "Civil war is what we are faced with, and better for all of us to recognize the danger before it becomes a reality. If civil war breaks out, the Israeli army will find itself fighting its own elite troops, some of the best-trained officers and men in the world, armed with ideology versus confusion." Fein and Goodman's invective is disgraceful. Goodman should especially be ashamed of defaming young men who risk (and too often sacrifice) their lives for his security. Fein should especially be ashamed of ripping off someone else's column. Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Attacks on Soldiers Under Geneva Convention Further to my posts about the distinction between attacks on soldiers and on civilians, with the former not terrorism though an act of war, Daniel e-mailed as follows: Attacks purely on border guards, even if not terrorism, would still also be (and is) a violation of "international law" -- which under the Geneva Conventions, requires all combatants in war to be uniformed and clearly identifiable as combatants (i.e., distinguishable from civilians). This is a rule that exists not to help the opposing army, but to protect the civilians or non-combatants -- who should not be endangered by virtue of being suspected of being a combatant. I agree, though this would apply to actions by Irgun attacks on British soldiers too, so wouldn't distinguish between Palestinian actions and Jewish pre-state actions, which was the subject of my disagreement last week with Mobius. Death in Gaza HBO ran 'Death In Gaza' again last night at midnight. I watched the first two minutes and taped the rest. There was one mistake right in the beginning, when the text stated that Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister in 2000. He was elected in early 2001. If Sharon had been elected in 2000, Ehud Barak would have had done so much permanent and irreversible damage to Israel's negotiating position during the Taba fiasco in January 2001. After I get a chance to watch 'Death In Gaza', I'll post a review. Monday, August 16, 2004
Another Zionist Conspiracy The inevitable accusation that Golan Cipel's charges against Jim McGreevey are indicative of a Zionist conspiracy appears in a letter in today's Arab News: It has long been asked why Israel has such strong influence on American politics. One possible reason is blackmail. The Israelis probably know a lot of secrets involving American politicians. Fortunately, they just cannot blackmail everybody. New Jersey Governor James McGreevey did the right thing. He came out of the closet and prevented himself from being blackmailed any further. He did his country a service. I wonder how many American politicians have been compromising their country just because they cannot come out in the open and tell the truth. Rolly. V • Saudi Arabia Sunday, August 15, 2004
More Times Nonsense A report in yesterday's Times states: "For years, Likud's motto has been, 'Not one inch.'" Perhaps the Times is stuck in a time warp, because not since Yitzhak Shamir was Prime Minister has Likud had that motto. Shamir was defeated in the 1992 elections by Yitzhak Rabin. Indeed, Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from Hebron and from 13 percent of Judea and Samaria when he was Prime Minister and Likud leader. Thursday, August 12, 2004
Mobius Follow Up on Terrorism In response to my post on Tuesday explaining the distinction between Jewish militant actions before the formation of Israel and Palestinian terror, Mobius asked this question on his blog: Here's a question Joe: Nearly every Israeli citizen is either a reserve soldier, an active soldier, a future soldier, or a retired soldier. Can a wholly militarized society be considered either innocent, or civilian? While some who commented on Mobius' site appeared to be offended by the question, I don't mind it, and responded there as follows: Mobius, If someone is not acting in a military capacity, then they are not a military target and an attack on them is terrorism. That someone is a former soldier or a future soldier is moot; attacking them is an attack on them personally, not on an occupation, and not on the state they defended. This applies not only to Israel, but to the Palestinians, to the British, and any conflict. So, if, say, the Irgun had killed an 18 year old Brit who the next day was to go off to Palestine as a soldier for the Mandate's military occupation, that would be terrorism. Similarly, if yesterday's Palestinian suicide bombing north of Jerusalem (which killed two Palestinians and wounded six border policemen) had been aimed at the border policemen instead of civilians in Jerusalem (the intended target), that would not be terror, since the border police are acting in a military capacity (in this case to heroically stop a suicide bomber from killing civilians in Jerusalem). However, it would be (1) an act of war, which Israel has a right to respond to with military force and (2) a breach of Oslo, under which the Palestinians agreed to permanently end what it called "the armed struggle." Wednesday, August 11, 2004
YU "Many of those who have gone through Yeshiva College and continued in REITS are intensely committed to Torah study and to careers that enrich the Jewish people. Forty years ago, few would have thought that at its main campus the Yeshiva University of the 21st century would have so strong a religious character." Jewish Press Column Here's my column in this week's Jewish Press: A few weeks ago, Daniel Okrent, public editor of the New York Times, wrote: “If you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.” Okrent could have included Jewish “settlers” in his list of groups the Times treats as strange objects. Fortunately, with anti-settler columnist Thomas Friedman on book leave until October, the paper’s op-ed page had treated residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza to a brief summer respite. The Times's hudna ended last week with a long column by Jeffrey Goldberg, who received many accolades for his recent 24 page, 16,365 word New Yorker feature about settlers that focused almost entirely on the small minority of extremists and ignored mainstream leaders and residents. Goldberg’s Times column included a deeply disturbing quote from a young observant woman who said that “Sharon is forfeiting his right to live,” and Goldberg stated that he has heard “14 young Orthodox settlers” express a desire to kill Prime Minister Sharon. Goldberg wrote that Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter recently told a Knesset committee that “his agents believe there are 150 to 200 settlers hoping to kill Mr. Sharon.” (Dichter actually said that “between 150 and 200 Jews actively wish for the death of the prime minister,” and that most live in Judea and Samaria.) Goldberg lamented that “the extremist yeshivas that give rise to fundamentalist thuggery are financed in part by Orthodox Jews in America,” but didn’t identify the yeshivas or their purported American backers. The clear message from Goldberg’s piece is that Jewish settlers, with the tacit support of some Orthodox Jews and rabbis, want to kill Ariel Sharon. Unfortunately, this charge is not completely baseless. As I wrote in my last column, there are fanatics who have called for, or implicitly condoned, Sharon’s murder. Especially in light of Yitzhak Rabin’s murder at the hands of an Orthodox Jew, there is an obligation on all Jews to condemn the fanatics and not to ignore the danger they present. However, Goldberg never distinguished between the fanatics and the other 95 percent of Yesha residents. Instead, he defamed all of them. He completely ignored the Yesha Council’s repeated statements that it unequivocally opposes any and all forms of violence in the framework of opposition to Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal plan. He ignored the pact signed by Yesha Council leaders two weeks ago, in which they agreed that IDF soldiers would not be asked to disobey orders to dismantle settlements and that no form of violence was acceptable. And though Goldberg highlighted Avi Dichter’s concern about 150-200 extremists, he disregarded that Dichter also emphasized that the extremists were in no way representative of the general settler public. In the last four years, Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza have routinely been murdered on roads, in yeshivas, and in their own homes. Many men, women, children and babies have been killed. While all sectors of Israelis have been victimized by Palestinian terror, none has suffered more than the “settlers.” Yet during this Palestinian war, the vast majority of “settlers” have acted with remarkable dignity. A tiny minority among the 230,000 have planned or perpetrated violence against Arabs; some have wantonly destroyed olive crops owned by Arabs. These actions must be completely condemned, but they clearly do not represent the entire settler population in any way. Even as Israelis are repeatedly murdered there, Palestinians driving in Judea and Samaria are not in fear of being shot at by a “settler” and Palestinian children do not live in fright that a “settler” will infiltrate their home and kill them, their parents and their siblings. Anti-settler Jewish extremists like Goldberg, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and Tom Friedman never take any of this into account. To them, at a time when Israel’s Likud government is making historic unilateral concessions and Yasser Arafat has been discredited, “settlers” are a convenient group to attack. Goldberg is right that Orthodox Jews have a duty to unequivocally and vocally condemn fanatical Jews who support violence against Prime Minister Sharon and others. We have not done enough in this regard. We also have a duty to unequivocally and vocally condemn the verbal violence – indeed, the blood libel - against an overwhelmingly peaceful population. * * * Some were surprised by a report last week in the London Daily Telegraph that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's “closest companion and most valued confidante” is an Arab woman named Shaha Ali Riza. The article said that according to “close acquaintances of the couple,” Ali Riza and Wolfowitz are “romantically linked.” Ali Riza is a senior World Bank official who was born in Tunis and grew up in Saudi Arabia. In a 2002 appearance on the McLaughlin Report, she argued that the Arab-Israeli conflict has been an excuse by Arab regimes to avoid dealing with their country’s real problems, and that an end to the conflict should therefore be pushed for. Of course, another approach would be to demand that Arab regimes start liberalizing their dictatorial governments unconditionally. Contrary to popular belief that his views on Israel are hawkish, Wolfowitz has praised Yossi Beilin, criticized settlements, and expressed support for the peace proposal by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh that calls for a return by Israel to the 1967 borders. Last December, a Beirut Daily Star columnist wrote that a Georgetown University forum, Wolfowitz revealed himself to be “probably the most pro-Palestinian member of the Bush administration.” At that forum, Wolfowitz not only didn’t challenge anti-Israel allegations, he added his own criticism, such as in this exchange: Question: “Hi, my name is Courtney Raj… my question has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You said that you need to look no further than U.N. resolutions, that you need to respect communal universal human rights, the Geneva Convention, etc. And I was wondering if this applies to Israel as well… They violate Geneva Convention 53, and tons of other human rights of these Palestinians. “So I'm wondering is the President, as you said, he's ready to make decisions of the magnitude needed for change. Is he ready to make decisions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will lend greater support to the Palestinians and ask the Israelis to stop these policies that are detrimental to the Palestinians and adding to the hopelessness that may be at the root cause of some of the suicide bombings?” Wolfowitz: “You cited some things that Israelis have to change and you could make a longer list. You could have talked about settlements, for example. The President has talked about settlements, he's talked about the wall, he's talked about the suffering of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. There's no question that the President is prepared to put pressure on the Israelis to change.” Sidney Zion once said it best, quipping: “The history of Jews in our government has been the history of chiropractic — they bend over backward to prove that they will do nothing for Israel.” * * * According to Haaretz, the Bush Administration is considering sending Prime Minister Sharon a letter detailing commitments Sharon made but did not keep. The feeling in the administration toward Sharon is said to be one of “frustration and bitterness” in light of Sharon’s failure to dismantle all settlement outposts and Israel’s intention to build 600 new homes in the Jerusalem suburb of Ma’aleh Adumim, which, with 30,000 residents, is the largest town in Judea and Samaria. The Haaretz report says that according to a senior American source, “When President Bush is elected for a second term he will no longer treat Sharon as he did the first term if the promises are not kept.” The frustration and bitterness in the Bush Administration is preposterous. Sharon may not have dismantled all the outposts, but he has agreed to dismantle 25 established communities in Gaza and Samaria. And construction in Ma’aleh Adumim should hardly be a major source of concern to the U.S. All this leaves me with feelings of frustration and bitterness toward Bush, in light of commitments he made but did not keep. In a May 2000 speech before AIPAC, Bush said, “In recent times, Washington has tried to make Israel conform to its own plans and timetables, but this is not the path to peace.” Bush also recognized then that “not every democracy is blessed in the way America is, by our size, our wealth, our geography. Too often, we forget what it means to be a small nation in an often hostile neighborhood. A few years ago on a trip to Israel, General Sharon took me on a helicopter flight over the West Bank. And what a trip that was. What struck me, as you all know better than I, is the tiny distance between enemy lines and Israel’s population centers. The general said that before the Six-Day War, Israel as only nine miles wide at its narrowest point. In Texas, some of our driveways are longer than that.” That didn’t stop Bush from imposing the “road map” on Israel in 2003, a plan that by its terms is non-negotiable, includes detailed timetables and, by its reference to the Saudi plan as a basis for a settlement, would implicitly return Israel to or very near its pre-1967 borders. The Bush Administration insists that the road map continues to remain in effect. Bush also promised throughout his campaign that he would move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, saying, “Something will happen when I become the president. As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital.” But, like President Clinton, in violation of United States law, Bush abrogated that commitment almost as soon as he took office. Of course, over the past two years Bush has generally supported Israel’s war on terror and for that he deserves praise and appreciation. The Bush Administration should similarly appreciate Sharon’s willingness to take steps previously unheard of from Likud leaders. Malcolm Hoenlein on the Fence As I write this, Malcolm Hoenlein is engaged in a Q&A session on Haaretz. One of the questions directed to Mr. Hoenlein concerns the fence. Given that Hoenlein is a thoughtful advocate for Israel, I'm disappointed in his answer. Here's the exchange: No Israeli has been able to explain why the wall is not being built along the 1967 Green Line border. This leaves me convinced it is just a ploy to grab more land. Do you agree with the assertion that if Israel returned to the 1967 borders in return for true peace, it would result in true peace within months? Ravi Inder Singh Noida, India Malcolm Hoenlein: In fact I think that many Israeli leaders have sought to explain the reasons why the security fence is not built along the 1967 Green Line border, although in many areas, it actually runs very close. First, the security fence is placed where it can provide the maximum defense against terrorism, providing protection for the largest number of Israelis and Arabs, while limiting the impositions on their daily lives. Were the fence to be on the border, it would be perceived as a victory for terrorism and once again undermine the prospect for negotiations in the future. If the Palestinians perceive that their goals are achieved by failing to rein in terrorism, then there will be no incentive for them to change their policies to end the terror and create the circumstances in which talks with Israel can be undertaken. Second, there is a need for a security zone should a terrorist penetrate the fence. The IDF would need enough time to reach the area and prevent an attack. Third, the fence is not a political act - it is a security measure. This was confirmed by the recent High Court decision. Borders will be determined when the two parties can sit together and negotiate. We have seen in the past how important perception is, i.e. the withdrawal from Lebanon, and that must be taken into account as well. There are many misunderstandings regarding the fence - not a wall - including the fact that it is not a permanent structure but can and has been moved. And when there is peace, can be removed entirely. As we see in the north, it has prevented 90 percent of terrorism and its effectiveness confirmed. Also, it has brought benefits to Arabs living on both sides of the fence in that it has cut down on criminal activities, drug smuggling, car theft and has yielded economic benefits as people are now shopping in the businesses of the cities on both sides of the fence. The fence can be reversed. The deaths of a thousand Israelis cannot. Here's what I don't like about the answer: It fails to make even a passing argument - even implicitly - that Israel has a right to some of the territory it captured in 1967. Hoenlein's argument is only that in some locations the fence is being built outside the '67 borders because of security reasons. While the response does not concede that a peace arrangement would be based on the '67 borders, it wastes an opportunity to remind readers that Israel has a right under UN Resolution 242 to "secure borders," and that the '67 borders were and are far from secure. The areas that the fence is expected to deviate from the Green Line tend to be locations that Israel wants to permanently retain, such as Ma'aleh Adumim, Givat Ze'ev and other Jerusalem suburbs, Gush Etzion, areas near Ben Gurion airport, and possibly Ariel and the rest of western Samaria. Hoenlein might respond that publicly stating that the fence is being built outside the Green Line for purposes of retaining some territory would be adverse to Israel's interests, because it validates the contention of Israel's critics that the fence is an effort to strengthen Israel's control of Judea and Samaria. There is merit to that position. Ultimately, however, if Israel and its supporters never articulate that it has a right to retain territory outside the '67 borders, the inevitable result will be that no disputed territory will be retained, not even parts of Judea and Samaria once regarded as inevitable to be annexed. Already, communities like Beit El and Ofra, which Ehud Barak continually promised to annex, are expected to be ceded, while the future of Ariel is in doubt, despite its 20,000 residents. We need not be apologetic or defensive when it is charged that Israel seeks to annex parts of Judea and Samaria. It isn't really a secret, and assertion of Israel's rights to secure borders is not only appropriate, but essential. Incidentally, when I first read Hoenlein's response, I figured he had to frame it as he did, because he serves as executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and needs to express a consensus position. However, elsewhere in the forum, he states, "let me make clear that I do not purport to speak for anyone but myself in this forum." Death in Gaza In a column in this week's Jewish Press, Phyllis Chesler writes: On August 12, 2004, HBO will be airing James Miller`s BBC/Channel 4 film, "Death in Gaza" (in Arabic and Hebrew), in which he interviewed Palestinian children only. Presumably, Miller was going to interview Israeli children too but he never did. Miller's widow, Sophy, has gone on record accusing the Israelis of purposely killing him on his last day of filming in Gaza; if this was indeed his last day then perhaps Miller did not plan to interview any Israeli children after all. After his death, Miller`s wife and colleagues finished the film for him, and began a campaign seeking "Justice for James Miller." The film has been aired at many film festivals to rave reviews. The fact that the script was written by acclaimed journalist Saira Shah, with whom Miller worked on "Beneath the Veil," which was broadcast by CNN, ensures a devoted and vocal following. Shah, who is the English-born daughter of an Afghan father, is the author of The Storyteller's Daughter, a beautifully-written book about her search for her Afghan roots. Later in the column, Ms. Chesler compares 'Death in Gaza' to anti-Israel documentaries. I don't understand those comparisons or her criticisms. First, Miller had planned a documentary about Palestinian children and Israeli children. Sadly, during the first portion of production, while filming in Gaza, Miller was killed during a battle in Rafah. That seems to me to be a fairly good excuse for why the documentary never got around to covering Israelis. As for Chesler's reference to Miller's widow saying that her husband was killed "on his last day of filming in Gaza," it is not clear whether Ms. Miller meant that it was his last day in Gaza because it was the day he died, or because he was set to finish filming and was about to leave Gaza. If the latter, Chesler's assumption that "if this was indeed his last day then perhaps Miller did not plan to interview any Israeli children after all" makes little sense. After all, it is possible that Miller was going to document the lives of Israeli children outside of Gaza. Another possibility, mentioned in an article I read, suggests that Miller died on what was to be the last day of filming on a particular trip, not of the entire documentary. As for 'Death in Gaza' itself, I've heard that it paints a fairly balanced picture, that it documents the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza along with the Palestinians' incredible hatred toward Israel, as well as terrorists' exploitation of children as human shields. What I've heard may or may not be accurate, and it may be that the film is terribly anti-Israel. If that's the case, however, it would serve all of us well to wait for the film to appear on HBO tomorrow night, rather than attack it before having seen it. Finally, Chesler alludes to Miller's family members' efforts to obtain "Justice for James Miller." While inevitably Israel's enemies will try to exploit Miller's death for their own political benefit, it should be mentioned that the Miller family has distinguished its efforts from those on behalf of Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie, each of whom was working on behalf of the Palestinian led International Solidarity Movement. And while the Miller family was been bitterly critical of (in their view) Israel's failure to complete a full investigation, to my knowledge, it has not accused Israel of intentionally murdering Miller. Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Terrorism A week ago on Orthodox Anarchist, Mobius wrote: If the Palestinians had a museum like the Irgun museum, which essentially glorifies Jewish acts of terrorism against British and Arab installations, along with scale model recreations of blown-out buildings and actual bombmaking materials, the Jewish world would throw an enormous *******. Case in point: the outrage over the Sbarro bombing recreation exhibit in Nablus. Of course the response will be that the Irgun's acts of terrorism were justified and Palestinian terrorists' aren't, whereas the Irgun's were against military targets and more often than not, Palestinian terrorists target civilians. But you know, one man's terrorism is another's struggle for independence... Mobius recognizes the argument that the Irgun's actions were against military targets and Palestinians have been against civilians, but doesn't seriously consider it. In fact, there is a distinction between attacks on soldiers who are enemy combatants and occupation forces on one hand, and civilians on the other hand. Most military actions by Jewish resistance groups were against either the British occupation, or Arabs in battle. Some civilians were killed, but with a few possible exceptions, civilians were not the targets. In contrast, Palestinian actions - such as the Sbarro bombing - are almost always targeted at civilians. There is a very basic difference between the two. One is a legitimate action in war, the other is a war crime. To the extent that Palestinians attack IDF soldiers, I would agree that those actions are not terrorism. Nor, however, are they a legitimate military action, either, for at least two reasons. First, under Oslo and subsequent related agreements, the Palestinians agreed not to resort to violence against Israel, but to resolve any future disputes at the negotiating table. Attacking Israeli soldiers is a blatant violation of Oslo. That the very rifles given by Israel to the PA under Oslo were used to attack Israelis makes this violation even more egregious. The Irgun and Haganah were not bound to any agreements with either the British or the Arabs. Second, military actions against IDF soldiers are not a necessary evil for the Palestinians to achieve statehood. Israel offered a state at Camp David and Taba, and while the current government rejects those offers, it also is willing to accept a Palestinian state. In sharp contrast, the Irgun and Haganah were never offered statehood by either the British (who from the late '20's did everything they could to destroy the dreams of Jewish sovereignty) or the Arabs (who rejected every single partition plan). Furthermore, even if attacks on IDF soldiers by Palestinians would be a legitimate act of war, so would be a response by Israel. Under the rules of war, Israel has the right to use military force, including actions that result in injury to civilians who are citizens of the enemy combatant. Saturday, August 07, 2004
36 Days to Kickoff I'm thrilled that the Jets have signed Pete Kendall to start at left guard. My biggest concern has been offensive line. If Chad Pennington has pass protection, the run blocking improves from last season, and offensive coordinator Paul Hackett goes back to the approach that worked so well in 2002, the Jets could have one of the best offensive teams in the NFL. Pennington remains very underrated. He was inconsistent following his return last season, but was always being pressured and did not have anyone other than Santana Moss to pass to. He is one of the top 8 quarterbacks in the league. I haven't been this optimistic about the Jets since 1999. Then, coming off a trip to the AFC Championship, the Jets lost QB Vinny Testaverde in the opening week, and started the season a dismal 1-6. Thursday, August 05, 2004
More on Wolfowitz As long as we're on the topic of Wolfowitz and letters to the editor, here's my letter that was published in the Washington Post about the reaction to his speech at the pro-Israel rally in Washington in 2002: "Thousands Rally for Israel" [front page, April 16] refers to "hostility" by participants in this week's pro-Israel rally in Washington in reaction to the speech by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz. I was among the many who loudly chanted "No more Arafat" and "No double standard" during Mr. Wolfowitz's speech. Our intent was not to heckle him or to express hostility but rather to express a desperate and pained plea for the United States to support Israel's defensive war against terror. We chanted similar slogans throughout the rally, including during the speeches by Natan Sharansky, Binyamin Netanyahu and William Bennett, but we were particularly passionate during Mr. Wolfowitz's speech because we knew that it would be the only opportunity for us to express our feelings directly to the Bush administration. JOSEPH SCHICK New York Goldberg's Times Column I don't have time now to post a detailed response to Jeffrey Goldberg's latest defamation of Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which appears in today's New York Times. I'll post something more detailed in the next few days; for now I will simply post the letter to the editor I have e-mailed to the Times. Unfortunately, the Times has only once published a letter from me - a September 2002 letter about Orthodoxy in the Upper West Side - and only after editing it to eliminate much of my point. In the letter I referred to Judea and Samaria as "the West Bank," because to do otherwise would eliminate the small chance it will be published. Anyway, here's the letter I sent this morning: Dear Editor, As an Orthodox Jew, I absolutely agree with Jeffrey Goldberg that Israeli extremists who spew invective and threats toward Ariel Sharon must be unequivocally condemned (“Protect Sharon From The Right,” August 5). It is important to emphasize, however, that the fanatics are not representative of the overwhelming majority of Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza. Goldberg points out that Avi Dichter, the chief of Israel’s internal security service, believes that 150-200 Jews wish to see Sharon dead. Dichter explained that his warning was referring to far-right extremists who are not representative of the settler public. Indeed, according to a recent poll by Haifa University’s National Security Studies Center that asked whether violence could ever be justified as a last resort to prevent the government from implementing an objectionable policy, only 2.2 percent of Jewish residents in the West Bank and Gaza believe that any such situation could arise. Clearly, most settlers who oppose Sharon’s plan to dismantle settlements also oppose the idea that violence can be a tool to prevent the plan’s implementation. Joseph Schick Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Bob Murphy Dies New York Mets Hall of Fame announcer Bob Murphy passed away today. Murphy was an announcer for the Mets from the team's inception in 1962 through last season. In a way, it is not surprising that he did not survive a season away from baseball. Mets announcer Gary Cohen, who worked with Murphy from 1988-2003, said: "It's painful to have someone work his entire life, someone who was so beloved, finally have a chance to enjoy his life and have so little time. My heart goes out to [Murphy's wife] Joyce and all our thoughts and prayers are with her. "What stands out the most about Bob is the first game I ever broadcast for the Mets in 1988. I was filling in for one night and I was a minor league kid who had looked up to Murph from the time I was six years old. I was petrified, to put it lightly. At one point early in the broadcast, I just froze. I didn't know what to say or do next. Murph reached out with his hand and patted mine and took over, making the rest of the evening easy. He was a very sweet man. He made sure that I was comfortable and that I could function and succeed and I'll never forget that." When Murphy announced his retirement last year, I wrote on this blog: "Murphy has been around since the formation of the Mets in 1962 (and for eight seasons before that, with the Red Sox and Orioles). It is truly impossible to imagine the Mets without him. While at 78 retirement would seem appropriate, he is in fact retiring too early, and will be very sorely missed... "Murphy hinted that he may come back next season for a game a month. That'd be better than nothing, but not enough. A game a week should be the minimum, with the stipulation that he announce key September and postseason games when the Mets return to contention." Unfortunately, Murphy's illness prevented him from announcing any more games this season. He will be missed. Wolfowitz's Arab Girlfriend Thanks to Miriam Shaviv, for alerting us to a fascinating article in the Daily Telegraph, which reports that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's "closest companion and most valued confidantes is a middle-aged Arab feminist." The woman is identified as Shaha Ali Riza, a senior World Bank official who was born in Tunis and grew up in Saudi Arabia. The article says that according to "close acquaintances of the couple" Ali Riza and Wolfowitz are "romantically linked." Ali Riza's views on Israel are obviously of special interest. In August 2002, she appeared on "The McLaughlin Group." A review of the transcript reveals the following interesting exchange: MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right. I have a question for Shaha. The question for you, Shaha, is this: Is there any precedent for thinking that, assuming that the Arab-Israeli conflict is settled -- that this will mean a loosening of the grip of Arab regimes? Will it bring about, by itself, a termination of that conflict, a force to effect the loosening of the grip by Arab regimes. MS. ALI-RIZA: In principle, one would expect that that is what is going to happen. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But they maintain that restrictive power that they currently have -- on freedom of the press and so forth, and also by denying women their emancipation. MS. ALI-RIZA: Let me put it this way: For a long time, the Arab-Israeli issue has, just exactly like the report has said, been a cause and an excuse for more open societies in the region. And it is absolutely obvious to most of the Arab people in the region that an ending to that conflict would actually change the situation because people have to think about the real issues that are facing them, and certainly in terms of development, rather than wasting their time on a conflict that -- [cut off by McLaughlin] I have long argued, to reaction that was skeptical at best, that far from being a friend of Israel, Wolfowitz has been almost obsessive in pushing for any solution to the conflict. Hence, he expressed support for the Geneva Accord, even though an end to Palestinian terror was not a condition precedent for that proposed agreement. The Forward also reported that Wolfowitz stated that a peace proposal by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh that called for a return by Israel to the '67 borders was a positive step "so that extremists who oppose it can be isolated." Obviously, among those opposing Geneva and the Ayalon/Nusseibeh plan is the current Israeli government. Similarly, as I posted last December, a columnist in the Beirut Daily Star (no longer available online, unfortunately) mentioned that at a forum at Georgetown University, Wolfowitz revealed himself to be "probably the most pro-Palestinian member of the Bush administration." Indeed, a review of transcript of Wolfowitz's remarks at Georgetown would be quite comforting to Arabs and others who think he is a tool of the Likud party. Here is an excerpt in which Wolfowitz not only doesn't challenge outrageously anti-Israel allegations, he adds his own criticism: Q: Hi, my name is Courtney Raj. I'm a second year MSFS student. I'm going into international journalism... Anyway, my question has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You said that you need to look no further than U.N. resolutions, that you need to respect communal universal human rights, the Geneva Convention, etc. And I was wondering if this applies to Israel as well. You have the Chief of Staff coming out and saying that the Israeli security policies towards the Palestinians are harmful to Israeli security and to Palestinians. They violate Geneva Convention 53, and tons of other human rights of these Palestinians. So I'm wondering is the President, as you said, he's ready to make decisions of the magnitude needed for change. Is he ready to make decisions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will lend greater support to the Palestinians and ask the Israelis to stop these policies that are detrimental to the Palestinians and adding to the hopelessness that may be at the root cause of some of the suicide bombings? Wolfowitz: Obviously there's a great deal that has to change on both sides. You cited some things that Israelis have to change and you could make a longer list. You could have talked about settlements, for example. The President has talked about settlements, he's talked about the wall, he's talked about the suffering of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. There's no question that the President is prepared to put pressure on the Israelis to change. There also has to be change on the Palestinian side... I think what the President has set out, what Secretary of State Powell has set out, seems to me to be at this point in history the best way forward. And I do have to say, contrary to what you may have heard, foreign policy is made in the State Department, and I need to be very careful about getting in the way of Secretary Powell's diplomacy. I think it's pointed in the right direction. I do believe, as I said in my remarks, that the solution unfortunately has been awfully clear for a very long time. We came, it seems to me, tragically close at Tabah to getting to that solution. It began to look early this spring as thought we might once again be on that path and this time with the active support of major governments in the region. The bombings, and the violent response to the bombings in the last couple of months have certainly been a big setback, and we've got to get it back on track. I once heard Sid Zion say it best: When Jews are in powerful positions in Washington, a team of chiropractors is needed, because the Jews can't help but constantly bend over backwards to prove their "fairness" to our enemies. Monday, August 02, 2004
9/11 Miracles Yesterday in a Judaica store, I came across one of these books with miracle stories about Jews who survived the September 11 attacks. Never mind - for purposes of this post only - how provincial and self-centered these books are, by focusing exclusively on observant Jews. They are offensive even when viewed from within the prism of Orthodox Jewry. On an individual level, of course, anyone who worked in the World Trade Center and survived must be extremely grateful for their good fortune. I know that a frum person at Cantor Fitzgerald, already late for work, was seconds away from being trapped - he was riding in an elevator on the way to Cantor just as the north building was hit by the first plane. Cantor was above the plane's impact and nobody there (including a young Orthodox woman who lived on the Upper West Side and a law school classmate of mine) survived. I also know a man who was on a very high floor of the south tower and headed downstairs as soon as the north tower was hit. He made it, but many of his co-workers, heeding the announcements to stay where they were, did not. There also were members of Hatzalah, the Jewish volunteer ambulance service, who survived despite being in grave danger. From their perspective and that of their families, the fact that they were spared must indeed be seen as miraculous. On a wider level, however, I view all the miracle stories as indicative of a great deal of immaturity among some observant Jews. The idea being sent seems to be that God protected certain people because of their piety. We are supposed to believe that scores of people arrived late to work because of an old man who delayed morning services, or that a woman locked herself out of her house and called her husband home from work, where most of his colleagues perished. Many people - including members of my family - survived the Holocaust against all odds. But nobody would view the Holocaust as primarily an opportunity for miracle stories about the survivors. Nor, when speaking about suicide bombings in Israel, do people have a need to claim that God miraculously saved those who were fortunate to survive unscathed. It is understood that while some were extremely fortunate to be saved and should thank God for their survival, a terrible disaster occurred. Somehow the 9/11 disaster brought out a need for all these miracle stories. It didn't matter that a large number of observant Jews were murdered and suffered horribly, that many of their bodies were never found, or that for their surviving families, a book containing miracle stories likely was adding salt to their wounds. Thurman Munson My family spent the summer of 1979 in Israel. At six years old, I already didn't like the Yankees. In addition to the Mets, I also liked the Cubs, because they were the Mets' main competition for last place and because I liked Wrigley Field. Bill Buckner was my favorite player. Perhaps because it was my first understanding of death, I vividly remember - or at least think I do - the death of Thurman Munson from a plane crash on August 2, 2004, 25 years old today. It is possible that I'm wrong about all of this, but I am pretty sure it was on Tisha B'av, that it was a Thursday, and that my father was hospitalized that day with a kidney stone. I remember reading extensive reports about Munson in The Jerusalem Post the next morning, and listening to the Yankees game and an emotional pre-game memorial the next day, presumably on a Voice of America station. My recollection is that the Yankees played the Orioles and lost, and that the game was on a Friday night. All-Weed Team ESPN features the All-Weed team, a formidable group headed by former Dolphins running back Ricky Williams. Beilin, Left and Right In his recent Q&A session with Haaretz, Yossi Beilin stated: I do believe that in every normal political system you have left and right and you will always have it in Israel. The left is the movement which is never happy with the reality and which wants always to improve it. The right is the movement that justifies the current situation. I disagree with (and sometimes even abhor) Beilin's political positions, but am surprised that he would make such a narrow-minded statement. In pre-state Israel, it was the right that started the revolt against the British, which the Haganah later joined. While settlement of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza started under Labor, it was the right-wing Likud that tried to change the status of those territories via large scale settlement. Obviously the right was not "happy with the reality" and tried "to improve it." Similarly, in the United States, it was the right that decided to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Whether or not one agrees with that decision, it again was a decision that the reality was not acceptable and should be improved. In today's Israel, Beilin's point has a ring of accuracy. Most Likud members and supporters want to avoid a return to the 1967 borders, but don't have a coherent strategy to do that. Ariel Sharon recognizes that it is necessary to sacrifice the weakest parts of the settlement enterprise to save the major settlement blocs, but despite that recognition, he isn't doing much to protect the major blocs. As a result, in addition to giving up Gaza and northern Samaria, Sharon is weakening the major settlements. At the same time, on the left, even as Sharon moves close to leftist positions, instead of supporting him, people like Beilin are still "never happy with the reality and want always to improve it." So if Sharon accepts a Palestinian state, builds the fence in a manner that would include 12 percent of Judea and Samaria, and calls for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria, Beilin and his peers demand that the fence be built only on the '67 borders, call for unilateral withdrawal from almost all of the territories and undermine Sharon with a mock peace agreement that sends Israel back to the '67 borders. Ehud Barak put it well in his own recent Haaretz Q&A session, saying: The real malaise in Labor, as well as other leftist parties in the world, is that sometimes they develop a fixation with differentiating themselves from right-wing parties. Sunday, August 01, 2004
Leftist Hypocricy In today's Maariv, op-ed columnist Uri Heitner recalls an interview of Yossi Beilin by Maariv's Avraham Tirosh just after the 1993 Oslo Accords in Maariv: Beilin: "Ask me if I am at peace with this, I’ll tell you no. What is 100% sure? I also have numerous questions. I do not sleep well at night. The greatest test of this agreement will be the test of blood." Tirosh: “Meaning?” Beilin: “The test will take place over the ensuing months and year or two after the Gaza Strip and Jericho become autonomous, and a Palestinian police force is installed. This is a charged period of time. If, heaven forbid, a reasonable period of time elapses and terror cannot be vanquished, the Palestinians cannot claim: we cannot fight terror from Tunis. We don’t have a police force”. Tirosh: “Then what?” Beilin: “We won’t have a choice but to retract. If the level of violence does not decline, we cannot move ahead and definitely cannot implement the permanent agreement. If we have no choice, the IDF will return to the locations that it is about to withdraw from over the next several months”. This reminds me of a 1993 Jerusalem Post column by left-wing activist Amos Oz. When the Oslo agreement was announced, Oz wrote: "What if they take whatever we give them and demand even more, still exercising violence and terror? Within the proposed settlement, Israel will be in a position to close in on Palestine and undo the deal. If the worse comes to the worst, if it turns out that the peace is no peace, it will always be militarily easier for Israel to break the backbone of a tiny, demilitarized Palestinian entity than to go on and on breaking the backbones of eight-year-old stone-throwing Palestinians. "Once peace comes, Israeli doves, more than other Israelis, must assume a clear-cut 'hawkish' attitude concerning the duty of the future Palestinian regime to live by the letter and the spirit of its obligations. The plan now being negotiated, Gaza and Jericho first, is a sober and reasonable option. If the Palestinians want to hold onto Gaza and Jericho, eventually assuming power in other parts of the occupied territories, they will have to prove to us, to themselves and to the whole world, that they have abandoned violence and terror, that they are capable of suppressing their fanatics, that they are renouncing the destructive Palestinian Charter and withdrawing from what they used to call 'the right of return.' They will also have to show that they are willing to tolerate in their midst a minority of Israelis who may choose to live where there is no Israeli government." Peace has not come, and the Palestinians control much more than Gaza and Jericho, but Israeli doves such as Oz and Beilin continue to blame Israel for the situation, despite promising that they would support retraction of Oslo and the IDF's return to Judea and Samaria if violence continued. Stupid Trades of the Week 1. All spring training, the Mets touted Scott Kazmir as their best prospect, and labeled him untouchable. They refused to discuss sending him to Texas for Alfonso Soriano. Fred Wilpon personally told Kazmir he was going nowhere and would be a Met. A real Mets fan knew then and there that Kazmir would either blow out his elbow or be traded and star for another team. After starting the season in A ball, Kazmir was promoted to Double A Binghamton, where he had a 1.73 ERA and averaged more than a strikeout per inning. Then suddenly late last week, rumors circulated that the Mets were down on Kazmir, and just like that, he was traded on Friday for Victor Zambrano, the mediocre and wild Tampa Bay pitcher who has a 6.48 ERA this season on grass. Perhaps Jim ("Steve Phillips Without Hair") Duqeutte and Fred Wilpon forgot that Shea Stadium is a grass surface. Wondering what soured the Mets on Kazmir? According to Jon Heyman in today's Newsday, Kazmir, who grew up in Texas, "scared the Mets by bragging this spring that he couldn't wait to get to New York to enjoy its 'fast-paced lifestyle.'" Certain athletes love the New York City life and thrive playing here. Mark Messier, Keith Hernandez, Derek Jeter and Latrell Sprewell are a few names that come to mind. As Kazmir told a Binghamton paper: "I'm heartbroken. I just went over to [manager Ken Oberkfell] and said, 'Did I do something? What did I do wrong?'" If Wilpon had any misgivings about trading Kazmir, that statement surely eliminated them. An athlete who likes New York? Who actually wants to play for the Mets? No way. Wilpon prefers family men who are listless and humorless (those two eliminated Alex Rodriguez) who cannot wait to get out of town when the season ends. He's still nostalgic for Kevin McReynolds. 2. The Kazmir trade is bad enough, but trading three prospects and Ty Wigginton for Kris Benson, a long-time mediocre pitcher, is even worse. The Mets hope to sign Benson to a long-term deal which will cost between $7 million and $9 million a year, money that could be used to fill other needs. If they like Benson so much, they also could have waited for the offseason to sign him without giving up anything. Even if the Mets led the NL East by 8 games, the deal would be a bad one, and it's insane in light of their being in 4th place, 8 back. Wigginton was their best young player, makes little money and can't be a free agent for years. David Wright might be good soon, but a month in Triple A was not enough time. He was rushed to Shea, and is not ready yet. Jose Reyes dazzles at times, but it's only a matter of time before his next major injury. And Wigginton won't be around to play second base then. He's likely to be another Jeff Kent, though unlike Kent, Wigginton liked New York and was popular in the clubhouse. The Mets also gave up three prospects to acquire Benson. Matt Peterson was probably their third best pitching prospect, after Kazmir and Phillip Humber. Justin Huber was supposed to be their catcher of the future. He has pop in his bat and is a patient hitter with a good on base percentage. The third prospect, Joselo Diaz, was purported to be the key player acquired for Jeremy Burnitz last year. Diaz walks too many batters, but averages more than a strikeout per inning in the minors and has a good fastball. 3. The Mets won't win with Duquette or Art Howe. They should replace both at season's end with Omar Minaya and (former Mets player and coach and current Triple A manager) John Stearns. Should but won't. 4. Despite all of this, I do have some good news. While my car insurance rates have actually increased, Time Warner has pulled the plug on all Mets games on cable. So except for the occasional Channel 11 game, I won't be able - against my better judgment - to watch this boring group of overpaid malconents (Cliff Floyd especially) continue to go through the motions. Ten Things About The Mets The following are ten obvious facts about the New York Mets, which the team's employees and reporters (are they on the payroll too?) refuse to acknowledge: 10. Todd Zeile had a great month, but he's otherwise been awful. He's hitting .233 and strikes out once every 3.5 at bats. Zeile should be the last player off the bench. He should never start at first ahead of Eric Valent. 9. Joe McEwing is a nice guy, but not a major league talent. He has three extra base hits this season. 8. Braden Looper is not reliable. Only good control has kept him from routinely blowing saves. 7. Valent should be getting much more playing time. 6. Neither Kris Benson nor Victor Zambrano is very good. 5. John Franco should not have returned from rotator cuff surgery. 4. Jose Reyes has no pain tolerance. 3. David Wright might become a good player, but he's not ready for the majors yet. 2. Art Howe is killing Mike Piazza, who needs to rest at least once a week, and probably twice. Piazza might have a little left in the tank, but not as a starting first baseman. The Mets should let him catch about half their games, play him at first once or twice a week, and otherwise rest him. 1. The Mets will not win with Howe. | "
