The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Tzedekah to Arabs Last year I posted about an elderly Arab man who asked to give me a tour of the Old City of Jerusalem. When I politely declined, he asked me for money for his family which he said was suffering because of the political "problems" and I gave him a shekel. This morning upon my arrival at the Jewish Quarter, as if on cue, the same man approached me immediately with the same shpiel. This time I didn't give him anything and he gestured by waving his hand at me as if to tell me to go to hell. I usually give money to beggars in Israel. On Friday I had given money to a man with no legs and to an old man who approached me, at which time an Israeli man without a kippah started screaming at me for giving money to Arabs when three soldiers had been killed the day before by Arab terrorists. I didn't know whether the people I had given money to were Arab and Jewish, but since then am feeling more self-conscious about giving to people who look Arab while an Arab terror war against Israeli civilians and the murder of IDF soldiers continues. Yom Kippur in Jerusalem I had made contingency plans to spend Yom Kippur in southern California, including reserving a rental car, getting invitations from friends in Sherman Oaks, Pico-Robertson and Hancock Park, scheduling meetings with people, and even contacting fellow esteemed bloggers Robert Avrech and Luke Ford about meeting each of them. It was all unnecessary as the Histadrut strike ended on Wednesday morning, and through quite a bit of persistence, I got onto the one flight added by El Al and landed in Israel 20 hours later than initially planned. In Israel, shul seats were a bargain at 100 shekels (about $23) each at Beit Knesset Hanassi, where Rabbi Berel Wein is the permanent resident scholar. The fast ended at 6:10 and with Jerusalem - even the secular Rehavia neighborhood - empty of cars and secular activity, it was a very meaningful day. After the fast I went to the Zion Square area to eat but no place was open until a couple of hours after Yom Kippur. A European tourist asked me why nobody was out since "the holiday is over." By tonight, downtown Jerusalem is busy, a much different place that I found it during my three previous visits over the last three years, especially 2001 and 2002 when it was nearly desolate. Note to Jeff and Fred Wilpon: Just before the start of Kol Nidre, one of the congregants in shul mentioned to his friend that his six year old grandson just switched from being a Mets fan to a Yankees fan after being teased by his first grade friends. Due to the Wilpons' incompetence, Mets fans young and old are losing the demographic battle over New York, which for decades was a National League city. Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Ben Gurion Airport Closure I had been hoping for a quick Labor Court injunction putting an end to the massive Histadrut strike in Israel, but that hasn't happened. My flight was scheduled for 7:30 tonight and is canceled, and prospects of getting on another flight that would arrive before Yom Kippur appear very remote. I'll probably give it another few hours and then book a shorter trip somewhere in the U.S. I almost booked the flight last night that ended circling over Israel before having to go to Budapest, so I guess things could be worse, but I'm obviously extremely disappointed about having my plans to spend Yom Kippur and part of succos in Israel ruined. Monday, September 20, 2004
Trip to Israel I'm scheduled to fly to Israel tomorrow evening for a 10 day trip and will try to post while there, but blogging will be lighter over the next couple of weeks. The Histadrut is planning a general strike starting tomorrow morning, so it's possible that I'll be stuck here, or at Ben Gurion airport upon landing. Jewish Extremism I'm not a supporter of the Sharon plan for unilateral withdrawal, but am becoming disgusted by the continuing extremism of some of the plan's opponents. The latest example is Nadia Matar's comparison of the proposed expulsion of Jewish residents of the Gaza and northern Samaria communities to the expulsion of Jews from Berlin in 1942. Matar, a leader of Women in Green, is a fringe figure and it's not worth exaggerating her importance. That said, the notion that it is legitimate to compare a decision by Israel to pull out of settlements - in areas that were never annexed and were always known to be in dispute - to Nazi atrocities can't be accepted by the mainstream right-wing. Otherwise, they will lose not only the battle for Gaza, but for Judea and Jerusalem as well. There are plenty of ways to strongly oppose Sharon's plan without resorting to fanatical statements. Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Mets Manager Art Howe is a good man, but the wrong manager for the Mets. The end of his tenure is a positive step for the team, though it is unfortunate that he alone is taking the fall for the foolish decisions of the front office and ownership. Ideally, Bobby Valentine would be rehired. After the 2001 season, Valentine had worn out his welcome, but many of the players from that team are gone, and Bobby V would restore credibility to the Mets. If, as is much more likely, the Mets decide to go with a cheaper alternative, Willie Randolph and John Stearns would be two of my top choices for the job. Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Fuzzy Math In today's New York Post, Deborah Orin writes: A new poll in the swing state Wisconsin shows President Bush starting to open up a lead — now 8 points — over Democrat John Kerry in a state that's a near must-win for Kerry. Bush had 52 percent among likely voters and Kerry 44 percent, with independent Ralph Nader trailing at 1 percent in the Gallup-CNN poll taken Thursday through Sunday. But Bush's lead is within the poll's 5-point error margin. How exactly is an 8 point lead within a 5 point margin of error? Sharon, the Jewish Press and Right-Wing Fanatics An editorial in this week's Jewish Press states: Prime Minister Sharon went way over the top the other day in playing the "incitement" card to delegitimize those who oppose the plan. It is one thing to be concerned about a "clear and present danger" to the public weal. It is quite another to reprise Shimon Peres` shameful effort of years back to stifle anti-Oslo Accord dissent by holding public action to some vague, elastic standard of acceptability. I agree that opponents of the Sharon plan should be free to express their opinions, and that too many in the Israeli media, the Israeli left and Sharon's own circles have acted to stifle dissent. Still, while the Jewish Press recognizes that "there was, to be sure, some beyond the pale nonsense expressed in some opposition quarters," I think it underestimates the danger of the extreme zealots. The paper alludes to the Oslo era and the allusion to a time when Prime Minister Rabin was murdered by a Jewish fanatic is quite apt. Sadly, similar fanaticism on the extreme right remains. Haaretz reports that today Rabbi Yosef Dayan, from the West Bank settlement of Psagot, told Israel's Channel 2 that "if asked to hold a Pulsa Denura, a Kabbalah ceremony aimed at leading to the death of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he would do so." Dayan held a similar "ceremony" against Prime Minister Rabin. Crazies like Dayan have to be condemned without any equivocation. The failure of the mainstream right-wing to do so will inevitably result in its free speech being limited. In an op-ed column in this week's Jewish Press, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky calls on the Sharon government to be brought down. Rabbi Pruzansky correctly points out that Sharon has betrayed historical Likud positions. His blaming of Sharon for Israel's current security situation seems to me to be wildly off base, as Sharon has of late fought terror quite aggressively, killing off much of the Hamas and Fatah terror leadership. Of more interest is Rabbi Pruzansky's having forgotten the result of the last two collapses of Likud governments. After the far-right brought down the Shamir and Netanyahu governments, it got the Rabin and Barak governments in exchange. Instead of peace talks in Madrid and the Wye Agreement's conditional withdrawal from 13 percent of Judea and Samaria, it got Oslo, Camp David and the Clinton Plan. This doesn't necessarily mean that from a right-wing perspective the idea of bringing down Sharon and forcing new elections is a bad one under all circumstances. But it does require some thought and analysis as to the likely consequences of such a move, something Rabbi Pruzansky's column fails to offer. Unhappy Anniversary Yesterday was 11 years since the signing of the Oslo Accords on September 13, 1993. Few appeared to have noticed. Saturday, September 11, 2004
Paul Acquaviva Paul Acquaviva was a law school classmate of mine and in 1996, between our second and third years of last school, we were both summer associates at Dewey Ballantine. Over the following years I'd occasionally run into him on the street and we'd talk briefly. After a few years at Dewey, Paul moved on to eSpeed, a division of Cantor Fitzgerald, where he was murdered on September 11, 2001. On September 12, 2001, I was assigned to work on matters related to Cantor Fitzgerald - a client of the law firm I worked for then - and shortly thereafter learned that Paul was not accounted for. Friday, September 10, 2004
Jets Preview I was feeling pretty optimistic about the Jets prior to this week's announcement that cornerback Ray Mickens will miss the season with a knee injury. The Jets' secondary is inexperienced, and without Mickens opposing offenses are even more likely to be able to throw the ball against the Jets. As it is, the Jets' run defense was terrible last year; if they can't stop the pass either, they'll be doomed. The offense should be in better shape. Chad Pennington sometimes looks great, and then reverts to being mediocre. The Jets need to give him pass protection and limit the 3rd and longs he faces, as Pennington is more susceptible to the blitz than some other QBs. Offensive coordinator Paul Hackett also needs a less predictable gameplan. Continuing the pattern of a short screen on first down and a run on 2nd down to set up 3rd and long isn't going to work. I was leaning toward predicting a 10-6 season and a wildcard appearance, but the Jets' history over the last 35 years and the questions surrounding the defense are prompting me to predict a 9-7 season, with the Jets just missing a trip to the playoffs. Still, with some breaks and a relatively injury free season, the Jets could be as good as 11-5 and go as far as the AFC Championship. In any event, Super Bowl or last place, I'll be at Giants Stadium (thanks to Leon Hess for moving in 1984 to Giants Stadium) for the home games. Israeli View on Settlements There is a popular myth frequently stated as factual by the international media - including the Jewish media - that a majority of Israelis are willing to dismantle all or most of the "settlements." The myth is just that, though the lack of sophistication of many Israelis as to what is and what isn't considered a "settlement" contributes much to the myth's credibility. The latest monthly peace index by Professors Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann, heads of the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research of Tel Aviv University is very revealing. It reflects a poll taken between August 29-31, 2004. According to the poll results, 17% of Israelis would evacuate all settlements in the context of a final agreement with the Palestinians, 15% would agree to leave most of the settlements, 37% favor evacuating only those settlements that are among or close to Palestinian towns and villages, and 25% oppose any settlement evacuation under any circumstances. Thus, 32 percent would agree to give up all or most of the settlements, while 62 percent insist on, at most, a limited withdrawal. Even more interesting is the poll's finding that many Israelis do not consider a number of communities within Judea and Samaria to be "settlements." Indeed, most do not regard Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel or the Gush Etzion communities as being "settlements in the territories." One wonders, therefore, whether polls that show significant support for a halt to construction in "settlements" can be taken at face value. If most Israelis do not regard Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel and the communities in Gush Etzion to be "settlements," than many who purport to support a freeze in "settlements" are in fact only referring to some "settlements" (likely smaller isolated ones), not all of them. Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Shmuley Boteach at the US Open Toward the end of the first of two matches last night at Arthur Ashe Stadium, Shmuley Boteach and his wife passed through my row, and took the seats next to me and my wife. While the seats were near center court, they were in Row Y of the upper level, with Row Z the highest row in the stadium. Reb Shmuley was taken aback by how bad the seats were, remarking (accurately) that he could see the Empire State Building from his seat. I thought about talking with Shmuley about Michael Moore, but decided to hold off because (i) it's considered rude to talk while a tennis match is proceeding and (ii) I figured the guy and his wife wanted a night out alone, not a discussion with one of a handful of other frum people in the crowd of over 23,000 who happened to sit right next to him. I was going to say hello during the break between matches, but when I got back from buying soda and ice cream, Shmuley and his wife had left our bad seats, having either found better seats or gone home. Hopefully, the former, because the second match was quite good, an upset of top seed Justine Henin by Nadia Petrova. Sunday, September 05, 2004
TNR, Bush and the Orthodox Vote This week's New Republic has a long feature about the Bush campaign's focus on Orthodox Jewish voters, including a visit by Republican Senators Rick Santorum and Norm Coleman to a Brooklyn beis medrash. While Bush will likely do relatively well among the Orthodox, as the article points out, even if every observant Jew in New York votes for Bush, Kerry will easily win the state. So why the focus on Orthodox New Yorkers? According to Jeff Ballabon, who heads Bush's "outreach" to the Orthodox, the charedim "all read the same national papers." "And," Ballabon says, "ninety-five percent of them are published in New York. ... The Orthodox press for many is the primary source of news." Noam Scheiber, the author of the piece, adds: "The logic applies to non-haredi, modern Orthodox Jews as well." There may be a little truth to this "logic" but it's very exaggerated. I don't buy the idea that Orthodox Jews in swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to vote for Bush because the Jewish Press or Yated Neeman have nice things to say about Republican leaders meeting rabbis in Boro Park. The modern Orthodox certainly do not rely on Orthodox weeklies for their primary source of news; nor do most charedim. As someone who has lived within disparate Orthodox communities, I can certainly attest to the fact that observant Jews are not a political monolith. A much more effective focus is on Jews like me who - Orthodox or non-Orthodox - are political centrists for whom Israel is a priority and who are uncomfortable with the respect accorded by mainstream Democrat leaders to Michael Moore and to pro-Palestinian "anti-war" leaders. TNR reports that Bush is, wisely, beginning to focus on these voters. For the last few months, Kerry has been fairly successful in shoring up support by telling Jews that he'll support Israel in its war against Palestinian terror. So far, Bush has said and done little of substance to counter this. Thursday, September 02, 2004
Arab News Condemns Terrorism Excellent editorial in today's Arab News strongly condemning terrorism, regardless of one's grievance. The English language Saudi daily opened its editorial by asking: "Are there really no limits to senseless violence?" The editorial states: "The people of Palestine have a legitimate cause for anger at Ariel Sharon's Israel. Their land has been devastated and their men, women and children killed in thousands in a war that was not necessary. A negotiated solution for Israel's standoff with Palestine could have been found if Sharon, appointed premier in 2001, had not proceeded immediately to prove how tough he was by crushing Palestine with military might. Bloodshed has not stopped since then, either in Palestine or Israel. "All this is true. However, the grievance the Palestinians have is against the Knesset, not against ordinary Israelis — certainly not against schoolchildren and schoolmarms. When genuine political grievances are sought to be solved through perpetrating violence against children, it inflicts the most grievous harm on the cause that is sought to be furthered. The decent people who were supporting them in their fight against injustice turn against them... "There can be no doubt that from the minute this attack was planned, the terror leaders have been quite prepared to shed torrents of young blood. There are no words strong enough to express the disgust and horror all decent people feel toward such actions. Their campaigns are the very opposite of brave and heroic and bring the deepest and most profound shame upon the causes they pretend to represent." The above appears in today's Arab News, except I inserted Palestine, Israel, Sharon, and Knesset in place of Chechnya, Russia, Putin and Kremlin. Arab News was referring to the hostages being held at a Russian school by Chechen terrorists, not to the murder of Jews by Palestinian terrorists. The latter is still supported by English speaking Saudi intellectuals. Instead of "disgust and horror" and "profund shame", Palestinian terror is greeted with pride and profound joy, with the terrorists glorified as martyrs. The Orthodox Blogosphere It's incredible how much the Orthodox blogosphere has changed since I started this blog less than 16 months ago, on May 8, 2003. Then, there were three main Orthodox blogs: Hasidic Rebel, Protocols, and Unbroken Glass. Today, none of those three sites exists in its previous form. Hasidic Rebel initially posted quick thoughts on various issues; his blogging style changed somewhat once he gained notoriety. It's close to a year now since he last posted; my guess is that with each post resulting in hundreds of comments and flame wars, blogging was taking up too much of his time and was no longer enjoyable for him. I owe thanks to HR for being the first to link to this blog, on its second day. The demise of the old Protocols is unfortunate. Luke Ford was and is an interesting (and apparently permanent) guest blogger, but Steven Weiss is indispensable to the site. The blog at Unbroken Glass remains, though the main content, the dating experiences of "She," ceased to be updated upon her marriage. "She" should compile them for commercial purposes; her stories are at least as interesting as the fictional Bridget Jones's Diary. A very large number of Orthodox bloggers have recently joined the blogosphere. One thing that I think is unique to these blogs is the disproportionate number of them that are anonymous. While it's every blogger's prerogative to choose to keep his or her identify private, I think overall the anonymity is unfortunate. There's too much conformity within Orthodoxy to one's own circles - not just on matters of religion but on cultural and political matters too - and I wonder whether the motivation of some of those who choose to be anonymous is based on a desire to have an outlet to express their real views without anyone in their community reading them. In any event, Steven Weiss posted about all this on Fiddish a little while back, so I won't belabor the point. Incidentally, it's doubtful whether anonymity is even effective. One of the Orthodox bloggers criticized by Weiss was Chayyei Sarah. While I don't know Chayyei Sarah at all, based on the information she posted about herself, it was obvious, at least to me, who she is. Likely, someone who knows an anonymous blogger will very quickly be able to ascertain their identity. Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Fanaticism In a Jewish Press column last week, Steven Plaut referred to Baruch Goldstein - the man who murdered 29 Arabs in Hebron in 1994 - as a "fanatic." This week two Jewish Press readers criticize Plaut in letters to the editor. The second of the two letters is especially extreme. The reader wrote: Baruch Goldstein "a fanatic"? How could you, Mr. Plaut? I always look forward to reading your columns in The Jewish Press and agree with almost everything you write. Therefore I never thought the day would come when I`d feel as betrayed as I did upon seeing the epithet you used in reference to a man who was an ish gibor — a mighty man of Israel. Dr. Goldstein was privy to murderous plots being hatched by the so-called peaceful worshipers in that mosque, and he acted upon the rabbinic dictum "If one comes to kill you, arise and slay him first." To make amends to the blessed memory of Dr. Goldstein, Mr. Plaut needs to issue a public apology to the family of Baruch Goldstein (may Hashem avenge His servant`s blood). Even if it were true that "murderous plots" were "being hatched" by the very same Arabs that Goldstein murdered (and it isn't), Goldstein's actions were far from an effective response, especially given that the IDF exists to defend Israel. Goldstein's terrorist act resulted in Palestinian terror gaining support among Arabs and legitimacy among Europeans, and in Jews being banned from the main sanctuary in Maarot Hamachpela (the Cave of the Patriarchs) except for a few days a year. Plaut - in a very rare position as the relative leftist - responded well, stating: "I am taken to task for describing Baruch Goldstein as a 'fanatic.' In Genesis 25:9, Isaac and Ishmael bury Abraham together in the Hebron cave, Ishmael letting Isaac go first in noteworthy politeness. Isaac did not pull out an assault rifle and gun down Ishmael while he was praying there. A Jew who guns down unarmed praying descendants of Ishmael in the same spot may be deserving of adjectives other than 'fanatic,' but I doubt The Jewish Press would print them." Art Howe and the Wilpons In today's Times, New York Mets manager Art Howe is quoted as saying: "I signed a four-year contract because I knew this would be a process and I knew we wouldn't turn it around overnight. I thought it was understood that two years would not be long enough." Really? The Mets had five straight winning seasons, from 1997 through 2001. After the team had a disappointing year in 2002, Bobby Valentine was fired, and replaced with Howe. The Mets brass insisted then that they could and should be contenders, with 2002 an aberration. Valentine was fired because John Franco and others advised the Wilpons that he lost the attention of the players during the Mets' late season collapse. The hiring of Howe was greeted with mixed reviews. Howe was known as a player's manager and a number of columnists, including Murray Chass of the Times (himself a Valentine nemesis), Jon Heyman of Newsday and others strongly criticized the move, which they saw as Fred Wilpon's wrongheaded desire to hire a manager with a personality the opposite of Valentine's. Now, the Wilpons are angry with Howe because he is too soft. As today's Star Ledger reports, Howe has been admonished for failing to tougher on his players, as though they didn't know when they hired him that his approach is low key and would not likely work on a team of apathetic overpaid veterans who lack leadership skills. Howe had been laid back as manager of the Oakland A's and Houston Astros, and there was no reason to expect him to change his approach with the Mets. The Wilpons' criticism of him now for just that reason is characteristic of their stupidity. All About Shmuley Shmuley Boteach is a talented person, which is why his self-obsession is so frustrating. Yet another example concerns Shmuley's view of Michael Moore. A month ago, Shmuley had this to say about Moore: "On the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, from where I was broadcasting my radio show, I found myself sitting 10 feet from Michael Moore. He was chatting with journalists, so I decided to ask if he would agree to be a guest on my radio show. I wanted to debate him about his Bush-hating "Fahrenheit 9-11." But when he saw me approaching, he dismissed me with a single, condescending flick of his finger as if I were a bug crawling up his arm. "I was initially offended by his arrogant gesture. And knowing of his hatred of Israel – he identified Israel as one of the three epicenters of evil in the world (New York Times, June 26, 2004) – I wondered if his attitude had something to do with my yarmulke and beard. But then I remembered a recent New Yorker profile of Moore that portrayed him as something of a monster who treats his employees like garbage... "I certainly do not seek the respect of a man like Michael Moore, who profits from portraying the United States as a murderous dictatorship and Israel as its chief partner in crime." On Monday night at the Republican National Convention, Moore was friendlier toward Boteach. Suddenly, Shmuley had warmer feelings toward Moore, as he told the New York Post's 'Page Six', which reports today: DOLLAR signs were flashing in Michael Moore's eyes as boos rained down on the portly provocateur during Sen. John McCain's address to the Republican National Convention. "I just made another $20 million," Moore told his seatmate, conservative radio commentator Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who tells PAGE SIX: "I asked him, 'how do you feel about getting booed like this?' And he said, 'Well, first of all it's flattering. These people love their country, and I bet if we sat down face-to-face they'd see that we agree on a lot of the issues.'" The radio rabbi took the opportunity to challenge Moore on his past anti-Israel comments, but usually feisty Moore wasn't in a fighting mood. "I challenged him: Why would you want to undermine your moral credibility by coming across as a Jew-hater? He said, 'I love Israel, I believe in Israel's security. In my opinion the Jewish people are the most oppressed people on earth.' I couldn't believe my ears!" UPDATE: (6 P.M. 9/1) Boteach has a column in Thursday's Jerusalem Post about his encounter with Moore at the Republican National Convention. Boteach's questions relating to Moore's anti-Israel statements were not very substantive and allowed Moore to spin his way out of really responding, though perhaps the convention was not the best place for more than a casual discussion. Jewish Press Column Here is my column in this week's Jewish Press: It has become trendy to demonize Israel, which is being bashed on college campuses, threatened with sanctions by the United Nations, and condemned as a pariah at The Hague. Among American Jews, there are different views on the Iraq war, on Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal plan, and on the presidential election. There is 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 effort to isolate Israel is an outrage. The anti-Israel hysteria continues unabated, but nobody even mentions the idea of a mass rally supporting Israel and condemning the UN, The Hague and the European Union. For 18 months after the Palestinians launched their terror war against Israel in September 2000, no major rally was organized. In the April 6, 2001 issue of The Jewish Week, Gary Rosenblatt 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… “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 organize a rally, in Washington on April 15, 2002. The rally was mobilized on little more than a week's notice; nevertheless, on a weekday, a couple of hundred thousand Jewish Americans came to the Capitol from across the country. The 2002 rally occurred when Palestinian terror was at its peak and when the U.S. was relentlessly bombing Afghanistan yet President Bush was vocally demanding an immediate IDF pullout from Palestinian towns. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz gave a rambling speech that spoke of a need for Israeli concessions and focused on Palestinian suffering. The crowd didn't personally heckle Wolfowitz, but firmly stated its position: “No more Arafat” and “No double standard.” Bush backed off his demand, and two months later declared that Yasser Arafat is not a partner for peace. Almost another year and a half has since passed and a lot has happened: Prime Minister Sharon expressed support for the formation of a Palestinian state, decided to build a fence, and was reelected in a landslide. Two Palestinian prime ministers were appointed. Israel's cabinet decided to remove Arafat, but never implemented the decision. The road map came and went. The Geneva Accord briefly emboldened the left. Sharon called for unilateral withdrawal. Saddam Hussein was deposed. Hamas leaders Ahmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantisi were liquidated. Terror attacks declined, but Jews continue to be murdered, including Goldie and Shmuel Taubenfeld of New Square; Dr. David and Naava Applebaum of Jerusalem; Chezi Goldberg of Betar Illit; and Tali, Hila, Hadar, Roni and Merav Chatuel (and Tali and Dovid Chatuel's unborn son) of Gush Katif. The Hague ruled, 14-1, that the fence is illegal. The UN voted 150-6 to demand that Israel tear down the fence and pay reparations to Palestinians. All 25 members of the European Union supported the resolution. Rabbi Avi Weiss and others have organized small grass roots protests, but even as numerous “anti-war” rallies have been organized, all of which contain shockingly anti-Israel posters and invective, no counter-rally has been planned. Enough is enough. As the Palestinian terror campaign is about to enter its fifth year and the world's animus toward Israel becomes 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, this time at, and in protest of, the UN. Unfortunately, the Jewish establishment leadership is apparently too busy engaging in self-gratifying meetings with political hacks at party conventions. * * * The New York Times’ report that President Bush now accepts some growth in the major settlement blocs received significant attention. The Times published an editorial criticizing Bush for “driving American credibility as a Middle East peacemaker to a new low” and “sliding from dangerous passivity to outright obstruction” in the pursuit of Middle East peace. The Jewish Press saw the reported move as part of Bush’s strategy of pressuring Palestinians. The purported policy shift is mostly hype and of little substance. While the U.S. has always opposed settlement construction, it has generally tolerated it in moderation. Thus, when Prime Ministers Begin and Shamir built new settlements deep in Judea and Samaria, they faced strong condemnation from Presidents Carter and Bush, but there was much less reaction from President Clinton to settlement expansion in the major blocs by Prime Ministers Rabin, Barak, and even Netanyahu. Indeed, the Oslo Accords did not include restrictions on Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria or Gaza. The current Bush Administration has repeatedly called for a total ban on settlement growth. In Bush’s June 24, 2002 speech, when he stated that Yasser Arafat is not a peace partner, he also said “Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.” However, for several years there has been a tacit understanding between the White House and Israel that “natural growth” would be tolerated as long as no new settlements are constructed and new housing units in existing settlements are built within the existing construction line in those towns. In the large majority of settlements, there has been little construction over the last few years and even that construction generally relates to housing tenders issued before Sharon became prime minister. The settlement blocs in which Bush is now accepting growth collectively comprise only about 5 percent of Judea and Samaria. Indeed, almost all of the new homes approved last week to much international anger are in just three of the largest towns: Betar Illit, Maa’leh Adumim and Ariel. According to Maariv, the construction in Ariel may be objectionable to Bush because it is further from the Green Line. When Sharon and Bush met in April, Israel formally agreed not to expand existing settlements to undeveloped areas and that a U.S.-Israeli team will review aerial photographs to jointly define the construction line of each settlement. Countering the notion that a policy shift favorable to the interests of the Israeli right has occurred, last week on Israel Radio, longtime Meretz leader Yossi Sarid criticized Israel’s agreement to formally involve the United States in setting settlement policy, arguing that the move is an unprecedented subjugation of Israel’s sovereignty to a foreign country. * * * A disproportionate number of religious Israelis volunteer for IDF combat units. While most are national-religious, new data from Israel's Defense Ministry shows a 50 percent rise in the number of charedi draftees in the last year. Maariv reports that the charedi Nachal Battalion now includes several platoons of soldiers carrying out combat missions in Judea and Samaria. Yet even as charedi men who don't serve in the army are criticized for their failure to defend Israel, religious soldiers who risk their lines in dangerous units are criticized for being disloyal to the State. A few weeks ago in The Jerusalem Report, 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.” Two weeks ago in the Forward, Leonard Fein echoed Goodman’s argument, writing: “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.” The accusation that all religious soldiers will disobey government orders is baseless. The Yesha Council has rejected the idea that soldiers should refuse orders. Goodman’s defamation of young men who risk (and too often sacrifice) their lives for his security is especially disgraceful. | "
