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

 
Nitsana Darshan-Leitner/Shurat HaDin

IMRA today posts a press release from Shurat Hadin/Israel Law Center about an upcoming speaking tour by its head, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, in the United States, Europe and Australia.

Referring to its lawsuits against terror groups, the press release states that "Shurat HaDin is proving that there is indeed a role that concerned individuals can actively play in the war on terror."

Two and a half years ago, I received an e-mail from an elderly man who was seriously wounded in a PLO terror attack. His son was killed. He asked me whether he had any legal options.

I responded with my thoughts, and suggested that he contact Shurat HaDin. He informed me that he initially had corresponded with them, but that for months they had been completely ignoring his e-mails, perhaps because they had concluded that he did not have any legal options (it appeared that his time to commence a new action may have lapsed). Why, he asked, wouldn't they at least let him know if there was no legal recourse, rather than leave him hanging?

I sent a detailed e-mail to Shurat Hadin, reminding them about this man's inquiry and politely asked that they respond to me or to him, even with a curt statement that nothing could be done. When they failed to respond, I sent a follow-up e-mail a few weeks later. Again, no response of any kind from Shurat Hadin.

The Shurat HaDin press release concludes with a quote from the Book of Esther: ""For if you keep silent at a time like this . . . "

Indeed, Shurat HaDin's silence in response to a terror victim's pleas tell me all I need to know about the group.
posted on 11/30/2006

 
50 Bullets

When I expressed outrage after the murder of Gidone Busch by NYPD officers, a non-Jewish friend asked me if I had felt the same way when Amadou Diallo was killed by cops and when Abner Louima was brutalized. I said that I had, but had to admit that I was not nearly as vocal then.

More than seven years later, I therefore cannot be silent after the Queens shooting death of Sean Bell.

To be sure, many essential facts are not yet in - and Bell is not around to respond to the NYPD officers' account. It is prudent to reserve full judgment pending the DA's investigation.

But there is reason to believe that at the very least, the cops on the scene acted inappropriately and with excessive force, and that if the situation had been handled properly, Bell and his friends would have gone home safely.

* * *

When Rudy Giuliani began his crackdown on crime, he ordered the NYPD to be aggressive toward minor infractions, like the "squeegy guys" who used to wash car windows on an unsolicited basis, and then demand a dollar for their 30 seconds of work. Then, cops went hard after neighborhood drug dealers. Whatever one thinks about Giuliani's style, it's hard to argue that the streets became safer during his tenure.

On a daily basis, most NYPD officers work hard and risk their safety to protect New York City's citizens. Their efforts have made this city - once riddled with violent crime - one of the safest big cities in the country.

But a minority of cops arrogantly present a confrontational, paranoid and bullying attitude toward even the most tenuous perceived threats.

Usually this thuggish attitude takes the form of a cop telling a civilian approaching to ask a question to "get the f*** away from me" or for a baseless summons to be issued.

Occasionally, however, the result is the death or maiming of an innocent, unarmed civilian.

Just as Giuliani's war on violent crime began with a no-tolerance attitude toward window-washers and turnstyle-jumpers, efforts to ensure that others do not share the tragic fate of Gidone Busch, Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell must begin by demanding that the NYPD and its officers always act with courtesy, professionalism and respect, in accordance with its mandate.
posted on 11/30/2006

 
What's Omar Thinking?

The Mets have given 41 year old Orlando Hernandez a two-year $12 million contract, 40 year old Moises Alou $8.5 million for one season, and 37 year old Jose Valentin $4 million for one season. They are ready to give 41 year old Tom Glavine more than $10 million for another season, and are even letting Glavine demonstrate his strong preference to return to the Braves.

Pedro Martinez will make $15 million next season even though he might not throw a pitch, but GM Omar Minaya says that's okay.

Yet they are letting reliever Chad Bradford go. The Mets would not match Baltimore's offer of 3 years for $10.5 million.

Perhaps Bradford's postseason career ERA of 0.00 turned the Mets off.

Are the Orioles overpaying for a pretty good journeyman relief pitcher? Perhaps. But by the middle of next season, you can be sure that the Mets will be desperately looking for reliable bullpen help. And they'll pay a high price in players and prospects if they are able to find anyone.

There is simply no logic to the Mets wildly overpaying player after player, and, offseason after offseason, suddenly insisting on fiscal responsibility when it comes to certain members of the pitching staff.

Don't worry, though. Omar is surely working hard to bring back Jorge Julio.
posted on 11/28/2006

 
James Chadwick "Rod Tilwell" Pennington

1. Even the anti-Chad, Jetsphan, surely managed a smile when Pennington did his best imitation of Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire, getting up from what seemed like a serious injury and pumping up the crowd. For the two minutes or so that Pennington was on the field, all of us thought his shoulder was badly hurt. Indeed, for all we know, Pennington's shoulder may be injured.

2. As Jetsphan aptly predicted, Pennington played very well against a porous Texans defense. Pennington's recent performance of playing well against bad defenses but poorly against good defenses is in sharp contrast to Eli Manning, who has not discriminated in his terrible play.

3. The crowd did an awful job leaving en masse with around 8 minutes to go in the 4th quarter, when the Jets took a 26-3 lead. The only good thing was that I was able to move over to the 50 yard line, a few rows from the field.

4. Last week a reader chastised me for focusing only on the Jets, not on their opponent. So I'll say something about the Texans: Their game plan was terrible. The Jets have had one of the NFL's worst run defenses, yet Houston abandoned the run very early, and passed 54 times.

5. For the Jets, it was a strong performance all around. Sure, the Texans are not very good, but the very fact that the dominant victory was expected shows how far this team has come since last season.

6. After a terrible start culminating in the loss to Cleveland, the defense has now played well for three consecutive games. The playcalling on defense has become a lot less predictable, to the credit of defensive coordinator Bob Sutton.

7. Mike Nugent finally came through today, kicking four field goals, including the late first half 54 yarder. Nugent's seven kickoffs were again uneven, but he did reach the end zone twice.

8. The only negative was the lack of a run game. Pennington was able to pick up blitzes and repeatedly get the ball to Laveranues Coles and Jerricho Cotchery, but unless someone steps up in the backfield, the offense will likely continue to struggle against better defenses.

9. Drew Brees had another huge game today, this time against the Falcons. If only Atlanta had John Abraham pressuring Brees...
posted on 11/26/2006

 
Jewish Hospitality

Stuck on a long line, I could not avoid overhearing the following this morning in a Kew Gardens Hills, Queens grocery store:

Young married woman ("YMW"), probably in her late 20's: Hi, how are you!

Older woman ("OW"), probably around 60: Hello, I haven't seen you in a while.

YMW: You should come over to us for a shabbos meal.

OW: Oh, I wouldn't want to impose.

YMW: We would love to have you. You could come this shabbos.

OW: No, it's already Friday morning, that wouldn't be fair to you.

YMW: It would be fine. I already cooked. Would like you to come for a meal?

OW: Are you sure?

YMW: Definitely, I already cooked.

OW: Well tomorrow wouldn't work for me.

YMW: So come to us tonight.

OW: Really, it's okay?

YMW: Absolutely, so we'll see you tonight, okay?

OW: Okay, thank you very much.

OW walks away. YMW makes a call on her cell phone:

YMW: Hi ___, you're not going to believe it. I'm at ________ and just ran into ________. I say hello and that I haven't seen her for a while, and she invites herself for a meal.

Pause.

YMW: Yes, this shabbos. Tonight.

Pause.

YMW: I know, I told her that lunch was better, and she insisted on coming tonight. So can you take care of the soup and dessert? I'll pick up some food and then will just have to cook.
posted on 11/24/2006

 
Oversaturated Blogosphere

I have plenty of thoughts about the depiction of Sacha Baron Cohen as an "Orthodox Jew," the Peace Now report about settlements, the reemergence of former Secretary of State James Baker and New York Rangers goalie Henrik Lundqvist, the murder of Pierre Gemayel, Gil Student's overbroad definition of "modern Orthodox," Tom Glavine's begging the Braves to take him back and the Mets' rather pathetic acquiescence to this charade, the slow start of the Nets, and Jetsphan's shocking fantasy football signing of Chad Pennington and announcement that Pennington will be his starting quarterback on Sunday.

But for some reason, I just don't feel like posting about any of this, so I won't. It's partly because I'm burned out from a very busy stretch at work, and partly because the Jblogosphere has so many participants that I'm content with others offering their thoughts.
posted on 11/22/2006

 
Week 11 Debacle

Today was the first time that Eric Mangini has reminded me of Herm Edwards.

When a bold call on offense was called for, the Jets played things ultra-conservative. When a risky move wasn't warranted, Mangini went for one anyway, particularly the onside kick to start the second half.

The Jets had some success moving the ball, which made Chad Pennington's two interceptions especially galling. The running game was lousy again, constantly putting the Jets in 3rd down situations.

Except for Drew Coleman giving a huge cushion to Mark Bradley and then - on what looked to be a safety blitz - failing to finish a routine tackle with no help behind him, resulting in the Bears touchdown, the defense played well. The Bears ran on the Jets (who doesn't), but Rex Grossman was unimpressive.

Few expected the Jets to win today, but the loss is frustrating because had the Jets played like they did last week, this would have been a very winnable game.

Getting back to the Pennington INTs, from my vantage point in section 119, on the first interception, Laveranues Coles was open on the left side of the end zone, but Pennington forced the ball into double coverage. On the 3rd quarter interception, it looked to me as though Pennington did a nice job fooling the defense on a play action, but then simply threw a terrible pass. But I haven't seen a replay, and I could be wrong about both plays.

Finally, it's become clear that Mangini has no confidence in Mike Nugent, who twice was denied an opportunity to try a field goal in the 49-50 yard range.
posted on 11/19/2006

 
Very Quick Mets Thoughts

1. I'm not fond of the corporate stadium names, but CitiField is ... not bad. If the Wilpons are kind enough to pump much of the $20 million per year that Citigroup is paying into additional roster payroll, I have no complaints.

2. Tom Glavine obviously wants to go back to the Braves, and is waiting to see if the Braves make him a decent offer. I realize the Mets need starting pitching, but I'd like them to let Glavine go unless he's willing to accept a one-year deal in the $9 million range.
posted on 11/13/2006

 
Any Given Sunday

1. Today's game was as tense as midseason games get, and therefore not particularly enjoyable to watch. Playing the Patriots in Foxboro, I expected a close game in a losing effort. The win is obviously the Jets' best since the 2004 playoff victory in San Diego. The Jets have now exceeded their win total of last season, and, with the Chiefs, Bengals and Jaguars losing, are now back in the playoff picture.

2. By no means did the Jets play a flawless game. Some potential points were left on the field, and the defense gave up an infuriating three fourth down conversions, including two on 4th and 3.

This actually makes me more optimistic about the Jets' abilities. They made some mistakes, but got their most complete performance from the offensive line, finally established an inside running game led by Kevan Barlow, and got the best performance of the season from the defense.

3. The Jets coaching staff deserves much credit. The team came well prepared, and the gameplan was solid, with aggressive play on both sides of the ball.

Unlike some who fail to follow their own slogans, the Jets actually played to win the game.

On offense, in the 2nd quarter, the Jets went for it on 4th and short at the Pats 23, made the first down, and then scored a touchdown. Herm Edwards tries a field goal there. In the 4th quarter, the Jets were aggressive, scoring a touchdown on Chad Pennington's pass to Jerricho Cotchery, and then responded to the very quick New England touchdown and 2 point conversion by converting three first downs, using up three minutes and forcing the Patriots to use all three of their timeouts.

Defensively, after abandoning the aggressive schemes that worked well in the first three weeks of the season, the Jets finally returned to the blitz, and kept Tom Brady off balance all day. The run defense wasn't too good, but the Jets did make a few key stops on running plays. Overall, the defensive backs, linebackers and defensive line were all solid.

My only serious quibble with the coaches was with the Jets' use of the prevent defense late in the 4th quarter. Obviously that's not a spot for free safety blitzes, but giving Brady unlimited time is a recipe for disaster. Despite getting the ball at his own 11 with 1:08 left and no timeouts, Brady was one play away from getting his team into field goal range.

The prevent has been used against the Titans, the Bills, the Colts, the Dolphins, and now the Patriots. It hasn't worked and will not work.

4. The refs ripped off the Jets again today. The roughing the passer penalty on Victor Hobson was a joke, nullifying a great blitz by Hobson, an interception and long return, and giving the Patriots 15 yards. Yet again, the NFL has serious officiating issues.

5. It was a rare pleasure to watch a competent announcing team on CBS today rather than be subjected to the ignorance of Solomon Wilcots. For the most part, Phil Simms and Jim Nantz did a fine job, but I have to take issue with their bizarre criticism of Chad Pennington's touchdown pass to Cotchery. I disagree strongly that Pennington's decision to throw that pass was a bad one. While Cotchery was covered, it was one-on-one coverage, and it's refreshing that the Jets are trying to give their wide receivers a chance to make big plays. Perhaps commentators had become so used to the Jets being ultra-conservative that they think some mistake must have been made when the Jets are aggressive.

The TD pass to Cotchery never would have happened when Herm was coaching. Herm would have probably settled for a field goal. If he'd actually tried that play, the receiver would have been Justin McCareins, whose consistent failure to fight for the ball is a complete contrast from the effort Cotchery made on his touchdown reception. Cotchery hardly played when Herm was here.

6. I actually wasn't sure if I was going to watch the game at all after Mr. Gloomy (a/k/a Elster, and a/k/a - during baseball season only - Mr. Sunshine) baselessly wrote that the Jets have a fragile psyche, and declared that the Jets not only would lose today and at home next week against the Bears, but that those losses would be followed by "the wheels coming off" in the form of a loss to Houston in two weeks.

7. I don't think much about the Giants, but am surprised that nobody is discussing whether their trade of the rights to Phillip Rivers and their first round pick in 2005 (along with other picks) for the rights to Eli Manning was the right move. Even as Drew Brees is proving that he is an elite NFL quarterback, Rivers has been so good that Chargers fans aren't missing Brees at all. Time will tell, and it will be fun watching these fine quarterbacks in the meantime.
posted on 11/12/2006

 
Orthodoxy and Labels: Hashkafah Or Culture

UPDATE: Chananya Weissman writes extensively on the topic of labeling observant Jews in this week's Jewish Press.

What does it mean to be modern Orthodox?

Laxness in observance? While some modern Orthodox Jews are lax when it comes to halacha, surely this is not a raison d'etre of modern Orthodoxy.

How about support for the State of Israel? Can't someone be MO even if they don't think about Israel and prefer visiting Europe or Alaska?

Rejection of book bans by charedi rabbis? That can't be it. Surely modern Orthodoxy is not defined by rejection of something else.

Holding a view that college education is important? Does that mean that those who (G-d forbid) go from high school into a vocational trade are excluded?

Torah U'Maddah? Maybe, but let's first figure out what that is.

How about the charedim - what does it mean to be charedi?

Belief that secular knowledge is shtus? Then what's with all these charedi doctors and lawyers?

Support for daas Torah? Once you get past Lakewood (and to some extent even within Lakewood), the concept of "daas Torah" is about as amorphous as "Torah U'Maddah."

Rejection of modernity? In theory, perhaps, but we all know that many in the charedi community are very much engaged in both the best and worst that modernity has to offer.

While I don't necessarily agree that Orthodox labeling is completely meaningless, I think many exaggerate or misconstrue the meaning of these labels.

Many who would be placed on the MO side of the divide are serious about Jewish observance and Torah study. Many on the charedi side have a positive view toward Israel and to secular knowledge and a negative view toward out-of-control daas Torah that leads to book bans and edicts regarding the Internet.

To a much larger extent that most recognize, whether one is seen to be charedi or MO has little if anything to do with hashkafah, and a lot to do with the schools and shuls they went and go to, the communities they live in, and, perhaps most of all, their manner of dress.
posted on 11/09/2006

 
The Larry Brown Settlement

As a litigator and as a sports fan, I must take exception to all of the simpletons in the media who state that the Knicks "only" had to pay Larry Brown $18.5 million out of the $40 million left on his contract and that the Knicks "saved" $21.5 million.

Not exactly. Under Brown's contract, if Brown was fired and took another job, his compensation from that position would be deducted from the amount the Knicks were to pay him. Under the settlement, Brown got his $18.5 million (on top of the $10 million he was paid for the 2005-06 season) immediately and unconditionally, and is free to take another job.

Thus, if, as is quite likely, prior to next season Brown signs a three year contract at $8 million per year, he will earn $42.5 million over the span of the last four years of his Knicks contract. Not only would he walk away with $2.5 million extra, he will get to enjoy a (very highly) paid sabbatical this season.
posted on 11/09/2006

 
The Rabin Murder and Its Impact on Yesha

The following was published one year ago in The Jewish Press, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of Yigal Amir's murder of Prime Minister Rabin.

Some people, presumably believing they have a direct line to G-d, have declared the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina to be divine "punishment" for U.S. support for Israel's Gaza withdrawal. In fact, Judaism recognizes that it is appropriate to look inward and examine our own shortcomings when hardship occurs.

The offensive statements linking Katrina to Gush Katif remind me of discussions I had with a law school classmate when Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated ten years ago. While not purporting to have the gift of prophecy, my friend, a religiously observant IDF veteran who has since moved to Israel, expressed the fear that Israel - particularly its religious Zionist sector - would be punished for the Rabin murder.

In his eulogy for Rabin, Rabbi Norman Lamm expressed concern that the murder "may leave in its wake consequences as disastrous as they are unforeseen and unforeseeable."

Certainly, the murder of Rabin had the opposite effect of the murderer’s intention. Contrary to conventional wisdom - that Yigal Amir killed the "peace process" - in fact he rendered Rabin a martyr and Oslo irreversible, and caused severe damage to the settlement movement.

In 1994, more than a year prior to the assassination, Yechiel Leiter, then a Yesha Council leader, wrote in The Jerusalem Post that if Rabin were murdered, it would spell the end of the Yesha movement. Leiter was largely right.

* * *

Yitzhak Rabin ran as a political centrist in the 1992 elections, opposing negotiations with the PLO or the formation of a Palestinian state, and insisting that Israel would retain the Golan Heights and much of Judea and Samaria. Rabin's impressive military credentials were utilized to assure Israelis that he would not be soft on terror.

This formula proved successful, particularly after several small right-wing parties failed to meet the minimum vote threshold for Knesset representation, wasting three Knesset seats slated for the political right, and granting Labor a narrow victory.

Initially, Rabin did take a tough line against terrorism. After the murder of five Israeli soldiers, Rabin deported 415 leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to Lebanon in December 1992. But the move backfired when international censure caused Israel to allow the terrorists a safe return, though not before they had been trained in bomb making by Hezbollah.

When the 1993 Oslo Accords were followed by suicide bombings in Israel, Rabin said Israel's response would be "to fight terror as if there were not a peace process and to pursue peace as if there were no terror." But while Israel did continue the Oslo process, it also continued to subcontract fighting terror to Yasser Arafat, rather than confront Hamas directly.

While the Oslo Accords and his willingness to cede the Golan represented Rabin's political shift - and his political duplicity - Rabin's incendiary statements about his political adversaries were no less responsible for polarization in Israel during his second tenure as prime minister.

Six weeks after Oslo, Beit El resident Chaim Mizrachi was murdered in an Arab market. While strongly condemning the murder, Rabin added that settlers should not go out looking to "buy cheap eggs."

Reacting dismissively to peaceful protestors, Rabin said, "they can spin like propellers."

At an October 1995 event for North Americans who had made aliyah, Rabin was cursed at and booed off the stage, a reaction that shamefully had become almost routine at a time when posters of Rabin with a keffiyah superimposed on his head appeared throughout Jerusalem. In response, a furious Rabin showed disdain for the basic rights of his citizens, saying that "those who are waving signs can go back to their countries," declaring that the protesters "didn't fight for the land, didn't build it, came here only recently and don't have the right to judge its actions or its directions."

Rabin was heavily criticized for the methods he used in obtaining a Knesset majority for the Oslo 2 Accords. After several Labor Knesset members led by Avigdor Kahalani refused to support Oslo 2, Rabin gained a 61-59 majority only by relying on support from Arab Knesset members and by obtaining the defection to Labor of three members of the right-wing Tsomet party. The leader of the three, Gonen Segev, was made a cabinet minister; today Segev is in an Israeli prison for drug smuggling.

* * *

In light of the terrorism, his controversial political tactics, and his divisive statements, Rabin was not a popular prime minister. While the November 4, 2005, pro-Oslo rally in Tel Aviv attracted a large crowd, Rabin was then behind Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu in opinion polls, as was the case throughout the prior year.

But the assassination of Rabin that night galvanized the Israeli left and marginalized the right, particularly the religious Zionist sector and the Yesha movement. The notion took hold that any and all left-wing political stances - including those that Rabin had rejected - had to be implemented to support Rabin's memory and legacy.

Thus, Labor's abandonment of the settlement movement - which it created and cultivated in its first decade - and its willingness to divide Jerusalem and to withdraw essentially to the 1967 borders - have all been claimed to be in furtherance of Rabin’s efforts for peace. Similarly, support for a Palestinian state replaced Labor's long-standing position that any agreement would be with a Jordanian-Palestinians confederation and not a separate Palestinian state.

In last week's Jewish Week, Gary Rosenblatt wrote that under Oslo, Rabin pledged "an independent state for the Palestinians in return for peace with Israel." That is a widespread misperception. In fact, Rabin was always opposed to the formation of a Palestinian state, to any division of Jerusalem, or to any concessions on the Jordan Valley. His political red lines remained guided by the Allon Plan under which Israel would retain around thirty percent of Judea and Samaria.

In his October 5, 1995 speech to the Knesset presenting the Oslo 2 accords - his last speech before the Knesset - Rabin said that any agreement would be with a Palestinian "entity that is less than a state," that "we will not return to the June 4, 1967 lines," that Israel would keep "united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev, as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty," that "the security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term," that Israel would retain "Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities," and would establish "blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif."

A few months earlier, Rabin stated that if peace requires "giving up on a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, my reply would be 'let's do without peace.'"

It is possible that Rabin would have taken a difference approach in final status negotiations, just as Ehud Barak's position collapsed at Camp David and Taba. But it is noteworthy that Rabin's stance on Jerusalem and avoiding a return to the 1967 borders remained unchanged after he had recognized the PLO and signed Oslo and Oslo 2. Even after his political shift, Rabin maintained principled red lines in his vision for Israel's permanent eastern borders.

Indeed, following Barak's concessions at Camp David, Leah Rabin lamented, "Yitzhak is certainly turning over in his grave. He never would have agreed to compromise on the Old City and the Temple Mount."

It is for this reason that recently in Haaretz, extreme left-wing columnist Gideon Levy wrote that Rabin was "a cowardly statesmen" because "he did not dare to put the evacuation of settlements on the agenda."

* * *
Many immediately recognized the damage to the Yesha movement that would result from the Rabin murder. In his eulogy for Rabin, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein of Yeshivat Har Etzion said that the murder is "a special source of worry for those to whom the settlement of Judea and Samaria is important. This is paradoxical, since the fiercest opposition to his leadership arose from precisely those ranks. It is clear, though, that within his government, Yitzhak Rabin more than anyone else cared for and protected the settlements."

In a January 1996 piece in Commentary, Israeli-American writer Hillel Halkin wrote that Yigal Amir had delivered a "crushing blow" to critics of Rabin, in what Halkin described as not only an odious murder but also "a cataclysmic political blunder."

Less than seven months after the Rabin murder, Netanyahu did win the 1996 elections. Before the assassination, Netanyahu vehemently rejected Oslo and consistently garnered majority support in polls, but afterward, Israelis would not countenance a rejection of Oslo - which they perceived as a victory for Yigal Amir - and Netanyahu had to change his stance during his election campaign. Instead of demanding that Oslo be abrogated, Netanyahu accepted Oslo but called for reciprocity, with Israel making territorial concessions only if Palestinians fought terror.

Netanyahu's shift ultimately led the way to his implementation of Israel’s withdrawal from most of Hebron, which Rabin had agreed to under Oslo 2, to Netanyahu's meetings with Arafat, and to the Wye River accord.

The Netanyahu government was significantly to the right of the Rabin-Peres government and indeed to every subsequent Israeli government. But it also began the erosion in Likud's historical support for the Yesha movement. Contrary to the previous Likud governments led by Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir - and also the Labor governments of Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir and the first Rabin government - the Netanyahu government did not form new communities in Judea or Samaria. Indeed, no new settlements have been built by any government since the Rabin murder.

Had Yigal Amir not murdered Rabin, and Netanyahu defeated Rabin in the 1996 election, it is likely that Netanyahu would have followed a path similar to that of Begin and Shamir. After the assassination, domestic and international political realities made that impossible.

Even had Rabin won reelection in 1996, the settlement movement would be better off today than it is. Rabin was closer to the political center than Labor's other prominent figures, and after his assassination, Labor moved much further left. After three decades of rejecting a return to the 1967 borders and insisting upon an undivided Jerusalem, Labor was looking to avenge the murder of its leader and, particularly after again losing power to Likud, opposed anything that was seen as being in the interests of the right.

Rabin's party has undermined the principles laid out in his last Knesset speech. For example, when Netanyahu authorized the building of the new Har Homa neighborhood in southern Jerusalem, he was condemned by Labor, which had previously supported construction in post-1967 Jerusalem neighborhoods like Ramot, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Gilo.

Labor even opposed Netanyahu's insistence on Palestinian compliance with Oslo, rejecting the reciprocity doctrine. Under the Wye agreement, Israeli withdrawal from 13 percent of Judea and Samaria was to be implemented in stages, with dismantling of Hamas and Islamic Jihad a prerequisite for completion of the withdrawal. When the PA failed to take action against terrorism, Netanyahu refused to withdraw from more than 2 percent. But when Barak defeated Netanyahu, he immediately dropped the reciprocity principle, unconditionally withdrawing from the remaining 11 percent.

The following year, Barak completed Labor's abandonment of Rabin's principles when he offered to divide Jerusalem, give up all of the Jordan Valley, and withdraw nearly to the 1967 borders. As a result, the international community now expects Israel to withdraw from at least 95 percent of Judea and Samaria, in complete contrast to Rabin’s red lines.

* * *
Ironically, it is now Prime Minister Sharon who is most guided by Rabin's core principles, calling for the annexation to Israel of settlement blocs, for an undivided Jerusalem and for retention of the Jordan Valley. But as a result of the weakening of the settlement movement over the last decade, unlike Rabin, Sharon accepts a Palestinian state, and has dropped hints that he might be willing to cede Arab neighborhoods in outlying parts of Jerusalem and compromise over the Jordan Valley.

Today, the best approach of those who oppose sweeping territorial concessions is to try to reinstate a consensus among Israelis based primarily on Rabin's red lines: No return to the 1967 borders, an undivided Jerusalem, retention of the Jordan Valley, and continued development in the large settlement blocs and the settlements that are suburbs of Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, however, instead of enlisting in the battles of ideas and trying to win public opinion, many on the political right express their position by spewing invective against Israel's leaders, and, in some instances, calling for violence.

After the Rabin murder, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner of Yeshivat Ateret Cohanim stated that "a terrible sin has been committed ... We all tear our clothes in mourning and weep over a precious Jewish soul, devoted to his nation."

The "“terrible sin" was not only Yigal Amir's violent action, but also the fanatical hatred that accompanied it. Many who themselves are not extremist failed to condemn this hate. Those perpetrating outrages were dismissed as lone "lunatics." But as Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman said shortly after the Rabin murder: "The claim that this was the act of a lunatic is, at once, self-serving, ludicrous, and dangerous ... How many murderers must Orthodoxy produce before it will be persuaded that there is a growing cancer in its midst that needs to be treated, rather than a lunatic or two that can safely be ignored?"

The last year has shown that the extremism that culminated in the Rabin murder has not been fully eradicated. Just a few weeks ago, Elazar Stern, a religiously observant IDF Major-General who was involved in implementing the Gaza withdrawal, was accosted by dozens of fellow religious Jews when he came to the Western Wall with his family to pray.

If the battle over the future of Judea and Samaria will be fought by calling soldiers Nazis, attacking a Major-General, cursing Prime Minister Sharon and calling him a traitor, then that battle will end as the one for Gaza did.

If that happens, some will probably attribute blame for subsequent world disasters to the loss of Judea and Samaria, rather than wonder whether perhaps our own sins and failures are to blame for the loss of Jewish land.
posted on 11/04/2006

 
Nets/Knicks Predictions

I have had no time to post about anything, but in lieu of a preview or detailed analysis, my Nets/Knicks predictions for the 2006-07 season are:

Nets: 47-35
Knicks: 38-44
posted on 11/03/2006