Genocide - Really?
3 days ago
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Put Palestinian Tactics, Not Israeli Military Justice, On Trial
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/20/palestinian-tactics-israeli-justice-west-ban/
Jonathan S. Tobin 20.02.12
Yesterday, the New York Times devoted considerable space to the story of one Islam Dar Ayyoub, a 15-year-old Palestinian from a village near Ramallah. According to the story, Ayyoub’s childhood was stolen from him when he was thrust into Israel’s military court system a year ago. Ayyoub is the Times’ candidate for the position of poster child for what it calls Israel’s “harsh, unforgiving methods” in dealing with Palestinian violence. But though the purpose of the story was to indict Israel, anyone reading between the lines of Ayyoub’s sob story could see the real villain of this tale is not Israel’s military but the Palestinian “activists” who have exploited their children. They are recruited into gangs explicitly tasked with starting violent confrontations with Israelis by the throwing of stones and other lethal weapons, hoping the soldiers will defend themselves and kill one of the kids.
Ayyoub is depicted as a victim because he gave up his confederates to the Israelis and in particular a local Palestinian adult named Bassem Tamim, who was the overseer of what in any other context would be called a violent youth gang. “Human rights” activists think the prosecution of this person should be scrapped because the kid who dropped the dime on him didn’t have a lawyer or his parents present when he talked. That might be what would happen on an episode of “Law and Order,” but the realities of the Middle East conflict are such that Israel’s tactics are justified.
Getting arrested and questioned by the Israeli military was probably no picnic for Ayyoub. Yet, as the Times reported, he was not tortured. His interrogation was videotaped and reveals nothing the Palestinians could claim was an atrocity. Like many another culprit, he got scared and talked. The result was not an injustice but the arrest of an adult Palestinian who exploited Ayyoub and other village kids in an effort to keep the war against Israel alive. Tamim and other Palestinian terror facilitators train kids to attack soldiers and hope some will be hurt. They are not promoting non-violence but instead are deliberately placing teenagers into harm’s way so as to provide more martyrs for their cause.
As France’s World War One leader, Georges Clemenceau, said, “military justice is to justice as military music is to music.” But the situation on the West Bank is complicated because Israel is still forced to have a security presence in the region in order to prevent attacks on its forces and civilians. Because it is impossible to apply Israel’s own civilian laws in the area, the military uses the laws that existed there before Israeli rule from the British and Jordanian eras. But unlike the courts run by the Palestinian Authority, all terror and violence suspects are given trials and have the chance to defend themselves. The system is, like all justice systems, imperfect, but despite the assumption that Israel’s actions are unfair, there was nothing in the story that doesn’t pass the smell test.
We are told in the conclusion to the piece that Ayyoub, who has been released unharmed and is free to go to school, is afraid of the soldiers. More likely, he is afraid of revenge from other Palestinians who treat people who inform on those involved in violence as “traitors.”
Until the Palestinian leadership is prepared to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state and make peace, Israel will be forced to keep order in the region and to do its best to fend off terrorism and the orchestrated riots that were at the core of the Ayyoub case. The real scandal is the willingness of Palestinians to sacrifice children like Islam Ayyoub on the altar of hate for Israel.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Humanitarian aid provided to Arabs in Judea and Samaria ignored by Media.
Palestinians in the West Bank turn to the
IDF for medical treatments.
http://jewishnews.sharepoint.com/pages/16062.aspx
A common phenomenon in Judea and Samaria is that many Palestinians turn to the IDF and to Israeli medical emergency services to receive medical attention. Local Arabs, whether ill or wounded, receive immediate life-saving medical treatment regardless of existing security tensions, and with no pre-requisites.
A recent case is that of a two year old infant who was treated by MDA (Magen David Adom) medics and the Cfir battalion medical staff after being critically wounded by his father, who accidently hit him with his car. His family brought him to the main gate at Neve Tsuf, where he received initial treatment. Two weeks later, two Palestinians who fell from a high altitude and were moderately wounded, suffering injuries in their limbs and spinal column, were again brought to the main gate at Neve Tsuf, where they received initial medical treatment by military medical officials and local volunteers. They were later evacuated to a hospital in Ramallah.
Neve Tsuf is one of several Jewish settlements that provide medical care to local Arabs. Israeli medical services provide medical care to Palestinians wounded in car accidents throughout Judea and Samaria, which involve, primarily, Palestinian vehicles.
An agreement was signed between Palestinian Red Crescent and the MDA, ensuring the use of MDA's advanced equipment by Red Crescent. By virtue of this agreement, Red Crescent ambulances pass through military checkpoints without inspection, and occasionally abuse this privilege and transport weapons.
Medical treatment by Israeli medical officials is provided even during periods of increased security tensions, such as Arab riots, stone throwing and various assaults on Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, including an attack on an ambulance from Neve Tsuf by stone throwers over a month ago.
And yet, the humanitarian aid provided to Arabs in Judea and Samaria has not been picked up or published by the media.
MK Aryeh Eldad of The National Union party, a former commanding officer of the military medical corps in the IDF, stated: "In any case when emergency medical care is required, it is to be provided regardless of gender, race, nationality or religion, whether he's a friend or foe. Thus, the IDF and MDA must offer medical care if it is needed immediately, eligibility for medical insurance not withstanding. Every doctor and medic in the army takes an oath to conduct themselves in this fashion. The world at large knows little about these occurrences; "the world" is more interested in incidents of harm brought to Arabs rather then cases of treating them. There is no doubt the world should know more about these activities".
Jerusalem district MDA spokesman, Danny Rotenberg, added that the MDA, as a national rescue organization, provides emergency care services throughout the entire State of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. He said that the population of Judea and Samaria includes an Arab segment, and when the MDA receives an emergency call, it is clear to them that they are morally obligated to provide medical care via the medical teams dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria.
When asked about the funding of medical treatment for Palestinians, Rotenberg points out that it's a sensitive issue. The MDA never stipulates the provision of medical care with the ability to pay for it. First, medical care is provided, and then the issue of reimbursement is examined on an individual basis. "We hope that through cooperation in emergency cases of this kind, we are acquiring ambassadors of good will on the basis of the love of human kindness regardless of religion, age or nationality".
I asked for a statement from the director of the security department in the Benyamin regional municipality, Avigdor Shatz: "This phenomenon exists in other settlements in Judea and Samaria, although not as frequently as in Neve Tsuf, which is situated on a main route, and therefore is more accessible to the Palestinian population". He further states that as a professional he offers support to anyone who requires it. "I think this is a part of a basic set of ethics which anyone who provides medical care should have. And this is how we conduct ourselves. The number of Palestinian casualties in car accidents we treat is immense, and does not consist only of those who seek care at the front gate".
When I posed the question about any expressions of gratitude from the Palestinian population and their representatives, he replied that there is a big gap between what actually happens and between what the politicians report on our side, as well as what is publicized outwardly.
"This aspect is of less interest to me, I don't think the Palestinian Authority has expressed any gratitude except in two cases which occurred in the Palestinian Authority's territory. In one case, a large purification facility collapsed while the concrete was being laid, and we came and rescued tens of casualties and treated them. In another case, a building in El-Bira collapsed; an entire floor fell in, we arrived with other medical teams such as the IDF's search and rescue unit, and provided medical care and evacuated the wounded. In the first case the engineer's company which designed the facility published a newspaper ad thanking us, and in the second case the governor of Ramallah thanked us personally".
As for any cooperation with Red Crescent, he stated that the MDA is more properly dispersed as opposed to Red Crescent which is usually only stationed in the large cities. The MDA has ambulances that provide regional services based out of the settlements. Therefore if there is an accident near Shiloh, for instance, the Red Crescent will come out of Ramallah or Shchem, as opposed to the MDA ambulances which come from a nearby settlement and provide quick and immediate care. Red Crescent will arrive toward the end of the event and get involved only with the final evacuation. MDA’s connection with Red Crescent is very official; the civil administration acts as the middleman.There are also many accounts of Arabs rescuing Israeli casualties, primarily after car accidents. We can actually find a measure of cooperation in these instances.
IDF for medical treatments.
http://jewishnews.sharepoint.com/pages/16062.aspx
A common phenomenon in Judea and Samaria is that many Palestinians turn to the IDF and to Israeli medical emergency services to receive medical attention. Local Arabs, whether ill or wounded, receive immediate life-saving medical treatment regardless of existing security tensions, and with no pre-requisites.
A recent case is that of a two year old infant who was treated by MDA (Magen David Adom) medics and the Cfir battalion medical staff after being critically wounded by his father, who accidently hit him with his car. His family brought him to the main gate at Neve Tsuf, where he received initial treatment. Two weeks later, two Palestinians who fell from a high altitude and were moderately wounded, suffering injuries in their limbs and spinal column, were again brought to the main gate at Neve Tsuf, where they received initial medical treatment by military medical officials and local volunteers. They were later evacuated to a hospital in Ramallah.
Neve Tsuf is one of several Jewish settlements that provide medical care to local Arabs. Israeli medical services provide medical care to Palestinians wounded in car accidents throughout Judea and Samaria, which involve, primarily, Palestinian vehicles.
An agreement was signed between Palestinian Red Crescent and the MDA, ensuring the use of MDA's advanced equipment by Red Crescent. By virtue of this agreement, Red Crescent ambulances pass through military checkpoints without inspection, and occasionally abuse this privilege and transport weapons.
Medical treatment by Israeli medical officials is provided even during periods of increased security tensions, such as Arab riots, stone throwing and various assaults on Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, including an attack on an ambulance from Neve Tsuf by stone throwers over a month ago.
And yet, the humanitarian aid provided to Arabs in Judea and Samaria has not been picked up or published by the media.
MK Aryeh Eldad of The National Union party, a former commanding officer of the military medical corps in the IDF, stated: "In any case when emergency medical care is required, it is to be provided regardless of gender, race, nationality or religion, whether he's a friend or foe. Thus, the IDF and MDA must offer medical care if it is needed immediately, eligibility for medical insurance not withstanding. Every doctor and medic in the army takes an oath to conduct themselves in this fashion. The world at large knows little about these occurrences; "the world" is more interested in incidents of harm brought to Arabs rather then cases of treating them. There is no doubt the world should know more about these activities".
Jerusalem district MDA spokesman, Danny Rotenberg, added that the MDA, as a national rescue organization, provides emergency care services throughout the entire State of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. He said that the population of Judea and Samaria includes an Arab segment, and when the MDA receives an emergency call, it is clear to them that they are morally obligated to provide medical care via the medical teams dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria.
When asked about the funding of medical treatment for Palestinians, Rotenberg points out that it's a sensitive issue. The MDA never stipulates the provision of medical care with the ability to pay for it. First, medical care is provided, and then the issue of reimbursement is examined on an individual basis. "We hope that through cooperation in emergency cases of this kind, we are acquiring ambassadors of good will on the basis of the love of human kindness regardless of religion, age or nationality".
I asked for a statement from the director of the security department in the Benyamin regional municipality, Avigdor Shatz: "This phenomenon exists in other settlements in Judea and Samaria, although not as frequently as in Neve Tsuf, which is situated on a main route, and therefore is more accessible to the Palestinian population". He further states that as a professional he offers support to anyone who requires it. "I think this is a part of a basic set of ethics which anyone who provides medical care should have. And this is how we conduct ourselves. The number of Palestinian casualties in car accidents we treat is immense, and does not consist only of those who seek care at the front gate".
When I posed the question about any expressions of gratitude from the Palestinian population and their representatives, he replied that there is a big gap between what actually happens and between what the politicians report on our side, as well as what is publicized outwardly.
"This aspect is of less interest to me, I don't think the Palestinian Authority has expressed any gratitude except in two cases which occurred in the Palestinian Authority's territory. In one case, a large purification facility collapsed while the concrete was being laid, and we came and rescued tens of casualties and treated them. In another case, a building in El-Bira collapsed; an entire floor fell in, we arrived with other medical teams such as the IDF's search and rescue unit, and provided medical care and evacuated the wounded. In the first case the engineer's company which designed the facility published a newspaper ad thanking us, and in the second case the governor of Ramallah thanked us personally".
As for any cooperation with Red Crescent, he stated that the MDA is more properly dispersed as opposed to Red Crescent which is usually only stationed in the large cities. The MDA has ambulances that provide regional services based out of the settlements. Therefore if there is an accident near Shiloh, for instance, the Red Crescent will come out of Ramallah or Shchem, as opposed to the MDA ambulances which come from a nearby settlement and provide quick and immediate care. Red Crescent will arrive toward the end of the event and get involved only with the final evacuation. MDA’s connection with Red Crescent is very official; the civil administration acts as the middleman.There are also many accounts of Arabs rescuing Israeli casualties, primarily after car accidents. We can actually find a measure of cooperation in these instances.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Tu Bishvat expresses down-to-earth Zionism.
My Word: Trees and roots
By LIAT COLLINS02/04/2012 22:10
Tu Bishvat expresses down-to-earth Zionism.
It’s my kind of holiday. Short, sweet and environmentally friendly. It is also the most quintessentially Israeli festival. Tu Bishvat, the New Year for Trees.Of course Jews in the Diaspora mark it as well, but it is like sowing seeds in the wrong soil. To truly appreciate the holiday, you have to be here – see supermarkets boasting special sections of dried fruits; know a schoolchild excited about going on a tree-planting trip; and hear songs about trees and flowers on the radio. Perhaps above all, you need to pass fragrant almond blossoms and automatically associate them with the coming of the holiday.
For some reason almond trees have come to symbolize the festival in a nutshell.They might not be one of the biblical Seven Species, but the shkedia, as it is known around here, has a status almost rivaling that of blossoming cherry trees in Japan.
No Jewish kid gets past kindergarten in Israel without knowing the words to “Hashkedia porahat,” “The almond tree is blossoming.” And, while Christmas can come and go without very much attention, the Holiday for Trees (Hag ha’ilanot) is a big deal in the Jewish state – uniting religious and secular.
An increasing number of Israelis now hold a Tu Bishvat seder, in which fruit dishes are served and the four cups of wine (reminiscent of the Passover seder) are a combination of red and white.Viticulture is a developing field in Israel. Long gone are the days when the country produced only sweet Kiddush wine for religious purposes. Israeli wines are now winning awards and praise from top connoisseurs.
The environment is a global growth industry. Israeli R&D is famous worldwide for its contribution to water management, alternative energy and agriculture.Personal favorites are cherry tomatoes and watermelons of a size that anyone can pick up with ease at their supermarket (although what would an informal Israeli gathering be without sharing cold chunks of avatiah and a bowl of seeds to spit out without inhibition?).
It seems there is no end to what the fertile imaginations of scientists can come up with. An acquaintance of mine once shocked polite company with a discussion on the sex life of an Iris; she was researching the flower, hoping to develop a hardier strain. I have also met researchers working hard on stopping flies and mosquitoes reproducing.ISRAEL BEING Israel, there is a political angle to everything. Foresters used to quip that the Green Line derived its name partly from the trees planted along it. Ironically – given the symbolism of the olive branch – there have often been clashes between Palestinians and Jews during the olive-picking season.Sadly, too, many forest fires have been deliberately set as a form of lowgrade terrorism, literally trying to destroy signs of Jewish roots.Fortunately, however, environmental issues also create common ground: Few things can bring Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians together like the need to solve environmental problems which do not recognize man-made borders.
Every year, political parties choose to make a statement by where they hold their tree-planting ceremonies. Jewish texts and traditions stress the intimate connection between humanity and its relationship to nature. In particular, the planting and care taking of trees has always been encouraged, both for the benefit of present and future generations. [Editors note-To date the Jewish National Fund (JNF) have planted in excess of 240 million trees since 1901, thus Israel is the only country in the world starting the new century with more trees than that of the previous century.]
But no other parliament in the world marks the Jewish New Year for Trees.The Knesset actually celebrates its birthday on the festival (which this year falls on February 8).Nothing symbolizes the relationship between the early state and the Diaspora as much as the blue box of the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael–Jewish National Fund, known simply as hakufsa hak’hula.
Today, the organization specializes in thinking outside of the box. It’s now possible to donate via the Web and funds go to a range of environmental projects way beyond forestry and tree-planting.
Tu Bishvat expresses down-to-earth Zionism. It highlights the link of the Jewish religion and people to their homeland. Strangely, while environmentalism is close to becoming a new world religion, Zionism is out of fashion.Tu Bishvat is the perfect opportunity for pointing out to the younger generation that it’s fine to be proud of your roots, your homeland and the unique nature of Judaism.
Biodiversity is an environmental buzzword, but in politically correct circles, peoples are expected to display a certain oneness.Try to imagine a world in which all countries looked the same with identical flora and fauna and people all dressed alike and doing exactly the same things. Where’s the color? Where’s the flavor? Where’s the fragrance? The New Year for Trees heralding spring and rejuvenation is the time to dare to be different – to be ourselves and openly display a love of the land.It is important to get our hands dirty and dig back into the past, while looking to the future.
The need for affordable housing obviously creates a conflict with environmental interests of preserving green areas – and even non-green areas, like sand dunes.
Just as I wouldn’t want to see housing projects springing up everywhere, care should be taken not to overly interfere with the natural rhythm of life.
We might be proud of having made the desert bloom, but future generations could look on the destruction of the Samar sand dunes in the South the way we now see the draining of the Hula swamps in the North – a mistake that can never be completely rectified.And while attempts at preserving the Dead Sea are admirable, grandiose canal projects linking the Red or Mediterranean could end up throwing out the proverbial baby with the fresh seawater. It is not yet clear what effect the imported water would have on the unique composition of the Dead Sea.
Even eco-tourism has its drawbacks.Building a hotel in the middle of the wilderness is counterproductive, however in tune with nature it looks.Tu Bishvat is a great time to take a break from the hustle and bustle of modern living, enjoy simple pleasures, and make a New Year resolution to turn over a new leaf. Keep in mind, the best things in life are tree.
The writer is editor of The International Jerusalem Post.
By LIAT COLLINS02/04/2012 22:10
Tu Bishvat expresses down-to-earth Zionism.
It’s my kind of holiday. Short, sweet and environmentally friendly. It is also the most quintessentially Israeli festival. Tu Bishvat, the New Year for Trees.Of course Jews in the Diaspora mark it as well, but it is like sowing seeds in the wrong soil. To truly appreciate the holiday, you have to be here – see supermarkets boasting special sections of dried fruits; know a schoolchild excited about going on a tree-planting trip; and hear songs about trees and flowers on the radio. Perhaps above all, you need to pass fragrant almond blossoms and automatically associate them with the coming of the holiday.
For some reason almond trees have come to symbolize the festival in a nutshell.They might not be one of the biblical Seven Species, but the shkedia, as it is known around here, has a status almost rivaling that of blossoming cherry trees in Japan.
No Jewish kid gets past kindergarten in Israel without knowing the words to “Hashkedia porahat,” “The almond tree is blossoming.” And, while Christmas can come and go without very much attention, the Holiday for Trees (Hag ha’ilanot) is a big deal in the Jewish state – uniting religious and secular.
An increasing number of Israelis now hold a Tu Bishvat seder, in which fruit dishes are served and the four cups of wine (reminiscent of the Passover seder) are a combination of red and white.Viticulture is a developing field in Israel. Long gone are the days when the country produced only sweet Kiddush wine for religious purposes. Israeli wines are now winning awards and praise from top connoisseurs.
The environment is a global growth industry. Israeli R&D is famous worldwide for its contribution to water management, alternative energy and agriculture.Personal favorites are cherry tomatoes and watermelons of a size that anyone can pick up with ease at their supermarket (although what would an informal Israeli gathering be without sharing cold chunks of avatiah and a bowl of seeds to spit out without inhibition?).
It seems there is no end to what the fertile imaginations of scientists can come up with. An acquaintance of mine once shocked polite company with a discussion on the sex life of an Iris; she was researching the flower, hoping to develop a hardier strain. I have also met researchers working hard on stopping flies and mosquitoes reproducing.ISRAEL BEING Israel, there is a political angle to everything. Foresters used to quip that the Green Line derived its name partly from the trees planted along it. Ironically – given the symbolism of the olive branch – there have often been clashes between Palestinians and Jews during the olive-picking season.Sadly, too, many forest fires have been deliberately set as a form of lowgrade terrorism, literally trying to destroy signs of Jewish roots.Fortunately, however, environmental issues also create common ground: Few things can bring Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians together like the need to solve environmental problems which do not recognize man-made borders.
Every year, political parties choose to make a statement by where they hold their tree-planting ceremonies. Jewish texts and traditions stress the intimate connection between humanity and its relationship to nature. In particular, the planting and care taking of trees has always been encouraged, both for the benefit of present and future generations. [Editors note-To date the Jewish National Fund (JNF) have planted in excess of 240 million trees since 1901, thus Israel is the only country in the world starting the new century with more trees than that of the previous century.]
But no other parliament in the world marks the Jewish New Year for Trees.The Knesset actually celebrates its birthday on the festival (which this year falls on February 8).Nothing symbolizes the relationship between the early state and the Diaspora as much as the blue box of the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael–Jewish National Fund, known simply as hakufsa hak’hula.
Today, the organization specializes in thinking outside of the box. It’s now possible to donate via the Web and funds go to a range of environmental projects way beyond forestry and tree-planting.
Tu Bishvat expresses down-to-earth Zionism. It highlights the link of the Jewish religion and people to their homeland. Strangely, while environmentalism is close to becoming a new world religion, Zionism is out of fashion.Tu Bishvat is the perfect opportunity for pointing out to the younger generation that it’s fine to be proud of your roots, your homeland and the unique nature of Judaism.
Biodiversity is an environmental buzzword, but in politically correct circles, peoples are expected to display a certain oneness.Try to imagine a world in which all countries looked the same with identical flora and fauna and people all dressed alike and doing exactly the same things. Where’s the color? Where’s the flavor? Where’s the fragrance? The New Year for Trees heralding spring and rejuvenation is the time to dare to be different – to be ourselves and openly display a love of the land.It is important to get our hands dirty and dig back into the past, while looking to the future.
The need for affordable housing obviously creates a conflict with environmental interests of preserving green areas – and even non-green areas, like sand dunes.
Just as I wouldn’t want to see housing projects springing up everywhere, care should be taken not to overly interfere with the natural rhythm of life.
We might be proud of having made the desert bloom, but future generations could look on the destruction of the Samar sand dunes in the South the way we now see the draining of the Hula swamps in the North – a mistake that can never be completely rectified.And while attempts at preserving the Dead Sea are admirable, grandiose canal projects linking the Red or Mediterranean could end up throwing out the proverbial baby with the fresh seawater. It is not yet clear what effect the imported water would have on the unique composition of the Dead Sea.
Even eco-tourism has its drawbacks.Building a hotel in the middle of the wilderness is counterproductive, however in tune with nature it looks.Tu Bishvat is a great time to take a break from the hustle and bustle of modern living, enjoy simple pleasures, and make a New Year resolution to turn over a new leaf. Keep in mind, the best things in life are tree.
The writer is editor of The International Jerusalem Post.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
“THE TRUE FACE OF THE PA” ?
by Isi LeiblerFebruary 1, 2012
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=3873
We are told, day after day, that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is a genuine moderate committed to achieving a peace settlement with Israel. In addition to the international community, even some Israelis – admittedly a dwindling minority – also chant this mantra.
Abbas and his spokesman Saeb Erekat bolster this theme by uttering soothing statements in English, endorsing peace to the gullible international community. Yet they speak with forked tongues because in Arabic to their own people, they deny Israel’s right to exist and promote vicious hatred against Jews.
They also claim to have reneged violence. But the PA never conceded that terrorism was immoral. They simply concluded that having failed to achieve their objectives by violence, their goals could best be promoted by temporarily suspending terrorism in order to gain Western support. Abbas made it clear that he "had the honor of firing the first shot in 1965" and was only opposed to terrorist attacks "at this time" for tactical reasons and that "in the future things may change." Yet, even within this framework, Fatah has still succeeded in killing more Israelis than Hamas.
The true objectives of the PA are reflected in the poisonous hatred against Jews and Israel inculcated to their people through the broad range of institutions they control, permeating every level of society– from kindergarten and upwards.
This can be traced to the very inception of the Oslo Accords. Before that, the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, whilst far from ideal, was certainly better than now, when polls indicate that 84% of Palestinians endorse the murder of Israelis.
In addition to denying Jewish sovereignty, the PA from the outset indulged in the most horrendous demonization, describing Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs, comparing them to Nazis whilst simultaneously praising Hitler, accusing them of stealing Palestinian body parts, using human blood during Passover, promoting AIDs, and many other loathsome blood libels.
This defamatory torrent impacts directly on Israel’s diminished standing in the international community.
In response to this, an important book compiled by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik titled "Deception: Betraying the Peace Process”, has just been released. It meticulously documents the poisonous behavior of the Palestinian Authority during 2010 and 2011 throughout the broad range of institutions they control. It will become an important source for pro-Israeli activists and provide irrefutable evidence in response to those denying the criminality pervading Palestinian society.
Itamar Marcus founded Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) in 1966 as a nonprofit organization to monitor the Palestinian media. Its documentation of Palestinian behavior, including systematically taping State Palestinian TV, became important sources for parliamentarians and serious journalists throughout the world. His briefing of U.S. legislators was a major factor contributing towards the prevailing pro-Israel orientation of Congress and the American people.
The book and the PMW website (http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=68624789&msgid=961022&act=SOIL&c=365152&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palwatch.org%2F) chronicle obscene examples of incitement, especially in the wake of the release of the terrorists in the Schalit exchange. Chairman Abbas, who publicly embraced these mass murderers, summed up the PA approach when he stated "every prisoner is for us a saint and we must exult him”. He subsequently appointed Mahmoud Damra, a notorious terrorist, as his advisor.
The state-controlled Palestinian media sanctified the murders committed by the released terrorists. Thus Ahlam Tamimi, the woman who orchestrated the suicide bombing at the Jerusalem Sbarro restaurant which killed 22 civilians including seven children, was quoted proudly proclaiming she would do it again; Abbas al-Sayed who perpetrated the Passover suicide attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya which killed 30 Israelis was described by Abbas as a "hero" and "symbol of the Palestinian Authority".
Only recently, whilst commemorating the 47th anniversary of Fatah, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, the PAs highest religious authority appointed by Abbas, proclaimed that the killing of Jews was a major Islamic goal required before the Islamic Resurrection. The moderator introducing him, reiterated that "our war against the descendants of apes and pigs is a war of religion and faith".
And just last week PMW reported how the PA State TV conveyed “greetings” to Hakim Awad, the barbaric and unrepentant murderer of the Vogel family which included a 4 month infant and children aged 3 and 11 years. His mother was honored on the program and conveyed “greetings to dear Hakim, the apple of my eye, who carried out the operation in Itamar, sentenced to 5 life sentences”. His aunt also related to “Hakim Awad, the hero, the legend”. How can people claiming to be promoting human rights conceivably associate themselves with a regime which adulates such monsters on its controlled TV outlets?
The book itself chillingly provides documentation demonstrating how an entire generation is brainwashed into absorbing a culture of death and slaughter. The Palestinian children's programs promoting hatred and evil are incorporated into textbooks, music videos and summer camps all blatantly indoctrinating the sanctity of Shahada (martyrdom) and murder of Jews.
Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, purportedly the most moderate of all Palestinian leaders, is cited for his speech praising four terrorists and sponsoring of a Palestinian children’s summer camp in which the participants were divided into groups labeled with the names of terrorists including a notorious bus hijacker.
Marcus and Zilberdik point out how, in the course of one day, a Palestinian child can walk on a street named after the mass murderer Abu Jihad, to a school named after the founder of Hamas, where he will read hate-filled textbooks, work in a computer room named after a suicide bomber, spend the afternoon at a soccer tournament with the teams named after suicide bombers, go in the evening to the Abu Iyad community center, the orchestrator of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and finally return home to view anti-Semitic cartoons on TV before going to bed.
After reading this book, a number of questions come to mind.
The U.S. Congress was considering terminating the funding of the PA general budget unless it terminated incitement, glorification of suicide bombers as heroic role models, payment of over $5 million a month for “salaries” to 5500 terrorists in Israeli prisons, and pensions to the families of terrorists. Why did Prime Minister Netanyahu ask them to desist?
Why does Prime Minister Netanyahu so frequently pay lip service to Abbas as a peace partner and, other than very recently, fail to systematically highlight the criminality of the Palestinian leaders? If our Prime Minister agreed not to publicly highlight these evils in order to placate President Obama, we are likely to pay a bitter price. If the civilized world is made aware of the culture of death and hatred which permeate Palestinian society, we would be in a far stronger position in the ongoing war of ideas.
And finally, how can President Obama and Western countries justify their repeated vitriolic condemnations of Israeli construction in Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem and yet have so little to say about a society which indoctrinates its children with such a barbaric worldview? How can Secretary of State Hillary Clinton validate her silence over these issues after having so passionately condemned Palestinian incitement against Israel when she was a Senator?
After reviewing these horrific texts which document such a savage state-imposed Jihadi culture, it is surely delusional to view the current Palestinian leadership as peace partners. Such a calculated policy of deception reflected by the disparity between reality and duplicitous statements designed for foreign consumption is not merely an expression of malice. It is a manifestation of a determined policy to poison the people against any possible accommodation with Israel. It provides a devastating response to the question raised in the introduction to the book. Was a genuine peace process ever intended?
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=3873
We are told, day after day, that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is a genuine moderate committed to achieving a peace settlement with Israel. In addition to the international community, even some Israelis – admittedly a dwindling minority – also chant this mantra.
Abbas and his spokesman Saeb Erekat bolster this theme by uttering soothing statements in English, endorsing peace to the gullible international community. Yet they speak with forked tongues because in Arabic to their own people, they deny Israel’s right to exist and promote vicious hatred against Jews.
They also claim to have reneged violence. But the PA never conceded that terrorism was immoral. They simply concluded that having failed to achieve their objectives by violence, their goals could best be promoted by temporarily suspending terrorism in order to gain Western support. Abbas made it clear that he "had the honor of firing the first shot in 1965" and was only opposed to terrorist attacks "at this time" for tactical reasons and that "in the future things may change." Yet, even within this framework, Fatah has still succeeded in killing more Israelis than Hamas.
The true objectives of the PA are reflected in the poisonous hatred against Jews and Israel inculcated to their people through the broad range of institutions they control, permeating every level of society– from kindergarten and upwards.
This can be traced to the very inception of the Oslo Accords. Before that, the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, whilst far from ideal, was certainly better than now, when polls indicate that 84% of Palestinians endorse the murder of Israelis.
In addition to denying Jewish sovereignty, the PA from the outset indulged in the most horrendous demonization, describing Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs, comparing them to Nazis whilst simultaneously praising Hitler, accusing them of stealing Palestinian body parts, using human blood during Passover, promoting AIDs, and many other loathsome blood libels.
This defamatory torrent impacts directly on Israel’s diminished standing in the international community.
In response to this, an important book compiled by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik titled "Deception: Betraying the Peace Process”, has just been released. It meticulously documents the poisonous behavior of the Palestinian Authority during 2010 and 2011 throughout the broad range of institutions they control. It will become an important source for pro-Israeli activists and provide irrefutable evidence in response to those denying the criminality pervading Palestinian society.
Itamar Marcus founded Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) in 1966 as a nonprofit organization to monitor the Palestinian media. Its documentation of Palestinian behavior, including systematically taping State Palestinian TV, became important sources for parliamentarians and serious journalists throughout the world. His briefing of U.S. legislators was a major factor contributing towards the prevailing pro-Israel orientation of Congress and the American people.
The book and the PMW website (http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=68624789&msgid=961022&act=SOIL&c=365152&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palwatch.org%2F) chronicle obscene examples of incitement, especially in the wake of the release of the terrorists in the Schalit exchange. Chairman Abbas, who publicly embraced these mass murderers, summed up the PA approach when he stated "every prisoner is for us a saint and we must exult him”. He subsequently appointed Mahmoud Damra, a notorious terrorist, as his advisor.
The state-controlled Palestinian media sanctified the murders committed by the released terrorists. Thus Ahlam Tamimi, the woman who orchestrated the suicide bombing at the Jerusalem Sbarro restaurant which killed 22 civilians including seven children, was quoted proudly proclaiming she would do it again; Abbas al-Sayed who perpetrated the Passover suicide attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya which killed 30 Israelis was described by Abbas as a "hero" and "symbol of the Palestinian Authority".
Only recently, whilst commemorating the 47th anniversary of Fatah, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, the PAs highest religious authority appointed by Abbas, proclaimed that the killing of Jews was a major Islamic goal required before the Islamic Resurrection. The moderator introducing him, reiterated that "our war against the descendants of apes and pigs is a war of religion and faith".
And just last week PMW reported how the PA State TV conveyed “greetings” to Hakim Awad, the barbaric and unrepentant murderer of the Vogel family which included a 4 month infant and children aged 3 and 11 years. His mother was honored on the program and conveyed “greetings to dear Hakim, the apple of my eye, who carried out the operation in Itamar, sentenced to 5 life sentences”. His aunt also related to “Hakim Awad, the hero, the legend”. How can people claiming to be promoting human rights conceivably associate themselves with a regime which adulates such monsters on its controlled TV outlets?
The book itself chillingly provides documentation demonstrating how an entire generation is brainwashed into absorbing a culture of death and slaughter. The Palestinian children's programs promoting hatred and evil are incorporated into textbooks, music videos and summer camps all blatantly indoctrinating the sanctity of Shahada (martyrdom) and murder of Jews.
Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, purportedly the most moderate of all Palestinian leaders, is cited for his speech praising four terrorists and sponsoring of a Palestinian children’s summer camp in which the participants were divided into groups labeled with the names of terrorists including a notorious bus hijacker.
Marcus and Zilberdik point out how, in the course of one day, a Palestinian child can walk on a street named after the mass murderer Abu Jihad, to a school named after the founder of Hamas, where he will read hate-filled textbooks, work in a computer room named after a suicide bomber, spend the afternoon at a soccer tournament with the teams named after suicide bombers, go in the evening to the Abu Iyad community center, the orchestrator of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and finally return home to view anti-Semitic cartoons on TV before going to bed.
After reading this book, a number of questions come to mind.
The U.S. Congress was considering terminating the funding of the PA general budget unless it terminated incitement, glorification of suicide bombers as heroic role models, payment of over $5 million a month for “salaries” to 5500 terrorists in Israeli prisons, and pensions to the families of terrorists. Why did Prime Minister Netanyahu ask them to desist?
Why does Prime Minister Netanyahu so frequently pay lip service to Abbas as a peace partner and, other than very recently, fail to systematically highlight the criminality of the Palestinian leaders? If our Prime Minister agreed not to publicly highlight these evils in order to placate President Obama, we are likely to pay a bitter price. If the civilized world is made aware of the culture of death and hatred which permeate Palestinian society, we would be in a far stronger position in the ongoing war of ideas.
And finally, how can President Obama and Western countries justify their repeated vitriolic condemnations of Israeli construction in Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem and yet have so little to say about a society which indoctrinates its children with such a barbaric worldview? How can Secretary of State Hillary Clinton validate her silence over these issues after having so passionately condemned Palestinian incitement against Israel when she was a Senator?
After reviewing these horrific texts which document such a savage state-imposed Jihadi culture, it is surely delusional to view the current Palestinian leadership as peace partners. Such a calculated policy of deception reflected by the disparity between reality and duplicitous statements designed for foreign consumption is not merely an expression of malice. It is a manifestation of a determined policy to poison the people against any possible accommodation with Israel. It provides a devastating response to the question raised in the introduction to the book. Was a genuine peace process ever intended?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Z-word
The Z-WordBy Jay Nordlinger, January 11, 2012, The National Review
(With thanks to Tom Gross who posted this in his blog http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001252.html )
A few weeks ago, a Labour MP in Britain, Paul Flynn, expressed displeasure with his country's ambassador to Israel. "I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories," he said, "but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist." What Britain needs in Israel, according to Flynn, is "someone with roots in the U.K." who "can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty.
"Britain's ambassador to Israel, as you may have surmised, is a Jew, the first to serve in that capacity. He previously served in Pakistan and Iran (not Jewish states). As for Matthew Gould's "roots in the U.K.," they may not be as deep as Flynn's, but they are semi-respectable: On one side, his great-grandparents were immigrants, and on the other, his grandparents. Speaking of respectability, Gould is a graduate of St. Paul's School and Peterhouse, Cambridge.
Not bad for a Semitic upstart.In his widely publicized remarks, Flynn worried about "neocons and warmongers," now itching to invade Iran. "Warmongers" is a word we can easily understand. But what about two other words Flynn used, "neocons" and "Zionist"? These are very slippery terms. If you want to paralyze someone who denounces neocons, say, "What's a neocon?" If you want to paralyze someone who denounces Zionists, or even refers to them, say, "What's a Zionist?" People use these words cavalierly and ignorantly.
And none too nicely, either.We will concentrate on the older of the words, "Zionist." Though it may be older than "neocon," it is much, much newer than "Zion." We first encounter "Zion" in II Samuel, Chapter 5: "David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David." I am quoting King James's translators. In Psalm 48, we have one of the loveliest lines in the entire Bible: "Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion." Centuries later came a hymn that begins, "Glorious things of thee are spoken, Zion, city of our God!" Those words were written by the author of "Amazing Grace," John Newton.
"Zion" may refer to a hill in Jerusalem, or a section of Jerusalem, or Jerusalem itself, or all Israel. Or to the kingdom of God, period. It also may refer to the Jewish people or to all mankind. People in Illinois may know Zion as a city on the Wisconsin border."Zionism" arose in the late 19th century, and its believers and supporters were "Zionists." This was the movement to establish a Jewish state in ancient Israel - to "reestablish" that state, if you like. European Jews such as Theodor Herzl thought, or feared, that assimilation was a lost cause. The host countries would never allow it. The best answer was a return to Zion, to Israel. Other Jews held this return to be desirable in itself, regardless of whether assimilation in the broader world was possible.
Herzl wrote his pamphlet The Jewish State in 1896. The next year, he organized the first Zionist Congress, in Basel. Many Jews were Zionists, many were not. Those who were not, were free to stay where they were (as were those Jews who supported Zionism but did not wish to emigrate themselves). The ancient language, Hebrew, was revived. The movement gathered pace. After the Holocaust, and a war of independence, the Jews had their state. Zionism, i.e., Jewish nationalism, was fulfilled.
But the term hung on, particularly in the mouths of Israel's enemies. Indeed, many Arabs would not, and will not, say "Israel." They say "Zionist entity" or "Zionist presence." To say "Israel," apparently, would acknowledge statehood, which is unacknowledgeable, to some. The late Yasser Arafat was a frequent user of "Zionist aggressor," "Zionist conquest," and similar phrases.
One goal of Israel's enemies was to stigmatize "Zionism," and they had their greatest success in November 1975, when the United Nations passed its infamous Resolution 3379: Zionism equals racism. "Racism" was the severest term of the age, and it may well be that today, too. Vanessa Redgrave, a great supporter of Arafat and his PLO, said, "Zionism is a brutal, racist ideology." Other peoples could have their national expression, but not the Jews. Resolution 3379 was revoked in 1991, thanks chiefly to the work of the Bush 41 administration, and in particular to the work of one State Department official: John Bolton.
Over the years, people have denounced Zionism while proclaiming their great love of Jews. They're not anti-Jewish, you see, but merely anti-Zionist. They could just as well say "anti-Israel," but "Zionist" is somehow the word of choice.
Accepting an Academy Award in 1978, Redgrave congratulated her colleagues on standing up to "Zionist hoodlums," such as those picketing outside. Later in her remarks, she said, "I pledge to you that I will continue to fight against anti-Semitism and fascism." In 1980, Jesse Jackson called Zionism "a kind of poisonous weed that is choking Judaism." He was following the pattern of "Judaism good, Zionism bad." In 1992, he seemed to have a change of heart, hailing Zionism as a "liberation movement.
"But old habits die hard, and Jackson is still liable to use "Zionism" or "Zionist" as a term of abuse. In October 2008, Amir Taheri, an exile journalist from Iran, recorded what Jackson said at a conference in France. An Obama administration was coming, he said, and this administration would diminish the "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades." Whom did he mean, exactly? What do people ever mean when they say "Zionists"?
Louis Farrakhan talks about Zionists almost as much as Arafat did. An Associated Press report in 1984 said, "Farrakhan, who has been quoted as calling Judaism a 'gutter religion,' denied that he was against Jews. He has said that remark referred to Zionism, not Judaism." Here is an AP report from 1998: "Farrakhan suggested a Zionist plot was behind President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky." Earlier this year, Farrakhan said that "Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system." He added, "Some of you think that I'm just somebody who's got something out for the Jewish people. You're stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.
"In Israel itself, the word "Zionist" is in bad odor, certainly on the left. Few academics, artists, and cool teens would want to be known as Zionists. This started "just after the 1967 war," says Zev Chafets, the veteran American-Israeli writer. "Zionist" came to mean superpatriot, flag-waver, jingo. The worldwide Left associates Zionism with colonialism, imperialism, and, of course, racism, and the Israeli Left does the same.
More than a few Israelis refer to themselves as "post-Zionists," which may mean any number of things. For instance, it may mean that they reject the old Zionist vision and instead welcome a "binational state," including the West Bank and Gaza and everyone in them. Jewish particularism is anathema to them. When they think "Zionist," they are apt to think "settler," and a settler, in their minds, is no good. Of course, not so long ago, just about every Israeli was a settler, and a Zionist, to boot.
There are still people who embrace the Z-word, no matter the opprobrium that comes with it. Paul Flynn, the British MP, said that Ambassador Gould "has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist." That is true. Gould has also said, "I thought long and hard about applying for the position" of ambassador to Israel. "I thought it might just be all too difficult. But then I thought to myself, 'Why should Jews rule themselves out of important positions?'" Gould has emphasized he is "the British ambassador to Israel, not the Jewish one.
"Ten years ago, Gil Troy, a history professor at McGill University, wrote a book with a totally unabashed title: "Why I Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today." There are also many millions of Americans who support Israel and are known as "Christian Zionists." Their critics utter this term with disdain or fear or both. I suspect that these Christians themselves have no problem with it.
To me, a Zionist has always been a person who supports the idea of a Jewish homeland, or state, in the Middle East. In ancient Israel. Therefore, being a Zionist is essentially the same as supporting the right of Israel to exist. When Farrakhan says that the U.S. government, the banks, and the media are "dominated by Zionists," I'm apt to say, "Sure: Most Americans support Israel, both as idea and as reality." But I am being too clever, no doubt - because when people say "Zionist," they really mean .
. . Well, what do they mean? One clue comes from John J. Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor who, with Stephen M. Walt, wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a notorious book published in 2007. Mearsheimer has just written a blurb for a book by Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli who hates Israel and hates himself, for that matter. He has described himself as a "proud self-hating Jew." In his blurb, Mearsheimer writes, "Panicked Jewish leaders, [Atzmon] argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim.
"So, there we have a definition of Zionism, from a professor of political science at one of our most distinguished universities: "blind loyalty to Israel." There is an old joke, told by Jews, that goes, "What's the definition of an anti-Semite? One who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary." Is that what a Zionist is - someone who supports Israel more than is absolutely necessary? Someone who is too enthusiastic or unyielding in his support?
In my observation, people say "Zionist" when they don't want to say "Jew" or "Israeli." As Gil Troy wrote last year, "intellectuals have camouflaged modern anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism." There are certainly people who are anti-Zionist or anti-Israel - is there a difference? - without being anti-Jewish. Some of them are Jews. But, as Paul Johnson, the historian, once said to me in an interview, "Scratch the fellow who is anti-Israel, and you won't have to dig very far before you find the anti-Semite within." Another historian, Bernard Lewis, says that talk of Zionism "sometimes provides a useful cover": a cover to those who harbor the old, enduring hatred.
As you go about life, you may encounter someone who says "Zionism" or "Zionist," with an edge in his voice. Ask him what he means. The answer, or non-answer, you get is likely to be revealing.
(With thanks to Tom Gross who posted this in his blog http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001252.html )
A few weeks ago, a Labour MP in Britain, Paul Flynn, expressed displeasure with his country's ambassador to Israel. "I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories," he said, "but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist." What Britain needs in Israel, according to Flynn, is "someone with roots in the U.K." who "can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty.
"Britain's ambassador to Israel, as you may have surmised, is a Jew, the first to serve in that capacity. He previously served in Pakistan and Iran (not Jewish states). As for Matthew Gould's "roots in the U.K.," they may not be as deep as Flynn's, but they are semi-respectable: On one side, his great-grandparents were immigrants, and on the other, his grandparents. Speaking of respectability, Gould is a graduate of St. Paul's School and Peterhouse, Cambridge.
Not bad for a Semitic upstart.In his widely publicized remarks, Flynn worried about "neocons and warmongers," now itching to invade Iran. "Warmongers" is a word we can easily understand. But what about two other words Flynn used, "neocons" and "Zionist"? These are very slippery terms. If you want to paralyze someone who denounces neocons, say, "What's a neocon?" If you want to paralyze someone who denounces Zionists, or even refers to them, say, "What's a Zionist?" People use these words cavalierly and ignorantly.
And none too nicely, either.We will concentrate on the older of the words, "Zionist." Though it may be older than "neocon," it is much, much newer than "Zion." We first encounter "Zion" in II Samuel, Chapter 5: "David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David." I am quoting King James's translators. In Psalm 48, we have one of the loveliest lines in the entire Bible: "Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion." Centuries later came a hymn that begins, "Glorious things of thee are spoken, Zion, city of our God!" Those words were written by the author of "Amazing Grace," John Newton.
"Zion" may refer to a hill in Jerusalem, or a section of Jerusalem, or Jerusalem itself, or all Israel. Or to the kingdom of God, period. It also may refer to the Jewish people or to all mankind. People in Illinois may know Zion as a city on the Wisconsin border."Zionism" arose in the late 19th century, and its believers and supporters were "Zionists." This was the movement to establish a Jewish state in ancient Israel - to "reestablish" that state, if you like. European Jews such as Theodor Herzl thought, or feared, that assimilation was a lost cause. The host countries would never allow it. The best answer was a return to Zion, to Israel. Other Jews held this return to be desirable in itself, regardless of whether assimilation in the broader world was possible.
Herzl wrote his pamphlet The Jewish State in 1896. The next year, he organized the first Zionist Congress, in Basel. Many Jews were Zionists, many were not. Those who were not, were free to stay where they were (as were those Jews who supported Zionism but did not wish to emigrate themselves). The ancient language, Hebrew, was revived. The movement gathered pace. After the Holocaust, and a war of independence, the Jews had their state. Zionism, i.e., Jewish nationalism, was fulfilled.
But the term hung on, particularly in the mouths of Israel's enemies. Indeed, many Arabs would not, and will not, say "Israel." They say "Zionist entity" or "Zionist presence." To say "Israel," apparently, would acknowledge statehood, which is unacknowledgeable, to some. The late Yasser Arafat was a frequent user of "Zionist aggressor," "Zionist conquest," and similar phrases.
One goal of Israel's enemies was to stigmatize "Zionism," and they had their greatest success in November 1975, when the United Nations passed its infamous Resolution 3379: Zionism equals racism. "Racism" was the severest term of the age, and it may well be that today, too. Vanessa Redgrave, a great supporter of Arafat and his PLO, said, "Zionism is a brutal, racist ideology." Other peoples could have their national expression, but not the Jews. Resolution 3379 was revoked in 1991, thanks chiefly to the work of the Bush 41 administration, and in particular to the work of one State Department official: John Bolton.
Over the years, people have denounced Zionism while proclaiming their great love of Jews. They're not anti-Jewish, you see, but merely anti-Zionist. They could just as well say "anti-Israel," but "Zionist" is somehow the word of choice.
Accepting an Academy Award in 1978, Redgrave congratulated her colleagues on standing up to "Zionist hoodlums," such as those picketing outside. Later in her remarks, she said, "I pledge to you that I will continue to fight against anti-Semitism and fascism." In 1980, Jesse Jackson called Zionism "a kind of poisonous weed that is choking Judaism." He was following the pattern of "Judaism good, Zionism bad." In 1992, he seemed to have a change of heart, hailing Zionism as a "liberation movement.
"But old habits die hard, and Jackson is still liable to use "Zionism" or "Zionist" as a term of abuse. In October 2008, Amir Taheri, an exile journalist from Iran, recorded what Jackson said at a conference in France. An Obama administration was coming, he said, and this administration would diminish the "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades." Whom did he mean, exactly? What do people ever mean when they say "Zionists"?
Louis Farrakhan talks about Zionists almost as much as Arafat did. An Associated Press report in 1984 said, "Farrakhan, who has been quoted as calling Judaism a 'gutter religion,' denied that he was against Jews. He has said that remark referred to Zionism, not Judaism." Here is an AP report from 1998: "Farrakhan suggested a Zionist plot was behind President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky." Earlier this year, Farrakhan said that "Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system." He added, "Some of you think that I'm just somebody who's got something out for the Jewish people. You're stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.
"In Israel itself, the word "Zionist" is in bad odor, certainly on the left. Few academics, artists, and cool teens would want to be known as Zionists. This started "just after the 1967 war," says Zev Chafets, the veteran American-Israeli writer. "Zionist" came to mean superpatriot, flag-waver, jingo. The worldwide Left associates Zionism with colonialism, imperialism, and, of course, racism, and the Israeli Left does the same.
More than a few Israelis refer to themselves as "post-Zionists," which may mean any number of things. For instance, it may mean that they reject the old Zionist vision and instead welcome a "binational state," including the West Bank and Gaza and everyone in them. Jewish particularism is anathema to them. When they think "Zionist," they are apt to think "settler," and a settler, in their minds, is no good. Of course, not so long ago, just about every Israeli was a settler, and a Zionist, to boot.
There are still people who embrace the Z-word, no matter the opprobrium that comes with it. Paul Flynn, the British MP, said that Ambassador Gould "has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist." That is true. Gould has also said, "I thought long and hard about applying for the position" of ambassador to Israel. "I thought it might just be all too difficult. But then I thought to myself, 'Why should Jews rule themselves out of important positions?'" Gould has emphasized he is "the British ambassador to Israel, not the Jewish one.
"Ten years ago, Gil Troy, a history professor at McGill University, wrote a book with a totally unabashed title: "Why I Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today." There are also many millions of Americans who support Israel and are known as "Christian Zionists." Their critics utter this term with disdain or fear or both. I suspect that these Christians themselves have no problem with it.
To me, a Zionist has always been a person who supports the idea of a Jewish homeland, or state, in the Middle East. In ancient Israel. Therefore, being a Zionist is essentially the same as supporting the right of Israel to exist. When Farrakhan says that the U.S. government, the banks, and the media are "dominated by Zionists," I'm apt to say, "Sure: Most Americans support Israel, both as idea and as reality." But I am being too clever, no doubt - because when people say "Zionist," they really mean .
. . Well, what do they mean? One clue comes from John J. Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor who, with Stephen M. Walt, wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a notorious book published in 2007. Mearsheimer has just written a blurb for a book by Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli who hates Israel and hates himself, for that matter. He has described himself as a "proud self-hating Jew." In his blurb, Mearsheimer writes, "Panicked Jewish leaders, [Atzmon] argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim.
"So, there we have a definition of Zionism, from a professor of political science at one of our most distinguished universities: "blind loyalty to Israel." There is an old joke, told by Jews, that goes, "What's the definition of an anti-Semite? One who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary." Is that what a Zionist is - someone who supports Israel more than is absolutely necessary? Someone who is too enthusiastic or unyielding in his support?
In my observation, people say "Zionist" when they don't want to say "Jew" or "Israeli." As Gil Troy wrote last year, "intellectuals have camouflaged modern anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism." There are certainly people who are anti-Zionist or anti-Israel - is there a difference? - without being anti-Jewish. Some of them are Jews. But, as Paul Johnson, the historian, once said to me in an interview, "Scratch the fellow who is anti-Israel, and you won't have to dig very far before you find the anti-Semite within." Another historian, Bernard Lewis, says that talk of Zionism "sometimes provides a useful cover": a cover to those who harbor the old, enduring hatred.
As you go about life, you may encounter someone who says "Zionism" or "Zionist," with an edge in his voice. Ask him what he means. The answer, or non-answer, you get is likely to be revealing.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Impossible to reconcile what you see in Israel with the accepted international narrative
From Commentary Magazine
An Australian view of Israel at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/13/aged-leaders-of-fatah/
Reminiscing with the Aged Leaders of Fatah
Rick Richman
Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian, is spending a week in Israel and the West Bank and reports it is “dangerous” to visit Israel — “because it is impossible to reconcile the evidence of your eyes with the accepted international narrative”:
“In the international media, Israel is presented as militarist, right-wing, oppressive. In fact it is the only pluralist democracy in the Middle East, the only nation where women’s rights — and gay rights — are protected. It has a vibrant left wing, a cacophonous democracy and an innovative economy.”
Compare his summary of the situation among Palestinians, unable to live side-by-side in peace and security even with themselves, lacking a pluralist society, missing any protections for women and gays, dependent on an economy funded by Western “donors” (because Arab states contribute a lot of rhetoric but few funds):
“So how can there be a Palestinian state when the two parts of it have recently been killing each other and cannot even travel in each others’ territories? Palestinian friends tell me that Hamas would be likely to win a Palestinian election held now. Neither Fatah nor Hamas is remotely democratic. Fatah is also increasingly sclerotic. All its leaders are aged, all figures from the past in office for decades. There is no youth or vitality about it.”
Well, at least the aged leaders of increasingly sclerotic Fatah — cooped up in their half of the quasi-state, understandably afraid to hold another election — can look back on their decades in office and reminisce about all the times they almost had a state.
There was July 2000 at Camp David, when Israel offered a state on substantially all the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in Jerusalem, and they turned it down. There was January 2001, when they turned down the Clinton Parameters, refusing a state again. There was September 12, 2005, when they got Gaza and announced “no more security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions, which are not characteristic of our culture.” The January 2006 election did not go well, but there was the February 2007 Mecca agreement, adopting “the language of dialogue as the sole basis for solving the political disagreements” — until the other party threw Fatah off the tops of buildings. In September 2008 there was another offer of a state, which they turned down again. In May 2009 they set “preconditions” for the democratically elected government of Israel to talk to the unelected aged leaders of sclerotic Fatah, saying they would do nothing further since they had a “good reality” in the West Bank. Since then, they have occupied themselves with seeking UN resolutions.
And during this entire period, billions of dollars came their way for participating in this “process.” Good times, good times….
__._,_.___
An Australian view of Israel at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/13/aged-leaders-of-fatah/
Reminiscing with the Aged Leaders of Fatah
Rick Richman
Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian, is spending a week in Israel and the West Bank and reports it is “dangerous” to visit Israel — “because it is impossible to reconcile the evidence of your eyes with the accepted international narrative”:
“In the international media, Israel is presented as militarist, right-wing, oppressive. In fact it is the only pluralist democracy in the Middle East, the only nation where women’s rights — and gay rights — are protected. It has a vibrant left wing, a cacophonous democracy and an innovative economy.”
Compare his summary of the situation among Palestinians, unable to live side-by-side in peace and security even with themselves, lacking a pluralist society, missing any protections for women and gays, dependent on an economy funded by Western “donors” (because Arab states contribute a lot of rhetoric but few funds):
“So how can there be a Palestinian state when the two parts of it have recently been killing each other and cannot even travel in each others’ territories? Palestinian friends tell me that Hamas would be likely to win a Palestinian election held now. Neither Fatah nor Hamas is remotely democratic. Fatah is also increasingly sclerotic. All its leaders are aged, all figures from the past in office for decades. There is no youth or vitality about it.”
Well, at least the aged leaders of increasingly sclerotic Fatah — cooped up in their half of the quasi-state, understandably afraid to hold another election — can look back on their decades in office and reminisce about all the times they almost had a state.
There was July 2000 at Camp David, when Israel offered a state on substantially all the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in Jerusalem, and they turned it down. There was January 2001, when they turned down the Clinton Parameters, refusing a state again. There was September 12, 2005, when they got Gaza and announced “no more security turmoil and weapons chaos and abductions, which are not characteristic of our culture.” The January 2006 election did not go well, but there was the February 2007 Mecca agreement, adopting “the language of dialogue as the sole basis for solving the political disagreements” — until the other party threw Fatah off the tops of buildings. In September 2008 there was another offer of a state, which they turned down again. In May 2009 they set “preconditions” for the democratically elected government of Israel to talk to the unelected aged leaders of sclerotic Fatah, saying they would do nothing further since they had a “good reality” in the West Bank. Since then, they have occupied themselves with seeking UN resolutions.
And during this entire period, billions of dollars came their way for participating in this “process.” Good times, good times….
__._,_.___
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Hamas Says Gaza Not “Occupied”; U.N. Disagrees
http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=2832097&campaign_id=63111
World Body Out of Step with Palestinians
GENEVA, Jan. 3 - The UN’s continued labeling of the Gaza Strip as “occupied” was directly contradicted today by a top leader of Hamas, the vehemently anti-Israel Palestinian terror group that controls the territory.
Noting the Hamas statement reflects the reality since Israel's full withdrawal in 2005, the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch called on the UN to encourage Palestinians to take responsibility for areas they control, and to cease referring to Gaza, in reports and through officials and spokespeople, as “occupied territory.”
“The UN's traditional practice of absolving Palestinians of responsibility hasn't helped them one iota," said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. "On the contrary, Palestinian citizens are the main losers when those that directly govern and police them are never seriously held accountable for their actions."
"Now that the Palestinians running Gaza publicly regognize that it's not occupied -- which has been the reality since Israel's disengagement removed every solider, civilian and setttlement in 2005 -- the UN's refusal to do the same will only hinder Palestinians from developing a healthy culture of self-rule," said Neuer.
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar confirmed there was no Israeli occupation of the territory in comments reported today by the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency.
Zahhar was casting doubt on whether Hamas would organize anti-Israel marches in Gaza in conjunction with similar protests that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority would organize in the West Bank.
"Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,” Zahhar said, according to Ma'an.
The Hamas statement follows growing recognition among international lawyers that the UN's resistance to holding Palestinians responsible for territory they control is outdated.
In a recent article in the American University International Law Review, legal scholar Elizabeth Samson explains that under the Geneva Conventions and international judicial precedents, Gaza can no longer be considered occupied as Israel no longer exercises “effective control.”
The Israeli Supreme Court also ruled on January 30, 2008 that Israel had disengaged from the Gaza Strip and had “no effective control over what occurred there.”
Instead, Samson argues, Gaza's unique "intermediate" legal status should be recognized to allow the Palestinians to exercise complete autonomy, laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state existing peacefully beside Israel.
However, the UN's official policy has not changed since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman, Farhan Haq, declared in 2009 that "the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory."
The UN terminology continues to appear. A September 22 report in the name of Mr. Ban speaks of a UN mission’s visit to the “occupied Palestinian territory, specifically the Gaza Strip.” In May, Richard Falk, the UN's permanent investigator on alleged Israeli violations, referred to the "occupied Gaza Strip." A UN fact sheet on "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" includes Gaza.
World Body Out of Step with Palestinians
GENEVA, Jan. 3 - The UN’s continued labeling of the Gaza Strip as “occupied” was directly contradicted today by a top leader of Hamas, the vehemently anti-Israel Palestinian terror group that controls the territory.
Noting the Hamas statement reflects the reality since Israel's full withdrawal in 2005, the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch called on the UN to encourage Palestinians to take responsibility for areas they control, and to cease referring to Gaza, in reports and through officials and spokespeople, as “occupied territory.”
“The UN's traditional practice of absolving Palestinians of responsibility hasn't helped them one iota," said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. "On the contrary, Palestinian citizens are the main losers when those that directly govern and police them are never seriously held accountable for their actions."
"Now that the Palestinians running Gaza publicly regognize that it's not occupied -- which has been the reality since Israel's disengagement removed every solider, civilian and setttlement in 2005 -- the UN's refusal to do the same will only hinder Palestinians from developing a healthy culture of self-rule," said Neuer.
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar confirmed there was no Israeli occupation of the territory in comments reported today by the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency.
Zahhar was casting doubt on whether Hamas would organize anti-Israel marches in Gaza in conjunction with similar protests that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority would organize in the West Bank.
"Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,” Zahhar said, according to Ma'an.
The Hamas statement follows growing recognition among international lawyers that the UN's resistance to holding Palestinians responsible for territory they control is outdated.
In a recent article in the American University International Law Review, legal scholar Elizabeth Samson explains that under the Geneva Conventions and international judicial precedents, Gaza can no longer be considered occupied as Israel no longer exercises “effective control.”
The Israeli Supreme Court also ruled on January 30, 2008 that Israel had disengaged from the Gaza Strip and had “no effective control over what occurred there.”
Instead, Samson argues, Gaza's unique "intermediate" legal status should be recognized to allow the Palestinians to exercise complete autonomy, laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state existing peacefully beside Israel.
However, the UN's official policy has not changed since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman, Farhan Haq, declared in 2009 that "the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory."
The UN terminology continues to appear. A September 22 report in the name of Mr. Ban speaks of a UN mission’s visit to the “occupied Palestinian territory, specifically the Gaza Strip.” In May, Richard Falk, the UN's permanent investigator on alleged Israeli violations, referred to the "occupied Gaza Strip." A UN fact sheet on "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" includes Gaza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
