Essays on the Arab Israeli Conflict

Israel Makes Jews Look Bad

2011-12-31T05:23:00.000-08:00

There has been much focus on Israellately, then again, Israelis always in the global spotlight. This time Israelhas been put in the crosshairs for a seeming slide into the dark ages. Thefocus point this time on Israel'sbackwards society is its treatment of women. It started a few weeks ago when weheard that women weren't allowed to sing at an event on an Israeli army basedue to religious soldier's being opposed to it. Next we heard of a women thatwas harassed when trying to get on a bus that served the religious public andtried to sit in the front, a practice strongly rejected by the vast majority ofIsraelis. At this point we heard no less than Hilary Clinton compare Israelto the racist south. The media took up the cue and did an investigative pieceabout a little girl that was called a whore and spit on, on her way to schoolbecause religious fanatics claimed she wasn't dressed modestly enough (areligious girl at that). At which points Israelis started to get up and protestthe religious coercion creeping into their society.

Yes, all of these events are concerning. No, none of these events arenew. Ask any Jewish American that's studied six months in Israel and they'lltell you that the ultra-orthodox are at times violent in their protest of girlsand boys praying together at the Western wall. They probably also know that inMea She'arim, the ultra-orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem,there are signs instructing men to walk on one side of the street, women onanother.

And yes, the ultra-orthodox community is growing five times faster in Israelthan the secular community. Being subsidized by secular tax payers (mostultra-orthodox don't work, they study), they have on average 7 kids per family.And yet today, this segment of the community still only represents 10% of thepopulation, and most of which only want to be left alone. And the extremeultra-orthodox, those being aggressive in their insults, assaulting littlegirls for not being "modest enough," are only a tiny minority of that10%.

And yet, these circumstances, which have sadly always been a part ofIsrael to some degree, have become yet the latest weapons against the Jewishstate, and yet another factor shaming mainstream Judaism into silence, if notconverting them into Israel's latest public critics. As can be seen in theunderstandable expression of frustration of a Jewish educator friend of mineexclaimed in alarm on his Facebook page, "How long before they startcomparing Halakhah with Sharia law? How long after that does Judaism getstereotyped as just another extremist, fundamentalist whacked out cult?

Hint: Many have always believed Judaism is extremist and fundamentalist.Not based on any fact, but on ignorance, a hatred for Judaism, and a desire todeligitimze Israel.

Is Criticism of

Israel

Valid?

I'd say that's a stupid question, but as we all know there are no stupidquestions. All criticism of Israelis valid. Whether by Jews, non-Jews, Israelis or non Israelis. However, we'retalking about much more than just criticizing Israel.We're talking about the obsessive focus on Israel'simperfections, in a vacuum, on a global scale.

How Israel has become an Embarrassment to Jews

Through a combination of factors, Israelhas today been transformed for many into a belligerent state, a pariah state,and international war criminal. And while indeed Israel has its imperfectionsand makes its shares of mistakes, one has to ask how as thousands are beingslaughtered in its neighboring country Syria, Israel still receives just asmuch if not more criticism as the Syrian government. While the reason drivingthe criticism of Syriais the massacring of its own people in the streets. The criticism of Israelis due to the actions of a few fanatics in its population. And the question hasto be asked how is it that these two issues are treated as equivalent? Whetherby the media reporting on the stories, or the Obama Administration, who no lesswarned Israelresembles Iran.

The Major Factors that Led to

Israel

'sBecoming the World's Favorite Pariah State

While most people will list any litany of sins they usually attribute toIsrael, such sbuilding in the West Bank, invading Gaza,etc., the fact of the matter is all of these issues are symptoms of the problemand not the problem itself. For example, Israelwouldn't be in the West Bank today if the Arabs didn'tattack Israelin 1973. Additionally, in spite of recent UN resolutions, Israel'sconstruction in the West Bank isn't illegal. For UNresolution 242 which determines that final borders will be decided between theparties, so really Israeli construction can't be deemed illegal, and is inreality is a bargaining chip meant to put pressure on the Palestinians. It isalso one that President Obama has tried to take away from the Israelis.

But I'm not going to discuss Israel'sactions that people attribute to making it the rogue nation of the world, I'mgoing to discuss the various conditions that have led to Israelbeing portrayed as such, in the world consciousness.

The Internet – the Great Democratizer

The first and most important development in the last decade that has ledto Israel beingdemonized is undoubtedly the Internet. With 1 billion Muslims in the world, themajority arguably haters of Israel(not to mention hundreds of millions of others hostile to Israel),and their ability to express their hatred for Israel,this creates a huge amount of voices that dominate the discussion across internet.Whether it be with Facebook pages, hostile news media from Arab nations inEnglish, or Twitter, the greatest projector of voices, the dominating discoursewhen it comes to Israel is undoubtedly negative.

The News Media

There are a number of factors regarding the news media that encourage itnot only to "report" on Israel,but report it in a way that only focuses on certain aspects about Israeland its society. Some might argue, those that suggest that Israelis "bad."

The Imbalance of Only Reporting on Israeli Warts

News on Israelis almost always negative, and almost always lacking context. This undoubtedlyresults in providing a very negative impression to readership. As proof tothis, an interesting experiment was conducted called "BadNews About the Netherlands"project. In it the author wanted "to demonstrate that media coverage candegrade a country's image by using selective news without context," andsome would argue, fabulously succeeded.

The Business Model – Being Paid to Write for the Arab Press

The business model of some news providers, such as Associated Press,results in inherently biased reporting against Israel.In the case of the Associated Press, who is one of the two largest providers ofnews stories to the rest of news outlets around the world, the AP was hired bya conglomerate of Arab countries to prepare content for their audience. Thisreporting is of course inherently biased against Israel.From there, much of this content is recycled by AP who use this news to use forits Western outlets. A description by an insider of this process can be foundin an article published by Little Green Footballs titled Howmuch does it cost to Buy Global News.

The Business Model – Providing the Goods

Of course, the news media, like anything else, is a business whoseobjective is to make money. It can be asserted that one of the major audiencesis the Arab and Muslim world who, as we noted above, want to read about theevils of Israeli society. This is separate from the previous point in that thenews media in this situation is not producing negative news by Israelbecause they are being paid directly to do so, but because in the end it leadsindirectly satisfying a large portion of their readership.

Jew Baiting – for Clicks

And it's not only the Arab and Muslim public that likes to read badthings about Israel.Rest assured, put up an article discussing whether or not Israel is an apartheidstate, quoting anonymous Palestinians of Israeli massacres during Israelimilitary actions to stop missles, or anything else portraying Israel in a badlight and you'll get plenty of clicks. And while readers may click to read thearticle, they continue clicking to view the racist mudslinging that exemplifiesthe comments section of any article on mainstream websites that discussesanything about Israel.A sure way to increase your click-through-rateis to bash Israel,its as simple as that.

If it Bleeds it Leads

A well known maxim in the news media, "If it Bleeds it Leads"is yet another driver for traffic. This can be better illustrated in terms ofphoto journalism. While once upon a time any news media outlet worth its weightwouldn't publish bloody photos of suicide bombings or children shredded byshrapnel, with the democratization of the Internet and readers having access tothe Arab media outlets who will publish pretty much anything, other moremainstream outlets realized they were losing valuable traffic and so loweredtheir standards, and begun publishing the bloody photos themselves

And you can be sure that with the hunger for news reporters forPalestinian blood to sell their news, the Palestinians are more than happy tooblige them. Quite often the news media is even complicit with the Palestiniansin creating the winning photo, as can be seen with an incident in Silwan when agroup of photographers eagerly awaited as Palestinian children attacked anIsraeli car, leading to the children getting run over, as can be seen inthis video. Take note of the at least half dozen photographers who comeout of the woodwork and were standing on the sidelines while children putthemselves in danger.

The Evolution of the News Media from Reporting News to ProvidingOpinion

The nature of the media together with the burgeoning of blogs written bythe average Joe has led to a phenomenon in which news outlets peddle opinion asfact. Go to the homepage of any major media website surf around for a while,then think to yourself whether what you've read was "objectivereporting," or a subjective opinion. Then go back and check. Most peopledon't even realize that they're not reading objective reporting, while othersdon't care. But when objective reporting is replaced by opinion, watcheditorial guidelines go down the toilet. Much like recently Palestinian PrimeMinister rewrote history in his opinion piece published in none other than theNew York Times. He claimed that the war of Israeli independence was really onlythe Arab states coming in to protect the Palestinians from Israelethnically cleansing the Arabs from the land; a claim that is clearly disprovedby history. Yet the article was published without commentary or correction bythe New York Times.

What happens when the "responsible" news media doesn'tquestion claims that are historically inaccurate? People believe it.

Most Readers in the World take what the Read as Fact

For the vast majority of the world who has never been to Israel,and who don't know about the history of Israeland the Arab Israeli conflict, what they read in their local newspaper, or inthe New York Times, is fact. So when, like the New York Timespublished Mahmud Abbas' rewritten history of Israel, without commentary, andwithout correcting historic facts, the rest of the world sees his incendiaryclaims as being simple fact. And why not, they don't know any better. Now thinkabout all the points mentioned above, and take this into consideration, and itsno surprise that the majority of the world is hostile to Israel, even thosethat don’t' typically fall into the groups that are usually hostile to Israel,such as Muslims, Arabs, and those in the extreme left wing.

So What Benefit is there to Write Positive Articles about

Israel

So with all of the above taken into consideration about the media andits interests, we have to ask ourselves, honestly, what's the benefit for newsoutlets to write positive articles on Israel?Human interest stories that make Israelis look good? Or interesting storiesoutside of the usual pieces on the rich archeological history in Israel,or about Israelbeing a global hi-tech hub?

There arent' many. Because people aren't interested in reading about howIsrael is abastion of liberal values. How it has a thriving gay and lesbian community, isa patchwork of more Jewish refugees than there were Palestinian refugees. Thepapers aren't interested in writing about Israeli art, or its rich and variedcuisine. Because these pieces aren't going to draw nearly as much as a bunch ofbloody pictures, or articles slamming Israel'smaintaining a "concentration camp," in Gaza.

The Natural Discourse Among Israelis

Israeli society is known for its outspoken citizens. It is said that forevery Israeli there are two opinions. And the dialog among Israelis is asvehement as it is in the Arab press. Israeli society has a tendency to try andframe itself up against events in other places in the world, and adopt buzzwords used by the politicians and the media in other places in the world.Israelis have no problem calling each other Nazis and accusing each other ofcommitting apartheid. Much like in the rest of the world, the worst accusationshave become the only means of dialog. And while an honest comparison betweenIsraeli actions and those of, for example, Nazism, clearly show no realsimilarity, it makes no difference. So if Israelis compare themselves withNazis, who are others to question them?

The Natural Discourse Among Jews – Worried About

Israel

'sSoul

And its not just Israelis that are outspoken, Jews are historically bothoutspoken and very self-critical. Call it the Jewish guilt complex. With theever increasingly extremeness in the international media with which Israel isdiscussed, and with the great concern inherent in the Jewish community for, asone person put it, "the soul of Israel," the Natural discourse amongJews over the past few years has followed the same path as that in the media.

Meaning that typically when Jews speak about Israelthese days, its only in examining its warts. So it's not only Israelis thatspeak loudly and publicly about its weaknesses, but Jews too. Andall of this discourse today takes place in the public sphere. In articlespublished in both the mainstream media and Jewish journals, available fromanywhere in the world via the internet. On twitter, etc. And once again, thereseems to be less of a will or desire to speak about the positive aspects of Israel.or to compare Israel'swarts with that of other countries.

Supporting

Israel

means being Right Wing

Even more of a problem is how it has become accepted as fact that if yousupport Israelyou must be a right wing fanatic. Once upon a time some of Israel'sbiggest supporters were the liberal Jewish community of the United States. Today this community's support of Israelhas been silenced. They can't seem to reconcile their liberal values with theaccusations that supporting Israelmakes them conservative and right wing. They are being shouted down by thediscourse, even convinced by it. By the obsessive focus on Israel'swarts, and by a complete and utter lack of discussing Israelin any other context.

Israel's Warts are Examined in a Vacuum

Israel'snegative qualities are examined in a vacuum. First they are examined withoutcontext, without describing why Israeltakes the actions they do.

First, for example, they speak about Palestinian children being killedby Israeli missles, and publish bloody photos of dead and injured children, butdon't discuss why Israeli missles were launched in the first place (usually totake out a missile launcher), or why children were in the vicinity of Hamasterrorists launching missles into Israeli population center.

Second, they take Israeli actions out of context internally. Theydiscuss the phenomenon of women being made to sit in the back of the bus in Israel,but don't mention that it is only on a great minority of busses, and that mostIsraelis are staunchly against this practice. People like Hillary Clintoncreate the impression that it’s a regular event in the majority of busses in Israel,and that the majority of Israelis support it, both of which are wrong.

Third, Israel'sactions aren't discussed in the context of the greater world. For example, atiny minority of Israelis want segregation between men and women, but in themajority of Arab nations repression of Women is a daily fact. Alternatively,they discuss "violent settlers," controlling the Israeli government.Yet don't discuss the Syrian government's massacre of thousands of itscitizens, or Egypt'scurrent rulers heavy handed suppression of the Egyptian people, which has beenmuch more deadly than Hosni Mubarak's actions.

The Obama Administration and its Treatment of

Israel

and the Conflict

Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors that have led to the attackson Israeli legitimacy in the media and world at large, is President Obamabecoming President of the United States.Many people will violently disagree with me, but all of the events over thepast couple years conclusively prove this. While claiming himself as one of Israel'sgreatest supporters and protectors, the facts show otherwise, as can be seen inthisblog post I wrote last week. And when the President of the United States repeatedly attacks Israelin the international forum, it impacts the dialog. The media take thePresident's cues, and those that were anti-Israel in the first place areencouraged by this most crucial supporter. It's sad to say, but the rise ofPresident Obama to office has had probably one of the most significant, andnegative impacts on the perception of Israelon the global stage. And has transformed the dialog about Israelfrom one of its actions, into one of its legitimacy.

So Where's That Historically Critical Examination Jews are Known For?The One's Willing to Fight for what they Believe in?

That seems to be the question. I know a great many of Jews that havespent time in Israel,and themselves know that things portrayed in the media aren't accurate. Thatwhile, perhaps the ultra-orthodox community is growing, it is still very farfrom converting Israel into a new Iran, with all due respect to HillaryClinton's claim that, once again goes to show the Obama administration uses themedia to impact Israel in a negative manner.

But the Jews understandably aren't only worried about Israel,even though they say that's their concern. No, as my friend's Facebook status Imentioned above shows us which stated "How long before they startcomparing Halakhah with Sharia law? How long after that does Judaism getstereotyped as just another extremist, fundamentalist whacked out cult? TheJews of the world are also worried about how Judaism, not just Israel,is perceived in the world. And it is clear to them, whether or not they areconscious of it, that the majority of the world conflates Judaism and Israel.And that the way that Israelis portrayed in the press and by our political leaders through the trickle downeffect impacts them. Its clear that today Israelhas become a polarizing issue. That anybody that dares support Israelpublicly is labeled right wing. And for a liberal Jew in Americathat is simply devastating on a personal level.

And for Israelas a nation, its just as devastating to lose this support.

Unfortunately, with all the information I've provided above, it becomesclear that trying to defend Israelis a losing battle. All the cards are stacked against us. Yes, call me anisolationist, paranoid Jew, but the world it seems is against us. Perhaps noteveryone, but the mechanisms that have developed are contributing to theongoing and increasing deligitimization of Israelin the global community. And our biggest and most power advocates, the liberal Jewsof the world, and America,their voices are being sidelined. Israel's enemies are winning, and without thewillingness of these same liberal Jews to examine the "facts" beingpushed by the biased press, and without their willingness to openly and vocallygo out and do what they do best, question the various assertions andaccusations, demand proof, demand that Israel be examined relative to othersocieties, insist that not all in Israel is evil, there's not much hope.

In Closing

Examining Israeli actions, without context as to why they take them, andwithout any relation to the way other nations react under similarcircumstances, or without relation to the status of other societies in theworld, only has the effect of portraying Israel as an evil country, anddeligitimizing its existence. Without any accurate relation as to the actual situationof Israeli society. It breeds hatred of Israelis, and results in shaming Jewsaround the world to the point that they no longer are willing to voice anysupport what-so-ever, even themselves becoming convinced by the one sidedpicture being drawn in the media, on the internet, and by the leaders of theworld.

But the bottom line is, no matter what efforts are made, Israelwill always be portrayed in the mass media based on the parameters discussedabove, disconnected from the world, only focusing on its perceivedimperfections, and repeatedly vilified by a huge number of people in the cyberworld. Its upsetting, it's disturbing, and try as we might, there's not much tochange it.

As long as American Jews stand in the sidelines, and are more worriedabout how Israelis making Jews look, than about the honest portrayal of Israeland its right to defend its citizens and demand fair and equal treatment, itseems, that Israelwill continue to make Jews look bad.

Can the Reform Movement Have an Honest Discussion on President Obama's Israel Credentials?

2011-12-26T05:41:00.000-08:00

Just a week ago the Reform Jewish Leadership was brought together in a biennial event part of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ). It’s a large event that brings together reform Rabbis from around the country. And its keynote speaker was none other than President Barack Obama, who went on to charm the attendees by making reference to the weekly Parsha (torah portion), and with stories of his daughter’s attending Bat Mitzvahs.

I watched my Facebook page and twitter feed light up with posts from Rabbis I know, expressing excitement to see the President. And President Obama returned the love, basking in the glow of a very warm welcome by a constituency who unquestionably adores him, and who unquestionably accepts his words as fact.

Indeed, President Obama without doubt is a fighter for values held by the Jewish community. He fights for the poor and the down trodden, looking to balance the powers of the rich. He’s on the right side of all of the battles, equal rights and recognition for same sex marriages, pro-choice, a champion of social justice, at least when it comes to America.

And the Rabbis, Jewish Educators, and other leaders of the Reform Jewish community stand firmly behind the President, almost blindingly so. So when President Obama says, like he did at the URJ, that “no U.S. administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours.” It is taken at face value, and accepted without question. Especially when he instructs his audience not to “let anybody else tell you otherwise.“

Who can question the integrity of President Obama and his words?

And that’s what’s just a little concerning. First of all, when has the leadership of the Reform community ever accepted anything without question? If Jews had a prime directive like in Star Trek, it would likely be described as never accepting anything at face value, or without question. Or in other words, to question everything, even those things we accept as fact. Yet with this most driving fundamental truth of Judaism, and regarding the most central issue of Judaism, Israel; when it comes to President Obama and the Reform Jewish leadership, it seems that not only conventional wisdom, but the very basis of our genetic impulses are somehow suppressed.

When President Obama, says that “no administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours,” does that make it inherently true? Judging by the lack of public dialog among the Reform leadership on this issue, it surely seems to be.

Actions of a Pro-Israel President?

Let’s take a look on a few actions of President Obama and his administration and see if his words and deeds match up.

Forcing Israel to Make Unilateral Concessions to the Palestinians

On many occasions, he and members of his administration have uttered words and taken actions which can at least be construed as antagonistic to Israel. For example, for the first time in history an American president robbed Israel of a key bargaining chip, that of Israeli construction, which could be used by Israel to win concessions from the Palestinians. He went further than this. He publicly attacked the Israeli administration for approving the building of homes in the West Bank, and then went on to demand that Israel freeze all construction over the green line.

We can debate President Obama’s reasons for doing so, though the result of this action is indisputable: for the first time in the history of negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, the American leadership created a precondition to negotiations, one in which Israel would be forced to give up a bargaining chip. And indeed, the Palestinian Leadership went on to state that there would be no peace talks until Israel froze all construction in the West Bank.

And still, Israel caved in and froze construction for 10 months.

Labeling Netanyahu as THE Obstacle to Peace When Netanyahu has Made Many Concessions

The Obama administration has publicly and repeatedly portrayed Prime Minister Netanyahu as the obstacle to peace. Even if a basic examination of the situation clearly shows otherwise.

In spite of the Obama Administration’s regular public dressing down of the Israeli Prime Minister, and claims that it is he that doesn’t show a will for peace, Prime Minister Netanyahu was actually the first leader of the Likud to publicly accept the two-state solution, a huge concession that opened the door to negotiations with a Likud government. Then , as noted earlier, after being publicly accosted by the Obama Administration he also agreed to a 10 month building freeze, which the Palestinians let elapse all the while refusing to return to the negotiating table.

And yet publicly, in multiple forums, on numerous occasions, and by numerous representatives of the Obama Administration, it is Prime Minister Netanyahu who has been labeled as the obstacle to peace, not the Palestinians. Does this match up with claims that President Obama is the most pro Israel president in American history?

A Coordinated Attack by Obama Administration Representatives

Most recently, the Obama administration went on an all out assault not only on Israel’s leadership, but on Israeli society in general, with a three pronged attack:

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta cynically called on Israel to “mend fences” with Egypt and Turkey when it is these states that have led a deterioration in relations, with Turkey belligerently attacking Israel both verbally and physically. He then pressed Israel to “Just get to the damned table” (peace talks with the Palestinians), when in reality, as mentioned above, it’s the Palestinians that refuse to negotiate.

Hillary Clinton then expressed fear for Israeli democracy, going so far to compare events in Israel to the racist South and the heroic battle of Rosa Parks, while Mrs. Clinton has never publicly expressed such concern for the treatment of women in misogynic countries across the middle east. Can you really compare secular Israelis with ex-slaves of the south?

The American Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman boldly stated that Muslim hatred of Israel was understandable in the context of the Arab Israeli war, suggesting that hate crimes committed by Muslims against Jews couldn’t really be attributed to Anti-Semitism, and basically pinning them on Israel’s actions. Meaning that if Israel doesn’t "act right," (doing what the Obama administration demands?) then Jews get attacked around the world. How would it come across if hate crimes against Muslim Americans were stated as being an understandable reaction to 9/11 by the Obama administration? Would that be acceptable?

Was it a coincidence that all three of these very central Obama administration figures spun events involving Israel in an ominous manner, at the same time? Does encouraging Israel to succumb to ruthless dictators Israel bashing, attacking Israel’s legitimacy as a democracy, and blaming its actions for attacks on Jews proof that this Administration is doing more for Israeli security than any other?

Can the Reform Movement hold an Honest Debate about President Obama’s Israel Credentials?

These are just a handful of examples of the Obama Administration’s handling of Israel. And yet with them it becomes clear that the declaration of President Obama claiming that his commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct, and the suggesting that he's "the most pro-Israel president ever" become very suspect. And you can be sure that when the US leads, the world follows. So when the President of the United States expresses contempt for the Israeli leader and a lack of faith in Israeli society, the dark forces of the world rear their ugly head.

And it is for these reasons that this debate needs to take place in the forum of the Reform movement. Between clergy, between leaders, and among parishioners.

The question is, is the leadership of the Reform movement willing or able to have an open, honest debate on President Obama’s policies on Israel, without regard to his credentials as a warrior in the battle for social justice? And based only on the merits, or detriments of his actions involving Israel? Does Israel still hold an important place in the Reform Jewish community? And can the Reform Jewish community be honest, not only about Israel’s warts, which have always been present, but of the problematic approach by President Obama to Israel? And the apparent conflict between what he voices as his support for Israel, but his actions, which show otherwise?

How is it that Israel, a democratic nation with an elected government, equality among its religions and sexes (in spite of the media hype today of problems that have always existed), is constantly singled out Israel for criticism by the Obama administration, while ignoring much worse problems across the Middle East? Why is it that the Obama administration voices concern for Israeli democracy comparing it to the likes of Iran, all the while stifling criticism of the failed elections in Egypt and rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, of Turkey’s belligerence and drive towards Islamic fanaticism, or the failure of the UN to censure Syria for the murder of thousands? Is this what they call politics as usual?

Is the Obama Administration Lying About Israel?

It’s a question that needs to be asked, for its being ignored by the media, and the Jewish community. We have been told by the Obama administration again and again that Israel, and particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu are the reason that there are no negotiations. That it is Prime Minister Netanyahu that refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians. Yet we have never been shown evidence of this. In fact, all evidence shows otherwise.

PM Netanyahu publicly accepted the need for a two state solution, froze construction for 10 months, and repeatedly called on the Palestinians to return to negotiations. So it’s not just lip service as some claim. And the Palestinians have repeatedly and openly refused to return to negotiations. So why is it that the Obama administration openly and repeatedly blames Israel and Netanyahu for the failure to renew negotiations? When in fact, President Obama’s creating a precondition to negotiations is the source, as mentioned earlier in this article?

Is the Obama Administration publicly lying about these facts? If not, then why don’t they make information public to prove their position? And if so, then it’s about time that the Reform Jewish movement begins to digest this fact, and the implications of a sitting American President spinning fiction as fact as regarding Israel, delegitimizing Israel in the global community, and taking the side of the Palestinians in negotiations.

Implications for the Future: What comes after Iran, and US Elections

Over the past few months we have seen a toning down of criticism by the Obama Administration of Israel. And some show of support. And whether it is due to President Obama relearning the same lessons as past presidents (that Israel isn't the source of failure and can't be beaten into submission), or as the result of the approach of the American elections and the dismal approval ratings for President Obama trying to regain Jewish support, is debatable. Even with his approval ratings being as low as they are, there is a good chance that President Obama will be re-elected in the next term.

The international conflict with Iran is also approaching an apex. Up until just a few short weeks ago it looked as if Israel would be left alone to face a nuclear Iran. Though there has been a dramatic turnaround with the American administration looking as if it shall take it upon itself to neutralize the Iranian nuclear program. There is much speculation as to why, and we’ll leave that aside.

However, if the current US Administration takes on Iran and neutralizes its nuclear program, and if President Obama is elected to a second term, it can be assumed that with his victory against Iran, President Obama shall take on the issue of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians with renewed vigor, and more support than ever.

And you can be rest assured that it will be a continuation of the same policy: putting enormous pressure on Israel to make one sided concessions to the Palestinians. For let’s be honest, President Obama sees the Palestinians as the oppressed underdog deserving of their state at any cost. He even promised them a state at any cost, subsequently eliminating any need for them to make concessions themselves.

Leveling the Playing Field?

Furthermore, many people say that the US needs to take the Palestinian’s side to “level the playing field,” and it seems that the President has adopted this policy. Though the Palestinians were part and parcel to the war to annihilate Israel, and lost. What does it say for moral hazard if the losers of belligerent wars are given equal weight in negotiations with the winners? The Palestinians are indeed poor and oppressed. But it’s not because of Israel’s creation; it’s because of Israel’s rejection.

And it’s about time that Jews stop blaming themselves and Israel’s creation for the Palestinians’ plight. More Jews were made refugees than Arabs by Israel’s founding. Yet all Jews found new lives, either in Israel, or other nations. The Arab world has purposely kept the Palestinians refugees, with the assistance of the UN, to be used as a tool against Israel. And it seems that this strategy is bearing fruit. Do the Palestinians deserve to have control of their own destiny? Emphatically yes. Should it fall on Israel to make all concessions to woo the Palestinians to negotiations and create a Palestinian state? Absolutely not.

Ending the conflict isn't about wonderful visions of peaceful coexistence and giving the Palestinians everything they want because it would be nice to make them happy after so much suffering, as much as some seem to think it is. Issues need to be negotiated on based on their merit between the parties, and not forced by the outside because the world sees the Palestinains as the underdog.

Israel has much claim to this land, historically and religiously. There hasn't been a soverign nation in this land since the destruction of the second temple. And while many are loath to admit it, its true, there was never previously a Palestinian people or society. If Israel didn't come into existance, the Palestinains wouldn't exist as people, but as a geographic designation. Those that want to debate this fact can refer to the Palestinain's own leadership's words. March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein that said "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism."

For the world to make politically correct statements and try to "level the playing field" in place of allowing Israel to negotiate its borders based on merit and actual history is quite saddening.

Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, but not at any price. And this peace must be mutual; the Palestinian leadership must stand behind it. Negotiations must take place between the parties. And President Obama has no right to make concessions in Israel’s name.

It’s time to Open an Honest Dialog with the President

President Obama for some is still the best President, for other’s he’s become the President of default, with no better choice out there. But one thing is clear; the Jewish community must begin to hold a debate on President Obama’s Israel policies. They need to stop taking his word as gospel, they need to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt on Israel because of his domestic policies, they need stop being convinced that the Israeli government is run by right wing fanatics and that supporting Israel makes you a right-winger. That is a lie meant to rob Israel of its support base.

The Jewish community needs to stop avoiding discussing the ramifications of President Obama’s Israel policies, and start doing what they do best. Questioning if, regarding Israel, his words match his deeds. And if not, they need to start to open an honest dialog with the President and the democratic leadership on the subject. Asking why it is that Prime Minister Netanyahu is vilified by the administration, and portrayed as the barrier to peace when it’s the Palestinians that refuse to negotiate? Why does the Obama administration insist on portraying Israel as a nation slipping into the dark ages, while completely ignoring the events of surrounding nations?

Ask why should the American administration “balance the playing field” for the Palestinians as opposed to being an objective third party?

And most important, begin to make it clear that peace will only be made if both sides want it. Israel won’t be forced to make unilateral concession after unilateral concession to make peace, particularly when the other party shows it has no will or desire to do so. If President Obama is elected to a second term, he needs to know that his purposeful misrepresentation of Israel in the international arena needs to stop. The time to take action is now. President Obama needs to be held accountable for his words, and stop misleading the international community with inaccurate statements. He needs to acknowledge that Israel has every right to be an imperfect democracy, without being vilified. Just like the United States.

The Reform Community needs to do some soul searching on why they are willing to fight for everyone’s rights, but Israel’s. And why so many are ready to ignore if not buy into the negative propaganda. Examine Israel’s actions, up against other countries under similar circumstances, against events in the world, and stop doing so in the vacuum of the ideal. And again, stop giving President Obama a free pass when it comes to working with Israel. Accountability is here and now.

The Sad Fact About American Jews - a Rant

2011-09-17T06:23:00.000-07:00

This isn't an easy article to write. For of course, I am an American Jew. But over the course of the past couple years I've noticed quite a few concerning trends regarding the community I grew up with. Some may attribute it to my living in Israel, being paranoid, or going "right wing" as they say has happened to the entire Israeli political spectrum, but none-the-less I feel it’s a subject that needs to be addressed. Particularly at this significant time in history with the Arab Israeli conflict and the Palestinians shortly to demand recognition in the United Nations.

What really troubled me and inspired to write this article was a Facebook incident with an old camper of mine. Now he's a great guy, and I hope he doesn't take this personally. But the event is an illustration as to what has happened to American Jewry (even if he is Canadian). There was an incident last week in which a Jewish university student got upset at what a professor said in class and went so far as to accuse this professor of anti-Semitism.

The claim, it seems from the reported account was the student's mistake. The incident was reported in the papers and made headlines, links were posted in Facebook, and everybody condemned the student. And while the incident was regretful, I pointed out that the real concern here should be the fact that students in Universities across the US are complaining about anti-Semitic incidents. Both in class, and on campus. Try Googling "Anti-Semitism on campus" and see the results for yourself. As a matter of fact, it turns out that according to the Department of Education, these students don't have protection under the law on campus because these incidents are defined as religious and not race or national origin based.

And my issue with this problem is that besides the Jewish or Israeli press, nobody ever hears about the incidents. Yet the moment a "Jewish student" appears to cry wolf, its plastered all over the papers, even making it to the Huffington Post. So what's concerning here is that American Jews are more concerned about the fact that a student may have cried wolf, then the fact that Jews are feeling under attack at campuses across the US. And that the media chooses to write about the one incident in which a student may have gone overboard in her accusations, while it has ignored dozens of incidents with real merit. Why is it that the Huffington Post Jew bait for clicks, and the Jewish community doesn't even recognize it as a problem?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, its sad that the Jewish community in the US which is renowned for its liberal values and fighting for the underprivileged and discriminated, not only doesn't raise its voice to support its own children in Universities, it doesn't fight to protect their own interests, and speak up when a real twisting of values and morality is taking place.

And of course, as many of you could have guessed, that leads us to the issue of Israel, the State of the Jews. The single country more maligned in the international media than any other in the world. Constantly and repeatedly being called racist, fascist, Apartheid and whatever demonizing slurs you can think of. I mean, two days ago The Palestinian envoy to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat said "in Washington that the Palestinian Liberation Organization opposes the immediate presence of Jews and gays in an independent Palestinian state." Did you get that? The Palestinian official in Washington said that the Palestinians, who are going to ask for recognition in the UN next week as a state, will refuse to allow Jews and gays as part of that state.

And the best part of it is, that 90% of the world's nations are going to vote to recognize this state, now knowingly, a racist state, in the United Nations when the Palestinians unilaterally tear up every single agreement they've signed with Israel and the international community. And the American Jewish community isn't saying word. That's right, they're more concerned about a single Jewish student who apparently has been made so sensitive to anti-Semitic statements that she accused a professor or anti-Semitism than the fact that next week Israel's once peace partner is going to declare war on Israel in the international courts. For when they get recognized as a state, in ''67 borders' by the international community, it will make every single Israeli living over whatever border they're talking about a violator of international law. And Israel, if it isn't already considered so, will be considered the greatest war criminal since Hitler.

Why? Because the international community doesn't care about Palestinian crimes or political treaties. In fact, yesterday's New York Time, after days of running anti-Israel articles attacking Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for refusing to negotiate (when in fact it’s the Palestinians that are refusing to negotiate), published an article by Israeli journalist Carlos Strenger titled Netanyahu’s Partners, Democracy’s Enemies. And you know what, this same New York Times didn't write a peep about the official representative of the Palestinian people openly admitting, in Washington no less, that the Palestinians want a country free of Jews.

In fact, isn't it interesting how we see a steady stream of anti-Israel articles from Israeli journalists but never, not a single time in the New York Times, or almost anywhere else, see a critical piece by a Palestinian about the Palestinian leadership (or even by a non-Palestinian)? Nope. And don't expect to see articles on the Palestinian habit of voting for non-democratic terrorist organizations. Lest I remind you that the Palestinian people in their first (and only) ever democratic election voted for Hamas, an organization labeled as Terrorist by the international community.

And yet, these same liberal, politically active Jews I grew up with and went to summer camp with are more concerned about being called names when it comes to their own than about politics, morality, and peace. That is, if their saying anything at all. How many of the people I went to Jewish summer camp live in New York ? (quite a few). And how many of them read the New York Times? I'd be interested to know how many of those have called out the NYTimes for their blatantly biased coverage of Israel in the context of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, or the utter and complete lack of critical coverage of the Palestinian government or people.

I mean, next week is not only going to be the Palestinians going to the UN to garner support for their unilateral declaration of a hate state ethnically cleansed of Jews with the support of the international community, the same state they have refused to create, again and again, through negotiations. Next week at the United Nations will also take place a literal orgy of hate known as the Durban conference for Human Rights. And yet everybody knows that the only human rights this conference supports is the human right to hate Israel, and by proxy, Jews.

And yet that doesn't seem to bother many Jews that I know. They're more concerned about how Israel is making them look. They no longer publicly support Israel because it’s a liability. They're ashamed, ashamed to be called "right wing," to be identified as a supporter of "racist Israel." And some of them are actually starting to believe the rhetoric. Israel racist? As compared to what, the US? Iran? The Palestinians? Please. If you actually need to think about it, then you should think hard and long.

And here we come to the sad fact that is the basis for the title of this blogpost. Anybody that has an ounce of critical judgment and honesty and looks at the events in the Middle East. Whether its 1948 and the Arabs refusal to accept partition and create a Palestinian state way back when and launch war against Israel. Whether its regarding the "Freedom Flotilla" whose "Human Rights" activists attacked soldiers with metal rods and knifes, or if it’s the fact that the Palestinians, encouraged by that leader of humanity President Barack Obama who promised the Palestinians a state no matter what, instantly refused to continue on with any pretense of negotiation (all the while both President Obama and the international media continuously and repeatedly blamed Prime Minister Netanyahu for refusing to negotiate), the American Jewish community failed its second most important test in modern history in protecting the Jewish people.

That failure is represented by their inability to stand up and call out the liars, the biased, and those with a political agenda and speak the truth. To challenge their political leaders, their news sources, and their friends when faced with "facts" that are obviously opinions based on a real lack of knowledge and the twisting of history.
And the simple truth of the matter is that the "occupation" is not the result of Israeli intransigence, it is the ongoing, festering symptom of Arab refusal to accept Israel. Which is best exemplified by a Palestinian authority which has now been refusing to negotiate for 18 months, breaking all previous agreements and going for unilateral recognition of a Jew Free state in the UN, with the Kosher stamp of approval by the international community of nations.

For three years I have been fighting a battle, through my blog, through my Facebook page, on twitter. Posting information to try to get those people I know off their satisfied, lazy asses and do something. To speak up. To use their judgment and look past the one sided editorials, to ask themselves why is Israel criticized in a vacuum without any analysis of Palestinian policy or Arab policy for balance. And with the exception of a shining few, I've encountered a big fat failure.

Well I'm sick of the fight. I'm sick trying to get people to action, to speak up. Israel isn't just about the Israelis, this is something every Jew should know, but most don't want to admit to themselves. The global economy is facing an abyss; unemployment in the US is continuing to go up, much higher than the authorities care to admit. Things are starting to get ugly. But American Jews, well they're still comfortable, their bellies are full, and luckily they haven't had to experience the hatred, abuse, violence and discrimination their Russian, Iranian, Egyptian and European brothers have had to experience.

A gentleman I work with is the child of Holocaust survivors. He was born immediately after the war in Czech to his father, whose first wife and kids were exterminated in the holocaust, and shortly after they immediately moved to the states. He once told me how he vividly remembers the assassination of John F. Kennedy. And how his parents were hysterical because they were sure they were going to have pogroms against the Jews (as they would have in their native countries before immigrating to the US). At the time he didn't understand their hysterics. Though today he does. And he also understands the need for a strong and Jewish Israel.
Nobody thinks that the US could deteriorate to that level, and maybe that's true, but then again, maybe its not.

I guess I've failed in my task. I've failed in informing those that matter and that could make a difference to use their judgment and move them to action. Those Rabbis and Educators I know out there that have congregations at their fingertips apparently don't think that Durban III taking place in the next couple of weeks, or the Palestinians looking for a state without a peace agreement, and the criminalization of the entire population of Israel is much of a concern of theirs.

They're not interested in challenging the New York Times by demanding balanced reporting, for apparently in their opinion just maybe the Times or HuffPo or every other media outlet out there is right, Israel is a racist state that's been corrupted by the "occupation," damned history and autocratic, fascist Arab regimes. The Palestinians can unilaterally declare their Jew Free state and that's OK, because they deserve it. Heck, if it's "democratic," like in Egypt, their desire and actions to murder Israelis is also OK, just as long as it’s the will of the people. And just as long as by extension, it doesn't reach America.

This is me saying goodbye good people. I've fought my battle and now its time to live my life, without the bitterness of conflict, without the disappointment, realizing that all those things I was taught growing up in summer camp were just a lot of nice songs and pretty slogans, empty of any meaning. I'll probably continue to post links on Facebook to sooth my conscience or get out some frustration, but the rest is now up to you, and I don't hold out much hope.

Are Israel (and the Jews) Guilty of Racism and Incitement against Muslims?

2011-08-03T03:57:00.000-07:00

A horrible event happened a couple of weeks ago. More than 76 people, mostly children were massacred by a deranged terrorist. The victims, mostly immigrants, some presumably Muslim, the terrorist, a white Christian male from one of the most peaceful nations on earth. The terrorist in his manifesto quoted many people from the right-wing blogosphere, including many Jews, and spoke about Israel's struggles in the Middle East.

Barely hours had passed after the attack began, when watching the twitter feeds I began seeing people pointing fingers at Israel. And once it was deterimined that he wasn't a terrorist of the Jihad kind, accusations from across the board began accusing Israel's "incitement against Muslims" for leading this nutjob to conduct his evil deed. And of course, this was accompanied by none other than Iran that also accused the Zionists (codeword for Jews, Israelis, and supporters of Israel) of "fueling rightist sentiment" and "fostering" this attack.

And from Iran, it was to be expected. For in their opinion, Israel's existence is the cause of all terror in the world. When an Iranian police officer pulls the trigger and puts a bullet in a female protester's head in Tehran, the Zionists are behind it. When Syria slaughters thousands of innocents in its cities, they always know who the real culprit is; those dastardly Zionists.

But what's really been an eye opener over the past few weeks hasn't been the that the original assumptions regarding the attack in Oslo was conducted by Al Qaida or some other Islamic terrorist organization, for lets be honest, the vast majority of similar attacks, whether in London, Madrid, Paris, Mumbai, Tel Aviv, or Baghdad, were also conducted by similar if not identical organizations. No, the eye opener is that the mainstream Western Media (led by the New York Times as we'll see below) has been openly and willingly pointing the finger to what they call "incitement," not only by Israel, but by Jews. They are openly accusing "Jewish" racism and suggesting it is Jewish hatred that incited a Norwegian man to massacre Muslim and other dark skinned minorities. And THAT is troubling.

And the funny part of it all is that people are pointing fingers at Israel for warning about Islamic Fundamentalists, as if Israel's warnings are what incited the Muslim and Arab nations to wage war against Israeli in 1948, to repeatedly call for Israel's destruction over the past 65 years, to blow up synagogues in Buenos Aires, Istanbul or Tunisia.

And people are absolutely amazed that Israel, and yes some Jews that support Israel, hold animosity towards Islam and the Arab world. I mean, if you lived in Israel and you've been being attacked by Muslim and Arab nations for 65 years, six wars, hundreds of suicide terrorist bombings targeting your children, open calls by these nations for your death and destruction, and all typically in the name of Islam, don't you think you might hold a little bit of animosity towards them too?

Or can it really all be chalked up to racism as Roger Cohen in the New York times claims in his piece titled The Racist Scourge. In this article, he uses his childhood in Apartheid South Africa (hint, Israel, Apartheid, oppressors, racists) to make the connection and illustrate how Jews "seemed to have forgotten that not being a race but a religion had scarcely saved Jews from racist persecution." (Another hint, its Jewish racism that's the source of the world's ills.) I guess he proves his own point, he's Jewish, and a racist, a Jewish racist that hates Jews unless they think like him.

And it goes even further than that. As a matter of fact just a few days earlier the New York Times posted a five page expose` titled The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement in which their primary villain was one, and I quote "David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew." And if that wasn't enough, they posted a large photo this "Hasidic Jew" smack on the top of the homepage. You can see the photo by clicking this link.

The piece went to list a litany of accusations which all boil down to one thing: Mr Yerushalmi (can't miss this guy's religion with that last name), the Hasidic Jew, has conducted "an orchestrated drive..." to cast "Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war." Indeed they even go as far as to bluntly state that this Hasidic Jew exercises a "striking influence over American public discourse." (Hint: attributing to Jews some magic ability to influence government or discourse is typically perceived as anti-Semitism.).

This article plays on so many sterotypes and archetypes it's downright scary.

And of course, once again, nobody bothers to address what role Islam has played in the regular terrorist attacks we've seen conducted by self-declared Islamic organizations in London, Paris, Madrid, the 9/11 attacks, Israel, and much more. Nobody dares to suggest that the very attacks which have targeted innocent civilians in cities around the world executed in the name of Islam, is what has led people to be fearful and hate Muslims. Nope, it seems its blame the Jews, again, this time in the New York Times.

But apparently in the mainstream Western Media, while its perfectly acceptable to accuse an "Hasidic Jew" of orchestrating a drive against Islam and of exercising influence (notice use of the active tense, different than "holding influence as one might possess from earning other's respect, exercising suggests manipulation, putting pressure on, using threats, etc.), it is not acceptable to make the connection between the terrorists and their belief system, one in which they make themselves. Dare to suggest a link between Islam and terrorist attacks made in the name of Islam, and you’re a racist.

One has to wonder, just who's inciting here? The Hasidic Jew, or the New York Times?

Then we have Germany's Der Spiegel, which in a piece referred to here examined the actions, ideology, and "inspiration" for the attacks in Oslo, and then compared it up against what they call Israel's "right-wing government." If you can't make the connection I'll help you: They're suggesting that Israel's "incitement against Islam and "fascist right-wing" parliament members are both capable of and ready to commit similar atrocities against Palestinians and any others that get in their way. That may seem to some like a stretch, But you can be relatively certain that's what they are suggesting.

So the bottom line? If you buy into the propaganda, it would seem that Israel, with the assistance of Jews, have created an atmosphere of hate and animosity against Muslims. Through the years of warnings about Islam, persevering in actions such as trying to get the UN to condemn nations like Iran and Syria, and in sounding warning bells about Islamic fundamentalism, they have brainwashed a poor white man to murder 76 children with dark skin in what is otherwise the most peaceful nation on the planet.

And indeed, if this incitement continues, more nutjobs will kill other children, and its all because Israel and the Jews have warned about Islam. And has nothing to do with the actions that some belonging to the Islamic faith have done themselves, and openly, in the name of Islam.

But being serious, it might not be politically correct to say it. But neither Israel nor Jews are responsible for the animosity against Islam and Muslims. Israel and Israeli animosity towards the Arab world doesn't come out of racism, it comes from 65 years of bitter conflict and from being hunted by Israel's enemies (typically Muslim and Arab states).

The world has more than enough hatred for foreigners and those that are different from themselves, and some of the Islamic faith have conducted more than enough events in the past few decades to lead people to hate them without Jewish or Israeli incitement. And if you don't think 9/11 led tens of millions of people to hate, or be afraid of Islam, as ignorant as that may be, then you're simply not objectively looking at human nature.

So prominently portraying Jews as purveyors of racism and hatred as the New York Times has done is nothing less than incitement and anti-Semitism. But apparently, in today's world, anti-semitism (or as they call it in some circles anti-zionism) isn't only fashionable, it’s becoming a leading school of thought.

An Open Letter to Rabbi Eric Yoffie

2011-05-29T12:46:00.001-07:00

In your piece The Palestinians are at fault, but so what?, you ask a friend of yours "what now," after stating that plainly the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected any agreement or compromise with Israel.

You seem to be at a loss as to how your friend Shmuel, as you call him, rants and raves about how it's unfair how the world treats Israel. And you express your genuine concern for Israel as its international standing deteriorates, concerned about economic sanctions, and even the possibility that the world may in the end demand a one state solution if no real progress towards an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is made.

You seem incredulous that your friend Shmuel feels that the "current situation can go on indefinitely," as you state, and admirably you wring your hands in frustration of the coming tsunami of political, economic, and military pressure that is bound to be applied to Israel with the coming unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.

What frustrates you most is that with all of his bemoaning of the current situation, Shmuel has no suggestion, no plan of action, no proposal of what to do. Finally, you end by stating that Israel "needs a plan." Yet you yourself decline to propose one. However, we all know that the only "plan" out there that anybody bothers to suggest is further one-sided Israeli concessions to an already dead horse of a peace process.

We both know that the Palestinians have refused to even negotiate over the past two and half years, as President Obama as slowly attempted to take the situation into his own hands and for all practical purposes negotiate for the Palestinians, all the while making concessions in the name of Israel, which resulted in a culmination of speeches we saw last week, with Prime Minister Netanyahu reclaiming what President Obama attempted to give away in Israel's name.

And sadly, many liberal Jews who feel a tremendous guilt about the occupation, sympathize with President Obama's steps, if not fully support them. Because to them, cause doesn't matter, and justice for Israel doesn't matter, what matters is their sympathy towards a people that have lived under occupation, of one form or another, since before the British. And many of these people believe there needs to be peace, at any price. That the Palestinians need to be liberated from the yolk of occupation, at any price. But most Israelis aren't willing to pay any price, for what we perceive as just another Southern Lebanon, another Gaza, just waiting to happen. And this is our land, our country, where we work, raise our children, and live our lives. And it is us and our politicians that will decide whether we've offered enough, not those that don't live in this land, and in all due respect, not the President of the United States.

Unfortunately Rabbi Yoffie, there are no easy answers, and to the great disappointment of the Israeli left, at this time, there is also no new proposal that the Israelis can make to draw the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. For as Mr. Netanyahu noted in his speech to AIPAC, and to the US congress, the Palestinians have yet to accept a Jewish state. And with President Obama's guarantee of a Palestinian state, and with support from around the world, Mr. Abbas also has no need to sign any agreement or make any concessions.

The plan you are so desperate to find? That wonderful, creativity and ingenuity that the whole world attributes to the Jewish state? Israel has no more to offer in a conflict in which those that we need to make peace with refuse to accept us. And it's not a matter of how much we're willing to give. Everybody has known exactly how much Israel has been willing to give, since Camp David 2 in which Yasser Arafat walked away from Ehud Barak's offer and started the second Intifada.

Though you are indeed correct that we are at a critical time Rabbi Yoffie. One in which the world is looking ominous, even without the problems of Israel and the Middle East conflict. And as you so deftly noted, Israel is going to face many challenges in the coming months. Facebook organized protests with tens of thousands of Arabs trying to infiltrate Israel from all its borders. Hamas getting stronger with Egypt now having opened the Rafiah crossing, the next flotilla scheduled to leave Turkey shortly with more than a dozen boats including the Mavi Marmara, and of course, the coming Palestinian declaration of a state, and subsequent vote in the UN.

Israel, through Prime Minister Netanyahu has told the world what needs to happen for honest, sincere negotiations to take place. First and foremost, we want to know we have a genuine partner for peace. A man like Anwar Sadat, who made it a point to convince the Israeli people that he was looking for a genuine peace. For as Prime Minister Netanyahu so eloquently noted, Israel only gets one chance for real peace.

The time has come Rabbi Yoffie for you and the American Jewish community to decide just where you stand, and if it is on Israel's side, to take a stand. Israel, now more than ever needs the support of the international Jewish community, and particularly that of the American community, to stand up in the face of ongoing delegitimization, and the attempts to force Israel to make non-reciprocated concessions. The plan Rabbi Yoffie, is to take a stand, and demand from the world justice, not just for the Palestinians, who are but a symptom of the greater Arab Israeli conflict, but justice for Israel. It is not to keep throwing Israeli bargaining chips into the bottomless pit of failed negotiations. That is not a plan, that is a desperate act of those that have no plan.

We need your support. We need your Rabbis and your Educators to speak to their congregants. We need organized canvassing to make the Jewish voice heard. For it's been quiet for so long. American Jews want to keep a low profile, and raise their children, and live their lives in peace, just like Israel's Jews want. Only America's Jews have an advantage, they don't have to fight for that right. The American Jewish community was never afraid to make their voice heard. We stood up for the rights of the African Americans in the 60s. So its difficult to understand why they don't stand up now.

If you really believe in the facts as you set them down in your article, then you know that you must stand up for Israel, for you know that for all its flaws and mistakes, Israel's attempts at peace have indeed been genuine, and what has been dishonest are the attacks on Israel's efforts, integrity and intentions.

There is no other time, now is the time to organize, to take a stand, and to tell the world that you support Israel. With a genuine partner Israel will be willing to make compromises. But without one we shall stand against the world, come what may. And if you and your communities remain silent and unsure in this critical time, the world, and Israel's future will be very dark.

Now is the time to speak truth to power, to disprove the propaganda, to take back the debate, to stand up and make your voice heard. Now is the time to make a difference. For you never know when you may get another chance.

The New York Times Propagating Anti-Jewish Sentiment? Time to Boycott?

2011-05-27T13:49:00.000-07:00

Well I suppose it was bound to happen. The New York Times has finally done it. They crossed the line into anti-Jewish sentiment, which is really just one step away from Anti-Semitic rhetoric. You're probably saying to yourself "really?" Would the New York Times really shoot themselves in the foot by doing something so impulsive, so stupid? The answer would have to be a resounding yes.

What was it that drew my attention? It was a tag line to an article which read "Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support." Unfortunately I didn't have enough foresight to take a screenshot of the homepage when I saw it, with the tagline that appeared in the upper right hand side of the page where links to editorials are usually posted. But that's really just academic, seeing how they have left the article itself intact (if they change it I have downloaded the page and taken screen shots of the article).

The piece, currently titled "The Mideast Peace Process: Washington Makes Things Worse" contains the sentence "Pandering on Israel in the hopes of winning Jewish support is hardly a new phenomenon in American politics, but there is something unusually dishonest about this fusillade." So it's hardly a stretch that some greenhorn online web editor trying to grab attention would state what they did in the tagline for the piece.

But the real kicker is that in a tweet exchange between myself and one Andy Rosenthal, apparently a New York Times editor, perhaps the very one that wrote this editorial, he tries to not so cleverly deny it. While my first tweet may have mistakenly stated that the line Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support was the title. It was not. That line was the tag line that accompanied title. So why would Mr. Rosenthal deny it? Was he just nitpicking? I have a hard time believing his argument is simply semantic.

Indeed, after I posted a tweet that stated @NYTimes publishing editorials with anti-Jewish undertones? Has the time arrived to start a #boycott? #AIPAC2011, I think somebody woke up to the fact that indeed, Houston, they have a problem. In their minds, the problem is probably that some intern web editor posted something that might cause them trouble. What they really don't realize is that this little slip of the tongue was Freudian, for lack of a better word. And that indeed, the very wording indicated a much deeper problem that they are most likely completely unaware of, something I'll examine in more detail shortly.

Indeed, it gives critical insight into the editorial mind behind the New York Times, and the political agenda that drives it. That unspoken guideline by which anybody who wants to write for the New York Times needs to follow, as described by Noam Chomsky in his book Manufacturing Consent. And that guideline is, if I can speculate, that Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support. But why would Washington need to pander to Jews for their support? Unless, oh maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms, but the Times has given me no choice, unless the driving ideology that guides the Times believes that somehow, the Jews have so much power that they control Washington? Now where have we all heard that one?

I think my delicate nuance has provided enough information to direct anybody in the know to the next logical assumption.

Unfortunately, this leads to two issues which need addressing. One is a sad reflection on the state of the New York Times, and the other is a concerning reflection on society in general in its liberal approach to criticizing Jews.

The sad item is, most likely, the Times doesn't realize just how far off the wall they've gone. Much like Thomas Friedman calling on Palestinians to march on Jerusalem every week as opposed to simply take the same step that Binyamin Netanyahu took, as he noted in his speech, two years ago. Which is to state that they (the Palestinians) will recognize a Jewish state. What Mr. Friedman has suggested is an act that, far from convincing Israel that it would need to make more non-reciprocated concessions and give the Palestinians a state, would cause the Israelis to be even more frightened of the Palestinians, any agreement, and any concessions, and most likely lead to bloodshed. But seeing how Mr. Friedman is adopting the tactics of the dictator Bashar Assad, I think we can write him off as an irrelevant, incapable has been Middle East correspondent.

The concerning item, is that as we've seen over the past few months, the blurring of lines between anti-Israel rhetoric and blaming Jews, or attributing to them some greater power, or the acceptance of dinner table anti-Semitism, which are all becoming the norm, if not downright fashionable. Whether its CNN correspondent Rick Sanchez, ex White House Press Corps Secretary Helen Thomas, fashion guru John Galliano, Danish Director Lars von Trier at the Cannes Film Festival, or Oliver Stone, there just seems to be a deluge of people from all walks that feel expressing hatred of Jews or attributing to them super human powers in an evil mission to suppress the truth has become, well, every day.

So when borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric reaches the front page of the New York Times website (even if its only for twenty minutes until someone takes note of a poor man's tweet from half way around the world), its about time we stand up and say "enough." Binyamin Netanyahu is invited to congress, gives a fabulous speech which represents the positions of the majority of Israelis, and connects with the representatives of the American people, and the New York Times attributes it to the desire of these same politicians to pander to the Jewish vote, because as the New York Times knows, only the Jews vote in America, isn't that right Mr. Rosenthal?

Why is it that the New York Times can't believe that these representatives were actually representing the beliefs of their constituents, and expressing their own whole hearted agreement with what Mr. Netanyahu said? Heck, I'm sure I could probably troll the hate sites and by this time find hundreds if not thousands of comments to the fact that "the New York Times admits that the American congress bowed to their real leader." Is that what you really meant New York Times?

As many of us that have watched the New York Times over the past couple years have come to understand, the paper is no longer a bastion of objective reporting. No, they have an ideological agenda that matches that of President Obama, in which apparently, the Palesitnians are to be given a state at any cost. That damn the citizens of Libya, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Baharain, Yemen, and others, (which barely get a token mention every few weeks in the NYTimes) it is the Israelis that are criminals for "occupying" the Palestinians, who I may add have yet to recognize a Jewish state no less agree to partition, which the Arab world rejected in 1947 before there was ever a Palestinian people, just people they called Palestinians relating to the native population without distinction between Jew and Arab.

When the New York Times slides into borderline anti-Semitic rhetoric, even if a large number of its readers and subscribers are themselves Jewish, it would seem to be the time to begin a boycott movement. The owners and editors of the New York Times need to be told that they need to clean up their act. Stop working as a mouthpiece for a political agenda, start writing objective news, and stop taking sides. And most important, wake up to the fact that whether it is an conscious, agenda driven process or an unconscious one, they are sliding further down the hole of that dark art of anti-Jewish rhetoric, and contributing, much like Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Oliver Stone and the others, to a global environment that blames the Jews.

I have not decided how active I am going to pursue this. But in the meantime, I strongly suggest that the New York Times write up a Journalistic Code of Conduct that will help them bring an end to the nasty turn their editorial line has taken, print a front page apology, and show they are taking concrete steps to pull themselves out of the cesspool and back into the world of journalistic integrity (though if they ever manage it they'll probably be pretty lonely there too).

If you find this issue concerning I suggest you join in writing to the editor, informing them you shall terminate visits to their web site and terminate subscription to their services, until they have remedied this most ominous of developments. That you will share the information I have provided above with friends and family, and suggest they do the same.

And with that said, the below is a sample of tweets from my exchange with Mr. Rosenthal.

Immediately after seeing the New York Times homepage with tagline Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support, I posted the following tweet.

I followed this tweet with a number of others including one that asks if the time for boycotting the New York Times.

About 20 minutes later I returned to the NY Times homepage to find the link and tagline gone, even though the link I had posted on my Facebook account still led to the article. I thought, OK, perhaps I had a small victory. And I posted the following Tweet:

Shortly thereafter I was mentioned in the following Tweet:

Me and Mr. Rosenthal had a further exchange where he said "@RichardTelAviv Oh. Yes, that is a sentence in the editorial. It wasn't the title. Was confused. In any case, we didn't remove it.. And finally closed the thread with "@RichardTelAviv We change our homepage all the time, every day. BTW, if you wish to keep up a dialogue, stop the insults. Thanks.

I sent one last tweet saying @andyrNYT Insulting? Moi? I'm not the 1 that said "Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support." Being Jewish I find that insulting and concerning.

And with that, I leave everybody to their conscience.

Thomas Friedman Proves his Irrelevance Yet Again

2011-05-24T22:53:00.000-07:00

In today's New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman wrote another piece which just goes to show how he really doesn't get the Middle East. In it he calls on Palestinians to "Announce that every Friday from today forward will be “Peace Day,” and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things — an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other."

The below is a comment I posted in response to Mr. Friedman's article, in it I explain why, while it might sound like a good idea to some, Mr. Friedman's suggestion is so far misplaced that it only goes to show again his irrelevance when analyzing the Middle East.

-----

Ah Thomas Friedman, the western media's loudest has been. Thomas, you've been blogging on the arab spring now for three months singing its praises. You're walking around Cairo as you write this? Did you buy a gun? Because according to everyday Egyptians, the little safety and security they had before the revolution has disappeared, and all that fill the streets now is fear and disenchantment from what was once expected to bring them freedom and democracy.

And now you're calling on the Palestinians to do what the Syrians are doing? I'm disappointed. We all knew that you thought that the murderous Assad regime was a reformer, you must have said it a dozen times supporting President Obama and Hillary Clinton in their attempts to draw him into the embrace of the liberal American administration. And now you want the Palestinians to demand what is theirs.

But what is theirs? I mean, didn't the Palestinians together with the Arab nations reject partition in '47? Didn't they participate in a belligerent war to exterminate the nascent Jewish state? Or do you believe President Abbas' version of events published in this very same publication just one week ago in which he claimed that the Arabs were just intervening to prevent Israel from conducting ethnic cleansing?

So if the Arabs lost the war in '48 then what does that mean? We all know there was never a soverign nation that belonged to the Palestinians, and that they only became a people BECAUSE of the creation of Israel. But they lost the war. So you think they deserve whatever they ask for? Do you really, honestly believe also that Palestinians and Israelis should be equal in negotiations? Was Germany an equal party to negotiations after WWII? Germany also launched a belligerent, offensive war and lost.

Sure, the Palestinians have been abused by their Arab brothers and have not had freedom for 60 years. But does that mean that Israel should feel bad for the Palestinians and give them what they want? When the Palestinians refuse to even recognize Israel, and constantly, still, and to this day, glorify the murder of Israelis and dream of not only the West Bank and Gaza but all of Israel?

Seeing how it probably went in through one ear and out the other, I'll repeat a short segment of Bibi's speech from yesterday.

"Two years ago I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples, a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. I'm willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace."... "It's time for President Abbas to stand before his people and to say 'I will accept a Jewish state. Those six words will change history. Those six words will convince Israel that they have a true partner for peace."

That's it Thomas, that's the single most important thing that needs to happen for Israelis to be willing to take the next step, for Abbas to do EXACTLY as Netanyahu did two years ago. I saw it, and I know you did too. And sending them in masses to confront Israeli soldiers and threaten Israelis isn't going to make the average Israeli want to sign agreements or recognize a Palestinian state, it will only lead to more bloodshed.

The fact that you don't understand this single truth shows just how pathetically irrelevant you are. As I've said already a half dozen times in comments to your pieces and on my blog, put down your pen already, before you hurt someone.

The only next step on the path to Palestinian Israeli Peace

2011-05-24T12:34:00.000-07:00

Israeli Prime Minister today addressed a full Congress with both houses present. Really the only one missing was President Obama himself, who is currently in Europe to garner support for his Middle East policies.

Prime Minister Netanyahu gave an hour long speech with much to say. But the most important part of it is below. The video clip of this segment can be found at the this link.

---

Two years ago I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples, a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state.

I'm willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, its my responsibility to lead my people to peace. Now this is not easy for me, its not easy.

Because I recognize, that in a genuiune peace, we'll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this, in Judea and Sumaria, the Jewish people are not foriegn occupiers. We're not the British in India, we're not the Belgians in Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought brought the idea of one god. Where David set out to confront goliath. And where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history, and boy am I reading a lot of distortions of history lately, old and new, no distortion of history could deny the four thousand year old bond between the Jewish people, and the Jewish land.

But there's another truth, the Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they'll be neither Israel's subjects, nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state.

They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative an flourish. now we've already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years, the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. By the way, Prime Minister Faayad has led this effort on their part and I wish him a speedy recovery from his operation. We've helped on our side, we've helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks for the free flow of goods, and people. And the results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. The Palestinian economy is growing by more than 10% a year.

So now here's the question. You've got to ask it, if the benefits of peace with the Palestinians so clear, why is peace eluded us? Because, all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords, agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included.

So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state along side it. You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state, it has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.

It's time for President Abbas to stand before his people and to say 'I will accept a Jewish state. Those six words will change history. Those six words will convince Israel that they have a true partner for peace."

Land Swaps Predetermine Negotiations, and set yet Another Precondition

2011-05-24T00:57:00.000-07:00

Over the past week or so we've been privy to a number of new developments in President Obama's efforts to convince Palestinians to rejoin negotiations, which they have been refusing to do now for more than two years.

In President Obama's big policy speech on May 19th, for the first time in history, he unilaterally decided that negotiations will take place on the basis of '67 lines with land swaps.' And while he insists that everybody knows that the 'basis of 67 lines' has been the White House position since apparently time immemorial, the truth of the matter is that even if it was an assumption by many, it was not official American Administration policy, and the moment it was made so, involves a number of presuppositions.

Even after President Obama's "clarification" at the AIPAC 2011 conference, the fact of the matter is that President Obama has adopted a position, and is trying to force it upon Israel, in that all land that Israel acquired as the result of its defensive wars until 1967 fighting off Arab attackers, actually belongs to the Palestinian people, and that any new borders that are drawn in which Israel is granted territory beyond these borders, must involve Israel giving up an equal amount of territory to the Palestinian state.

And as opposed to what President Obama states about '67 borders' having always been the guiding criteria for the American Administration, even if it was unspoken. The assumption that Israel would have to give up territory as part of negotiations with the Palestinians as part of a land swap has never existed. And in spite of the fact that the world wants to ignore it, there has never in the history of the world been a sovereign state of Palestine. And the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were part of the Ottoman Empire, then taken over by Egypt and Jordan after the creation of Israel and the Arab states rejection of the UN's 1947 partition plan.

And while yes, Israel gets it that those refugees like all other peoples in the world have the right to self-determination in their own land, the amount of land is what is disputed by the Israelis (as opposed to among most in the Palestinian camp who dispute the right of Israel to exist at all). Another fact that most people ignore is that the main conflict at play is the Arab Israeli conflict, and the Palestinian refugees are a result of that conflict, not the cause.

The Arab nations, including the Palestinian people, have waged war after offensive war against the Israeli state, and lost. And in conflict, those that wage offensive wars and lose pay a price. As a result, it is quite unacceptable that the President now decides it is his right to foist upon the State of Israel not only '67 lines, a stance which he softened in his speech to AIPAC, it is unacceptable that he presupposes Israel must exchange an equal amount of land (land swaps), as part of an agreement to retain blocks of land it has built on since the '67 war.

And by doing so, he is not only trying to predetermine the outcome of negotiations, he is once again giving away a critical Israeli bargaining chip. One which could be used to extract important concessions from the Palestinians, for example, getting them to agree there will be no Palestinian right of return within Israeli borders, with nothing in return.

Every time President Obama stands in front of the world and adds on new preconditions to negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, he is shooting himself in the foot, and reducing any chance that negotiations shall restart.

There are those that say that negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians must be between two equal parties. And that is also wrong. Much like negotiations between the Americans and Germans after WWII were not between two equal parties. The party that won the war had much more power, and that which waged it on an offensive basis, AND LOST, had less. The Palestinians, being an active part in the rejection of partition and the offensive war against Israel in 1948 indicates to us the status of the parties. Subsequently, President Obama bringing the full weight of the United States down upon Israel to level the playing field for the Palestinians (or tip it to their advantage in this case) is wrong, unfair and injust. Not only that, but it encourages further Arab intransigence and their use of force.

Security is Israel’s primary concern, but justice is another. And constantly being unfairly pressured into making unilateral concession after unilateral concession as the result of a misguided policy to make peace at all costs is not acceptable.

President Obama, an Israeli Catastrophe

2011-05-20T00:13:00.000-07:00

He did it again, yes he did. President Barack Obama once again blindsided the Israelis, sacrificing Israeli security and interests in his desperate attempt to get Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, and in his drive build bridges to the Arab and Muslim states. For the past two years he has been in office, he has not only made unprecedented demands of the Israelis, while standing by the Palestinians as they refuse to negotiate, he has repeatedly denigrated Israel's Prime Minister, through the press and his aide saying things like Netanyahu can't be trusted, Netanyahu doesn't want peace, and Netanyahu won't make concessions for peace; and actually claims to make concessions in Israel's name in his never ending attempt to get the Palestinians to return to negotiations.

The Israelis have taken a wide variety of steps to show they want peace, and are willing to make painful concessions in order to achieve it. The following is only a short summary:

In 2000 at Camp David Ehud Barack offered pretty much as much as Israel will ever be willing to offer, Yasser Arafat didn't accept or reject the offer, or try to negotiate, he walked away and launched the 2nd Intifada, and later the Palestinians went on to democratically elected the terrorist oraganization Hamas to govern them
In August 2005, Ariel Sharon withdrew all Israelis from the Gaza strip, in essence ethnically cleansing it of Jews, destroying settlements and homes, all in the hopes that the Palestinians would take the opportunity to build a nation, instead they built a launch pad for war against Israel.
In 2008, Ehud Olmert in his effort to plaster over his corruption, made even further reaching concessions to the Palestinians, and they refused once again.
In a speech the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made in June 2009, he called on the Palestinians to begin negotiations immediately on creating a Palestinian state and ending the conflict.
In addition, all along the way the Israelis have taken actions include arming the Palestinian police force, leaving the Philadelphia corridor separating Egypt and Gaza based on international guarantees (which were thrown out the window when Hamas overthrew Gaza), making gesture after gesture such as releasing Palestinian terrorists from jail, many of which have gone on to murder even more Israelis, and more.

What have the Palestinians done? One thing and one thing only, stated its not enough and refused to negotiate. And since taking office, every time, instead of saying to the Palestinians, you must sit down and negotiate with Israel, it is your responsibility as well as the Israelis, to make concessions, and achieve a negotiated peace, President Barack Obama has sat silent, or worse, piled pressure and made concessions in the name of Israel, in order to try and entice the Palestinians back to negotiations.

Not once, not a single time in his time in office, has President Obama put any form of public pressure on the Palestinians to return to negotiation. Not once, not a single time, has he called on them in the international media to stop shirking their responsibilities as based on previously signed agreements. No, his only remedy was to publicly question Israel's willingness to make concessions and peace and publicly question the integrity of the Israeli leadership, his only action was to put unprecedented prerequisites on the Israelis to start negotiations, like halt all construction, and his only contribution was to make concessions in the name of Israel.

And here we are, once again, with the Palestinians now understanding they need to do nothing, need to concede nothing, because President Obama has promised that no matter what, a Palestinian state will be created. And once again, as a result of their refusal to negotiate or lift a finger, President Obama makes further, unprecedented, unacceptable and unilateral concessions in the name of Israel.

And what is most shocking, is this latest round of President Obama's concessions in the name of Israel follow on the footsteps of an Op Ed piece by the Palestinian President in the New York Times where he turned history on its head, openly and without any comment from the editorial staff off this wholesale perversion of history. He first claimed that the Palestinian's intent to unilaterally declare a state (breaking all previous agreements), is the "fulfillment" of the 1947 UN partition plan calling for two states, Jewish and Arab. He fails to mention, that both the Palestinians and other Arab nations walked out, completely rejecting partition.

He then claims that the war that ensued was launched by the Arab nations to prevent Israel from expelling the Arab population, while history clearly shows the radio broadcasts of Arab leaders calling on Arabs in Palestine to get out of the way while they kill the jews and conquer the land. His final lie comes when he claims that he own family was forced to leave his home in Safed. When in an interview two years ago with Al-Arbya news in the Palestinian Territories, he acknowledged that his family voluntarily picked up their things and left for fear of retribution for the Arab Pogroms in which 20 Jews were killed, and not because they were actually threatened by Israeli soldiers.

President Obama's latest round of giving away Israeli rights falls on the heels of the "moderate" Palestinian government making peace with a murderous terrorist organization. It follows in the wake of the Arab peoples across the middle east who have woken up and demanded their rights from the dictators of the middle east, as yet another concession to the Arab world as if, a forced, one-sided agreement that trades away Israeli rights will bring peace to the middle east. As if it is the lack of an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians that is sending masses of Arab citizens to the streets to protest.

Well I, as an Israeli in the name of the State of Israel say no more Israeli concessions. And I also hereby declare that any concession that was made by President Obama and not by the Israeli people is null and void. I make it clear here and now that only the Israeli government has the right to make any concessions in the name of Israel. And I call on President Obama to stop his firesale of Israeli land and rights.

We shall not allow President Obama to freely and continually chisel away at Israeli interests in a blind, idiotic one sided effort to coax back to the negotiating table the Palestinians, who have decided they have no need to negotiate what so ever since he has promised them everything without having to negotiate or give a single concession.

We are more than ready to enter negotiations. We've been sitting here for two years as you've let the Palestinians avoid them. But there will be no pre-requisites to negotiation. Negotiations will not be based on 1967 borders, they will be based on two states for two people, and it is agreement and concessions between the sides that will decide the character of the final agreement, as called for in all previous agreements, and not by any pre-emptive "concessions" you've tried to force upon the Israeli nation in your effort to get the Palestinians to agree to negotations.

Stop making concessions in our name. Stop denigrating our prime minister and start calling out the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate.

Are you Joking?: What Mideast Peace Process & Recognizing a Palestinian State?

2011-05-05T01:30:00.000-07:00

On a daily basis here in Israel, we keep hearing of demands by countries including the US and the UK about the Mideast Peace Process and the Palestinians. We keep hearing threats by countries like the UK that say that if Israel doesn’t take steps to return to negotiations, they will recognize a Palestinian state.

And us Israelis, we’re here in shock, thinking to ourselves "What Mideast Peace Process?" The Palestinian have been refusing to negotiate with Israel for the past two years, so just how and why do you think it is Israel’s responsibility to provide a valid peace process.

But that’s just the beginning. Then we take a look at what was once the “Arab Spring” in which Arab peoples rose up against their dictator leaders to gain freedom. The result, Egypt is moving towards the Muslim brotherhood, the Egyptian people are calling to cancel the Peace Agreement with Israel, and have lost any benefits they thought they had gained since their revolution came to an end. Libyan are being massacred by their Dictator as he spits in the face of a weak international coalition that says they want him out but aren’t willing to take the steps required to evict him, and Syrians, the poor Syrians, are experiencing whole scale massacres on a daily basis, being attacked with tanks and artillery of Bashar Assad, trying to fight for their freedom as the world stand silent and politely requests that he “reform.”

I mean are you joking?

But then the best has yet to be mentioned. As if the Palestinians Leadership’s refusal to even sit down and talk with Israel for two years isn’t enough, they have now gone and reconciled with Hamas, an organization who uses their own civilians as human shields as they launch missiles at Israeli civilians, an organization that straps bombs to children and sends them into Israeli busses, an organization that mourned the killing of Osama Bin Laden, called him a martyr in the service of the Jihad and slammed the US government for killing him, an organization that just in the past few days since the Fatah/ Hamas reconciliation has been in the news has stated that 1. They will never recognize Israel, and 2. They will never Make peace with Israel.

And now the international community led by France’s Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron is threatening that if Israel, led by Binyamin Netanyahu doesn’t make progress in peace talks, they will support the Palestinian’s bid for a state in the United Nations?

This has got to be one of the saddest days on record. When the arab world is falling apart and the fallacy that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian was the source of Arab anger has been smashed to bits, the world community can still only focus on a non-existent dialog with a population that democratically elected terrorists to govern them by a wide margin, and now openly states they will never recognize Israel.

So while the while America justifiably kills a terrorist that targeted and massacred innocent Americans, the United States, UK, France and others in the world community are demanding that the burden is completely on Israel, who must negotiate with those who refuse to negotiate with it, who must make peace with terrorists that not only refused to recognize Israel, but purposely targeted and murdered thousands of Israeli civilians over the course of decades.

Once again I have to ask, are you joking?

Instead of pretending there's even a hell's chance of peace with Hamas, and wasting time and energy trying to make Israel concede to terrorists and risk Israeli lives, maybe you should take the required action to protect the innocent protesters struggling for their rights being massacred in Libya, Syria and Iran, or at the very least, make very vocal pronouncements against leaders like Assad in Syria who are using tanks and artillery against his own citizens.

And the world wonders why Israel is paranoid and has no faith in international institutions or the international community?

Why can't JStreet be Honest about What they Really Are?

2011-04-05T07:25:00.000-07:00

JStreet is disingenous about its agenda. They obfuscate their real mission, and cannot be called Pro Israel. Why?

They supported the Goldstone report with all their weight, tried to prevent the US from vetoing a resolution that would make Israel a criminal under International Law, and weigh the use of boycotts and sanctions against Israel to bend Israel to their will.

If they had any integrity or honesty they'd call themselves, "Pro - beat Israel into submission until they bow to our agenda." Then at least their slogan would reflect both their constituency and their political agenda. Of course, then they'd probably lose at least have of their supporters, that's why they continue with the obfuscation.

Don't be fooled. Supporting Israel isn't a matter of tough love. You can't support her with threats of boycott and sanctions, as Jstreet does. And JStreet, no matter how many times they claim to be Pro Israel, isn't Pro Israel. They may represent a certain segment of the American Jewish (and non-Jewish) constituency, but that doesn't make them pro-Israel either.

You want to be part of the dialog you're welcome. But working against Israel in the United Nations, boycotting and sanctions aren't dialog, they're the end to dialog. And always remember, no matter how much you think you care about Israel and the Palestinians, if you don't live in Israel, you don't live under threat of violence. Your opinion will be respected if you respect ours, but our needs will always take precedent over your opinions, beliefs and desires.

The Goldstone Report: the Lie is Revealed

2011-04-02T12:45:00.000-07:00

I don't have much to say on the Goldstone report. Though following Richard Goldstone's apparent change of heart regarding what can only be described as blood liable (accusing Israel of a systematic policy of targeting Palestinian civillians), I have to say at least a few words. Anybody interested in my original piece can read it here: Blind Injustice – The Failure of the Goldstone Mission.

I do however want to point out a major fact regarding the report.

Let's first take a look at what Mr. Goldstone had to say in the original report.

From the "Goldstone Report" released September 15, 2009.

Israel imposed “a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip,” which “was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”

That's three times he definitely stated, for the record in the UN Human Rights Council that israel had a deliberate policy of targeting the civilian population.

Now lets see what he had to say in his Washington Post piece on April 1st:

"The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy".

If he was so confident to say what he did in the intial report, have it broadcast around the world countless times, and stand by that statement again and again in the media, why now would he recant?

All I can say is that if there was any doubt regarding this man's integrity (not to mention the integrity of the report), its become perfectly clear that there little to none. Except for the last scrap which comes way to late.

If he had any conscience at all, he'd dedicate the rest of his life to undoing all the damage his report has done, putting Israel on the docket not just in the international court of justice, but in the international court of world opinion.

Confused about the "New Anti-semitism?" Just listen to Helen Thomas

2011-03-19T01:32:00.000-07:00

In an interview with Playboy this weekend, Helen Thomas provided us with a very clear example of "the New Antisemitism."

For those of you still in the dark, the New Anti-Semitism is defined by Wikipedia as "a new form of anti-Semitism (that) … tends to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel." For an earlier piece I wrote on this subject see Israel, Europe and the New Anti-Semitism.

The New Antisemitism is also portrayed as opposition to Israeli policies. And is mostly identifiable by a confusion between Israel (and Israelis), Jews, and Zionism (which is nothing more than the belief in a national homeland for the Jews).

A good tool to identify those whose criticism of Israel may be more driven by underlying antisemitism than concern for the well being of Palestinians is their use of the word Zionist to refer to anybody that dares voice support for Israel and its policies, thereby blurring the difference between Jew, Israeli and Zionist. These people also tend to try and completely shut down all honest discussion or debate about Israel's actions by hurling insults, or using the word Zionist as an insult, as described in this post. Is criticism of Israel or its actions valid? Sure, as long as it looks at the circumstances under which Israel operated, the intent of their actions, compares it with actions of other nations under similar circumstances, and doesn't try to deligitimze.

And yet another indicator that that there's much more to opposition of Israeli policies going on is the exhibiting of righteous indignation at anything that Israel does, while at the same time illustrating a complete lack of indignation of real crimes being committed by other peoples or states. For example, China wiping out entire neighborhoods to build a park for the Olympics. Iran violently suppressing its own people protesting a fixed election, oppression of women and persecution of homosexuals in many Arab and Muslim countries, lack of freedom of religion in countries like Saudi Arabia, and more.

And finally, before we get onto Mrs. Thomas, one last indicator of the new Anti-Semitism is the projecting of traditionally anti-Semitic motifs onto Israel. For example, claiming they (Israel) controls the White House, want to take over the world, are the cause of economic and other crises, etc.

About a year ago Helen Thomas was quoted during an interview saying that "the Jews should get the hell out of Palestine." And when asked where she thought they should go," she responded "Germany, Poland."

In her latest interview with Playboy, the ever gracious Mrs. Thomas says that "Jews have power over the White House and Congress, who are in the pockets of the Israeli lobbies." She also said that the Israeli lobbies are "are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There’s total control."

Yet at the very end of the interview Mrs. Thomas clarified her views by saying she is not anti-Jewish, just anti – Israel, saying she thinks Jews are wonderful people. "I’m not anti-Jewish," clarified Thomas, "I’m anti-Zionist. I am anti Israel taking what doesn’t belong to it. If you have a home and you’re kicked out of that home, you don’t come and kick someone else out."

So on the one hand she says "Jews have power over the White House and Congress," on the other she's not "anti-Jewish," she's "anti-Zionist."

Thanks for clarifying that one up for us Mrs. Thomas.

JStreet Pro Israel? – Will the Real Pro Israel Please Stand Up

2011-03-02T12:02:00.000-08:00

JStreet, it’s a movement that defines itself as liberal, who's official aim is to "promote American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically." But in simple terms, strives to provide an alternative voice to those who "supposedly" support Israel but are critical of its policies and who feel that existing organizations like AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee) don't represent their beliefs. This organization, that uses the slogan "Pro Israel, Pro Peace," was founded in April 2008, shortly before the democratic primary was held for the 2008 Presidential Elections. Ever since, it has been a loyal subject of President Barack Obama, and at the same time the Obama administration's preferred Jewish constituency.

While it indirectly claims to be a "grass roots movement," or a movement started spontaneously by everyday people disconnected from politics looking to have an impact, it is rumored by some that it is a case of astroturfing, or a movement that was created to look like a spontaneous and independent grass roots movement, but in actuality was artificially created by the Obama campaign to create the appearance of Jewish support for President Obama's very unpopular political positions regarding Israel among a constituency, that is historically very supportive of Israel.

Much has been said about the JStreet movement, and in the past year or so, it has had a number of embarrassing gaffs. After staunchly denying it accepted money from the vocal opponent of Israel George Soros, it was later discovered that indeed they did accept donations from him. And additionally, they have a controversial policy of accepting donations from many people who would have a hard time calling themselves pro-Israel like Arab and Muslim donors.

JStreet calls itself "Pro Israel," yet really, this couldn't be true even if they thought they were practicing tough love. There is a long list of actions JStreet has taken that pretty much refute their claim of being "Pro Israel."

These include:

Trying to aid the one-sided Goldstone report prepared by the now defunct UN Human Rights Council on whose board Libya sits, which makes Israel a criminal and Hamas a victim of Israel's aggression, and additionally refusing to support a US Congressional Resolution condemning this same report
Criticizing Israel's actions during the Gaza Flotilla incident and calling on the US to pressure Israel to end the Gaza blockade, which is preventing weapons from being smuggled to Gaza
Opposing an American Veto of an anti-Israel resolution in the UN on settlement construction, all the while the Palestinians refuse to even sit down and negotiate, and at a time when the Arab street is on fire as a result of their own abhorrent treatment of their citizens
Holding a session on BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions – against Israel) at their 2011 conference. To put this in perspective, if there was such a thing as a "Pro America" movement, would you honestly think that discussing the benefits of boycotting the US would be an acceptable subject?

And much more.

Now my exposure to JStreet is limited, but from what I can make of it from the press, twitter feeds, their website, etc. its clear that it isn't "Pro Israel."

Today I posted a link to an article about JStreet titled J Street needs another lane by David Suissa on my Facebook page, and a childhood friend from camp responded "Thank you for posting this. I've spent the last few years trying to explain to people why I'm not active in JStreet without sounding like a right-wing nut. Folks here aren't willing to hear it, and I'm hoping that this article will help me articulate it a bit better. So that means that among JStreeters, and in liberal Jewish circles in general, if you're not with JStreet, you're labelled a right-wing fanatic. Or in other words, if you're not Pro Israel in the JStreet sense of the term (meaning the only thing good for Israel is peace with the Palestinians, at any cost, and all other issues are irrelevant), then you're pro war.

Now what's particularly troubling to me is the fact it seems that today the only acceptable, valid avenue of publicly "supporting" Israel, is actually criticizing it. And what's even more troubling is that the Jewish community that I grew up seems to be for the most part silent on these issues. I grew up in the reform movement. In fact, I spent 13 years at one of its flagship summer camps and today know at least a dozen if not two reform rabbis, a number of active Jewish politicians, and even spent a summer with America's Ambassador elect to Israel, Dan Shapiro as part of his staff.

And from the little I see from their Facebook activity, checking their synagogue websites, etc., it doesn't seem they're very vocal or active participants in the national dialog.

And when we take into consideration that JStreet is, as we saw this week with a highly publicized annual conference, very vocal, and very aggressive at taking the public spotlight, and with the public spotlight being gratuitously given to them by the liberal media, it results in most people assuming that this is the voice of mainstream Judaism on Israel, and is giving them power to set the American political agenda regarding Israel. Indeed, the only "Pro Israel" party portrayed as a reasonable interlocutor in the mainstream press seems to be JStreet, while anybody that publicly supports Israel in any way, shape or form (besides encouraging it to "make peace" with the Palestinians) are portrayed as my friend said as "right wing nuts."

It's quite sad to hear that among the liberal Israel supporters I grew up with, anybody speaking in support of Israel is considered a "right-wing fanatic."

It seems that real Pro Israel supporters have cleared the stage for the JStreeters of the world, no longer willing to stand up and fight the rhetoric, to call out the misrepresentations, and to simply say that standing with Israel isn't right wing or fanatic. The fanatic left has convinced the world that if you don't stand by the Palestinians at all costs, you're a right winger. And that's simply not true, it’s a distortion, and its setting the world agenda on Israel.

And its sad that with all the revolutions taking place in the Arab world, populations that have been cowered by their dictators for decades with no rights and no real hope for a future, the only thing on the agenda of these people who claim to be left wing liberals fighting for human rights is forcing Israel, at any cost, to make peace with the Palestinians. I can't speak for you, but to me that's pretty messed up.

I mean, I get it. The Palestinians haven't been free from "occupation" since 1948 (even though in truth they never were a nation, for the past 600 hundred years being part of the Ottman empire, and since the beginning of the 20th century subjects of the British Empire, before Israel was created.

Another thing that really yanks my chain? Members of JStreet claim to be "Pro Peace," and subsequently insinuate that if I don't agree with them that I'm pro war, and that anybody that dares believe that Israel has legitimate demands of the Palestinians is also pro war. Funny thing is, its easy to be "Pro Peace" when all you have to do for peace is get all stirred up by self-righteous indignation on subjects that may be close to your heart, feel good about your desire for peace on earth, but in practice, it doesn't really't impact you or your children's lives. At least, not by way of missles or bullets.

Do members of JStreet have to worry about if Hamas is going to win the next election in the West Bank, like they did the last one, and do to the West Bank what they did in Gaza (transform it into a launchpad for attacks against Israel)? Do the children of JStreet members live within reach of missles from Gaza? And do members of JStreet have to live with the consequences if the international community reneges on their security guarantees like they did at the Rafiah Crossing, with Israel's evacuation of Gaza, or with Lebanon which has now led to 30,000 missles pointing at our cities? No, and they don't care.

And then of course there's the condemnation of Israel's skepticism of Egypt's revolution. But guess what, just because we're skeptical, doesn't mean we don't want a democratic Egypt. Just because we're concerned that the Egyptian revolution might be hijacked by religious fanatics doesn't mean we want the Egyptian people to be enslaved. Just because we had a peace agreement with a dictator doesn't mean that as Thomas Friedman so horrendously put it, we supported the last Pharaoh. And just because we believe that Israel, under the circumstances, in the region in which it lives, and in consideration of the massive military buildup taking place on its borders has the right to decide for itself whether a certain set of concessions matches its security needs and interests, doesn't mean that we're pro war.

But those at JStreet, they'd like you to believe it does. Just like they label anybody that isn't one of them "right wing fanatics." Why? Because they really do want peace, but at any cost. And they think that if Israel gives into Arab demands and provides concession after one-sided concession, the Palestinians will finally be free of what they call "the tyranny of Israeli occupation." And they want to believe, boy do they want to believe, that the Palestinians have the same values for life, peace and equality that they do. And they want to believe, with all their hearts, that if only the Jews didn't oppress the Palestinians, JStreeter souls would be set free from the burden of being connected with such a terrible entity as Israel and that maybe, just maybe they wouldn't feel the pressure of being a Jew in a world where Israel is constantly criticized by everybody. If only they knew: no matter what Israel does, it'll always be wrong, and they'll always be guilty by association.

I wonder if they've compared the quality of lives of those same West Bank Palestinians to the Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisian, and even Gazans. Though I'm pretty sure they haven't, because the Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and yes, Gazans, don't matter a bit to them, not if they're being tortured, being starved to death, or dying. For that my friends, has been going on for years. Yet the world has stood in hypocritical silence. Because they are not being occupied by the Israelis, as the result of an unresolved conflict that, which they like to ignore, starts and ends with the Arab rejection of Israel.

So the question is, who's going to dominate the debate on Israel, and who is going to determine what is Pro Israel? A group that claims they're "Pro Israel Pro Peace," but are really "Don’t care about Israel, Peace at any Cost?" Those of the likes at JStreet that hold discussions about the advantages of Boycotting, Divestment, and Sanctions to get Israel to succumb to their demands? An organization funded by people like George Soros who claim that both Jews and Israelis are responsible for anti-Semitism? The organization that accepts donations from people and organizations that are clearly Pro-Palestinian and Anti-Israel?

Is that really Pro Israel? I'm mean, come on. How do they get away with calling themselves that? They should be called out for it, not by Israelis, but by the media, and by the real everyday supporters of Israel in the US.

Or is it going to be the real Pro Israel Pro Peace crowd. Those that I grew up with. Those I went to summer camp with. Those who were taught to be leaders, to speak up. Those that were trained to be critical and think for themselves. Those that know that Israel isn't out to conquer the world, and who know that if real peace is to be had, Israel will jump, and make the required sacrifices.

To quote Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ And as the other expression goes, the road to hell is paved by good intentions. That is the road that JStreet is leading us all down, and to use a word I don't like using, it's evil. And it's not because they're willfully vicious, it's because while at the same time they are so sure in they're ways, they are blinded by their all too admirable objective to be able to see that forcing Israel to make one-sided concessions won't free the Palestinian people, and it won't bring peace to the Middle East. The only thing that will do that, is the desire of both peoples to do so, and the willingness of both sides, not only one, to make concessions.

And if those who really are Pro Israel and Pro Peace, and are aware not only of the sacrifices, but the cold hard truth that peace can only be the result of mutual agreement, remain silent and do nothing; then things are going to get bad, as we've already seen start to happen. Whether it be Louis Farrakhan claming the Jews are pushing the US into war, Christian Dior designer John Galliano praising Hitler, Charlie Sheen referring to his Hollywood boss by his Jewish name, and not because he was trying to make him feel good, Julian Assange accusing the Guardian of a Jewish Conspiracy or any of the other dozens of growing public anti-Jewish sentiment that is becoming acceptable dialog in across the nation, and around the world.

And not only for the Israelis, but for Jews around the world. At this most volatile time in the history of the world, with the American nation in financial crisis, European Union countries on the verge of default, revolutions sweeping across the Middle East, inflation running rampant, that evil little expression, the default attitude of the world's masses (((it’s the Jews))), is being heard more and more every day.

And JStreet joining in international criticism of Israel while ignoring, as they have been for decades, the real evil lurking behind the dictators sitting on the UN Human Rights Council, reinforces the proxy status of Israel as the Jew of the world. And while Israel has been drawing absurd, disproportionate criticism for decades while being attacked by dictators and terrorists, enlightened Western nations and mainstream media, slowly the hateful rhetoric, by transference, is moving from Israel, to the Jews.

Will the real Pro Israel please stand up? For JStreet is right about one thing, the events in Israel, for better or for worse effect Jews around the world. Indeed, in the eyes of so many in the world, they are guilty by association. And when the world demonizes Israel, it eventually trickles down to the them. Stand up for what is right. Want peace, but realize that it won't come at "any price." Demand reciprocation from the Palestinians. And stand up to the JStreeters of the world, when they call you a right wing nutjob just because you stand up for Israel. Tell them they are wrong, before your voice is completely lost.

Letter to the Editor of the New York Times and Thomas Friedman

2011-02-24T01:38:00.000-08:00

Thomas Friedman's piece titled "If Not Now, When?" Contained some very disturbing language emphasizing an even more disturbing trend taking place in the mainstream media. In it, while listing a litany of actions dictators can do while the US turns a blind eye he included "Just keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, don’t hassle the Jews too much — and you can do whatever you want out back.”

If he was just talking about oil one might agree. And even if he would have only referred to Israel without referring to Jews one also might be inclined to agree. But the fact is that Israel, while being a Jewish state, has Christians, Muslims, Bahai, and Buddhists too. And America defends Israel not because of the Jews, but because Israel has the same values as the US, the same interests as the US, and because Israel is a small democratic society in a region of large powerful and brutal dictatorships which have repeatedly attacked it and called to destroy it.

When Mr. Friedman uses the word Jew he plays into the worst of anti-Semitic imagery that suggests that Jews are in fact the source the Arab dictator’s horrid treatment of their own people, and interweaving that with oil, which is also a metaphor for wealth and money, further backs up this unspoken claim. His stating things in this way plays into all those terrible things that Jew haters believe, and propagates conspiracy theories that Jews are what's wrong with the world, whether he realizes it or not, whether he intended it or not, and even if he himself is Jewish. Mr. Friedman is wrong to word this article the way he did, and he's very wrong to make "Jews" one of two reasons America looks the other way as its dictator allies oppress and murder their own citizens. And he is additionally making a dangerous statement that weaves world Jewry, whether or not they're connected to Israel, into the tyrannical oppression conducted by Arab leaders against their citizens.

Thomas Friedman has crossed a line that is both troubling, and symptomatic of what seems to be a greater willingness to identify with theories propagated by these very same dictators; not only placing the resentment and poverty of their own peoples, and the blame for the ills on the world, on Israel, but now by extension, and according to Mr. Friedman, on the Jews.

And as opposed to what one might think having read Mr. Friedman's pieces over the past year, those people protesting in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and Algeria aren't doing so because of Israel or the Jews. Maybe it’s time he rethought his career as an analyst and writer on Middle East affairs.

Sincerely,

Richard
Tel Aviv, Israel

Thomas Friedman’s Bitter Witch Hunt against Israel

2011-02-14T00:24:00.000-08:00

In his latest hack job in the now defunct New York Times (what else could the NYTimes be but defunct if they’re still publishing the ramblings of a bitter, vindictive journalist who can’t accept his own failures at analyzing events in the Middle East), Thomas Friedman claims that the Israeli government is “driven by cliché’s and disconnected” and that it has used the events in Egypt for propaganda purposes to the point that those in the White House were disgusted.

I wonder what clichés Mr. Friedman is talking about? Perhaps the one in which democracy can’t sit together hand in hand with fanatic Islam and survive, or in which the meaning of democracy in Islam is one vote for one person one time? Or perhaps it’s the concerns voiced by both the Israeli government and the Israeli people that the events taking place in Egypt could possibly end up like those we saw with democratic Palestinian elections in which first Hamas was voted into office, then went on to violently overthrow the Gaza strip and dissolve that same nascent democracy? And disconnected? Well I think that's the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. Friedman lives in a world of hope and expectation, Israel lives in one of missles and neighbors in which nacent democracy was dissolved by the very leadership they elected to office. We'll examine this more below.

I understand that Mr. Friedman together with the Obama administration are shamed by their complete failure in everything to do with the Middle East, and how it is that over the past two months we’ve seen the entire foundation for their policies in the Middle East to be shown as patently false, if not outright lies. For example, they’ve been trying to convince the world that it is the lack of resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict that is the primary reason for hatred and discontent in the capitals of Arab states. Yet this has been proven false by a number of events.

First there were the Wikileaks documents. For years the world has been brainwashed into believing that the one and only concern of leadership in the Arab world was a lack of resolution in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and that this subject is what drove Arab nations to kill each other and oppress their own peoples. Yet Wikileaks showed us that across the board that the only concern of Arab governments including Saudi Arabia, Jordan Bahrain, and Egypt was a belligerent Iran and its drive to obtain nuclear weapons, with Saudi Arabia even asking the US to bomb Iran to reign them in. Looks like Mr. Friedman was way off on that one.

Then we had what are called the Palileaks papers, in which we learned from internal documents stolen from the offices of the Palestinian authority that the Palestinians had not only agreed already to a large range of concessions which they later denied having done, but that they haven’t prepared their own population for the necessity of compromise and the eventuality that indeed there will be concessions that the Palestinians will also have to make. And yet for the past two years we’ve seen Mr. Friedman together with the Obama administration slamming Israel in the international media all the while it’s the Palestinians themselves that refuse to even sit down and negotiate.

Then there’s the revolution we just witnessed in Egypt. We’ve been told for decades that the discontent and bitterness we see in the Arab and Muslim street across the Middle East is due to one and only one thing, the lack of resolution for the Israeli Palestinian issue. But as we see with Egypt it wasn’t the fact that there isn’t a Palestinian state that led to such as powerful and emotional outburst, but the fact that the Egyptian people actually have less rights than the Palestinians, and can’t even afford to feed their own families (the actual source of the uprising was an increase in the cost of basic needs such as food, making it impossible for them to feed their families). And once again, Mr. Friedman missed it big time.

Indeed, for the past year Mr. Friedman has been on a witch hunt, fully supported by the New York Times, at every turn attacking the Israeli government, with every development in the middle east looking for some way to slam Israel and their policies, and trying, much like the Palestinians and the Arab media, to demonize if not actually delegitimize Israel and its government.

Today Mr. Friedman sees much hope in the Egyptian uprising, as do most people in the world. In Israel we see much hope too. However, being Israel, having been at war for 60 years with one Arab /Muslim nation or another, having witnessed the end of a close relationship with the Iranian people as the result of the Islamic revolution, which bears many similarities to what we’re witnessing today having started out itself as a secular movement by students wanting their freedom, having seen the rise of Hamas through democratic mechanisms and then the dissolution of that democracy due to its conflict with Islamic law, watching Turkey our once close ally turn against us, also due to a rise of Islam, and understanding that much like Ray Hanania stated in his piece Bad News for Israel, that “Democracy will give Egyptian people a voice, and their voice may demand that peace accord be broken.”

And yet, Mr. Friedman openly attacks Israel, yet again, for being concerned. Not about the benefits that real democracy can bring to the Egyptian people, but by whether or not in the end, democracy will be the real result of the uprising. The simple fact that Israel voices concern as opposed to jubilantly celebrating the events in Egypt is enough for Friedman and the NYTimes to convict Israel in the international court of opinion of at the least, cynical, selfish and detrimental behavior but what is really a more sinister and insidious claim that smacks of the type of bias and bigotry currently found in the New Anti-Semitism.

Yes, Mr. Friedman has been a total and complete failure when it came to accurately analyzing and predicting the events and developments in the Middle East, their causes, and their results, which is probably the reason that the Obama administration has been as well. For Mr. Friedman is no doubt an adviser to the Obama administration. At every turn they failed. They abandoned their Lebanese allies to the grips of Hezbollah. They stood silently while Mahmud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs beat the Iranian people into submission after protesting fixed elections and demanding justice, going to far as to reassure the Iranian leadership that the US had no interest in interfering. So much for the fallacy of Mr. Friedman or the Obama administration supporting the admirable aspirations of an oppressed people to a voice, freedom and democracy. Looks more like political expediency to me.

Regarding negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, the Obama administration made demands from the Israelis that even the Palestinians had never made (demanding a complete freeze of construction in the West Bank as a prerequisite to restarting talks), completely bringing talks to a dead end, and then continued to pile pressure on Israel when the Palestinians completely refused to even talk. Then the Obama administration openly attacked Hosni Mubarak, who for good or for bad, has been an American ally and the cornerstone of middle east peace for the past three decades, which not surprisingly is making other American allies in the middle east very nervous including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, and yes, Israel.

In fact, it seems that Mr. Friedman and the Obama administration are more open to concession and being sympathetic with the worst dictators of the Middle East such as Ahmadinejad and Assad, while aggressively slamming its own allies.

With his completely off the mark calls it has become patently clear that Mr. Friedman has no real understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East, or if he does, he’s been blatantly lying to his readership. And it has also become clear that as opposed to trying to offer insightful, useful analysis of the events in the middle east to try and understand what is going to happen before the fact, all he can do is write after the fact commentary that cannot even be considered an objective view of events that have taken place. Or even more worrisome, use these events to constantly attack Israel, its leadership, its concerns for security, and it’s very legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

As I’ve already stated in the past, Mr. Friedman should hang up his pen. He no longer even pretends to be a political analyst. He’s a writer scorned. He’s lost his ability to objectively view situations and events in the world, he's lost his credibility, and yet he still marches on his newest mission, to bring down the Israeli government and blame it for the ills in the middle east.

The Battle is Lost - Reconciling Judaism and Israel

2011-02-05T07:15:00.000-08:00

I recently had the pleasure of hosting the friend of my family for a few hours in Tel Aviv. From the little time I spent with him, I got the impression that Jim's a good guy, a real guy, trying to figure out the world, and his place in it. He's a History teacher, and American, and currently lives in Germany. He's of Jewish decent, but never identified as being Jewish "during my adult life," as he put it. His goal of coming to Israel? For the experience, to see the country itself, beyond all the hype he reads in the media, outside of the classroom.

Our visit was pleasant enough. The day after his arrival, I headed out to meet him last Saturday afternoon, we did a few hour walking tour around South Tel Aviv. I was allowed to bear my soul, go on a rant about Israel, its place in the world, and the world's attitude of it.

After our short visit, he continued on his week journey in Israel, his first time here. To meet up with people he was referred to apparently by friends of his. After completing his journey I sent him a message saying it was great to meet with him, and hope he had a good trip. He replied by stating he has to contemplate the "intense and discomforting discussions that I had there."

Of course that peaked my curiosity, and I sent him a message back stating that I'd be interested in hearing about his discomforting discussions. What I got back was, albeit the initial impressions of a man thrown into Israel on a whirlwind tour speaking to who I can only assume were mostly zealots his friends wanted him to speak with for perhaps precisely that reason, what I got back was a damning analysis defining Israelis as nothing short of "xenophobic, jingoistic, racist, sexist, militarist, right-wing, paranoid, dogmatists who, as such, are horrendous interlocutors."

I look back at our discussions and wonder if that's the impression I gave him, and for me it's hard to see that it is. But then again, my definition of "right wing" has significantly changed after living in Israel. I still look at myself for all practical purposes as having many left wing beliefs, at least regading society in general. A fact that many people I know laugh at. But the reasoning I give in a previous piece I wrote titled "Israel hasn’t Abandoned the Left, the Left has Abandoned Israel.

In his message to me he states that "It seems that the country has been all but taken over by religious extremists. Religious fundamentalism of all varieties is disgusting." Though I have to wonder just how much of the country he reviewed and how many different people he talked with before coming to that conclusion, or if it was simply the conclusions he made after talking to a handful of people in Jerusalem. And in spite of what many people think, Jerusalem is certainly not all of Israel.

In any case, I'm not here to criticize Jim, he came here and made his observations based on his knowledge, education and experience. Based upon the people he spoke with (me included), and the things he experienced, and of course framed in the context of what he's learned about Israel up until now.

What his letter has showed me though, is that indeed Israel is an entity that while defining itself as Jewish, and having so many Jewish characteristics to it, has developed, as a part of circumstance, to become something that many people in the world, including many Jews, just can't reconcile with. On the one hand, we all know of the Judaism we see in the movies, our synagogues, those self debasing, struggling with Jewish guilt, educated, socially active Jewish, the picture of Jewish that American Jews have of themselves, geeky, scrawny, often weak. And for decades for many Jews, this very same Israel has been such an inspiration. For as opposed to the Jews of Europe who were brought to the slaughter like sheep, as opposed to the unattractive Jewish stereotype, Israel is a country with beautiful people that carry guns and aren't afraid to stand up for themselves.

Though today, as we can see with Jim, there is a new breed of Jewish youth, that while openly admit that they don't identify with Judaism still find an association with Judaism, even though they haven't gone to synagogue for years, if ever. For many of them, coming to Israel shatters all the sterotypes they've been brought up to believe about Jews. And for them, the media's ongoing vilification of Israel can then be backed up with a short visit to Israel talking to the right people. Though besides myself, I can't be certain who Jim spoke with.

But with only a week in Israel, I really wonder just how much he spoke with the average Israeli. If he traveled to Hadera or Netanya, and spoke with the shop keepers or people on the streets. If he visited Sderot and spoke with the kids that still wet their beds at age 12 because of living a lifetime under missle attack. If he paid a visit to the Kibbutzim andn Moshavim and spoke with the leaders of the Kibbutz movement and got their opinion. If he spoke with Jews who were forced to flee any of two dozen Arab and Muslim countries.

What I do know is that a very bright and intelligent gentleman walked away from Israel declaring that all the sterotypes he's learned about Israelis, I have to assume primarily through the media, are correct. And that is not only sad, it is concerning.

I personally realize that living in Israel for 13 years has created in myself a subjectivity regarding the Arab Israeli conflict and the status of Israel that is hard to step outside of. But at the same time, I have to wonder if the impressions obtained by Jim during his short trip are really reflective of Israel. Then again, I ask myself if it really matters. For his impressions are his impressions, which will be shared with others. And regardless of whether or not the input he recieved was balanced, or if he takes into consideration Israel's circumstances and its history, his impressions, knowingly or not, go out to contribute to the what has fast become the anti-Israeli gospel in which Israelis are all the worst things a human being can be.

Its made me realize that the reality of Israel, its circumstances, its actions, the attitude of its people, and even fact of its existence which, in an "enlightened" Western world can itself be considered an abomination (a religious state?), so many people cannot reconcile these circumstances with the concept of Judaism as held by so many, whether Jewish or not.

And it results in many people that are Jewish, identify themselves as Jewish, don't identify themselves as Jewish but still associate themselves to some degree with Judaism like Jim, distancing themselves from Judaism as the result of Israel. While with others who are not Jewish, continue on to project these sterotypes of Israel and Israelis onto Judaism as a whole. Whether this is the result of images of Israel portrayed in the international media, the ongoing deligitmization of Israel by such people as Jimmy Carter or George Soros, or by personal experiences of these people's visits such as Jims to Israel, regardless of the content, it doesn't really matter.

And I say to myself, he didn't get a good thorough view of Israel, he doesn't take into account the history of both Israel, and those that make up its population (even though he says he does), he doesn't take into account the circumstances of Israel's existence, and the ongoing wars waged against Israel, he doesn't take into account the societies which surround Israel, I understand that really none of that matters. All that matters is his opinion, with whatever he decides to take into account, and his feelings about the situation. And I realize, regardless of the reasons, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the logic, we've lost the war of hearts and minds.

For if this is the impression of Israel Jim walked away with, then chances are others who may not be trying to be so objective, will take an even more militant stance. And it becomes clear why the Palestinians have become the cause celebre for those lost Europeans that have abandoned religion and who struggle to find meaning to their own lives.

And us in Israel? I guess it'll just justify our already overloaded persecution complex. I just hope that Jim will think hard about his visit, and himself be able to see beyond the few meetings he had. Be able to see Israel, not just as a state of its people and their attitudes, but in the context of the neighborhood in which they exist, and through the prism of history and the events that its people have lived.

For no matter what anybody says, you may want to try to separate them. But in the end, if you don't examine events and places in light of the circumstances in which they exist and the experiences which they have had, you're just not seeing the whole picture.

Will the Egyptian Revolution Shatter the Illusion of Peace in the Middle East?

2011-02-02T01:19:00.000-08:00

The events of the past week in Egypt have grabbed the world’s attention. We’ve been bombarded by it in the news, and analysts have had no lack observations to make about its true meaning. Though the most significant piece I have seen to date was written by Ray Hanania titled Bad news for Israel. And his opening statement basically blows the lid off of what has been hidden from the public all these years, which he states “Democracy will give Egyptian people a voice, and their voice may demand that peace accord be broken.“

For thirty years there has been peace between Israel and Egypt, if only a cold peace. That peace was celebrated in 1979 when the accords were signed at the behest of none other than Jimmy Carter. And the dirty secret which was obvious to all that dared to be honest with themselves is that this peace was only achievable because the one side that completely rejected Israel’s existence, Egypt with a vast majority Muslim population, was governed by a dictator.

Indeed, this very same modus operandi was also key to peace between Israel and Jordan. For as the world, scared to admit the sad truth that any nation run by Islam completely reject’s Israel’s existence on religious grounds is unwilling and, indeed incapable of making peace with Israel. For years the West tried to hide these facts, and the world ignored the fact that the only reason the treaties between Israel, Egypt and Jordan were a success were precisely because they were made with dictators.

And today, with the upheaval in Egypt the world is starting to discover a sad fact: that peace between Muslim nations and Israel is not possible, not because Israel and Israelis don’t want peace, but because the Muslim world sees Israel as an abomination, blasphemy, and something to be eradicated.

President Obama today stated recently that any political process in Egypt must include the Islamic Brotherhood. And while from the Western point of view it makes sense that the “democratic” political system include all major constituencies, the question becomes how can a democratic system continue to blossom if a major participant in that system rejects democracy and democratic values. And as has become clear to the world, a democratic election does not a democratic society make. The Palestinians had democratic elections and elected Hamas, a terrorist organization that went on to violently overthrow Gaza and transform it into an Islamic republic. Lebanon has democratic elections though one of the participating parties, Hezbollah, does not only not believe in democracy, they have more weapons and power than the army of the state of Lebanon itself and therefore can influence the outcome of events by undemocratic means. Thereby for all practical purposes sterilizing any real democratic processes.

Though none of these events seem to make much of a difference to President Barack Obama or his administration. As a matter of fact, while he was oddly silent in the wake of Iranian elections, the people’s protest against the fixing of those elections, and the violence used by the Iranian regime to put down these protests (he didn’t support the people’s will all the while silent in the face of violence used to suppress that will and even speaking with a conciliatory tone to the Iranian dictator), he is now not only vocal in supporting non-democratic entities in the Egyptian protests including the Muslim Brotherhood, but now he is slamming the very same Egyptian government that managed to make peace with Israel and help keep relative peace in the Middle East for decades. Granted, the people of Egypt deserve freedom, they deserve prosperity and they should be supported in their demands for a better life, but does that support really entail negating America’s recognition of the positive aspects that have come from Egypt over the past few decades and throwing one of the US’s closest allies under the bus?

Not only that, but the liberal Ha’aretz is also attacking the Israel/Egyptian peace format. A piece by anti-Israel activist Amira Hass is titled “When Israel's protective net of tyranny tears. I guess that means that Ha’aretz, which has been a vocal if not violent advocate of “peace with the Palestinians at any cost,” now believes that making peace is tyranny if it’s not with a democratically elected government and a people that support it. And if so, then just what has Ha’aretz been pushing all these years? Mahmud Abbas and the current Palestinian authority are not the democratically elected Palestinian government, Hamas is. And the majority of Palestinians don’t support peace with Israel. So Ha’aretz seems a little confused to say the least.

And then we come to the final question, if the American administration supports the Egyptian people in overthrowing the current Egyptian government, and if they support the involvement of the Islamic Brotherhood as part of the political process, if the Islamic brotherhood wants to tear up the peace treaty and wage war with Israel, and if the Egyptian people want the same, does that make it a legitmiate policy of the Egyptian people, much like President Obama’s administration claim that Jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam?

Does the Obama Administration believe that Islam’s rejection of Israel is valid if it’s the people’s will and that they have the right to wage war on Israel? And if not, then just what do they think will happen if in Egypt an Islamic regime rises? We don’t have to guess, we’re seeing today the process of Islamification of a democratic government in Turkey. And that includes the rejection of Israel, vehement anti-Semitism being propagated by the government which is quickly going down a path of belligerence and confrontation by Turkey against Israel.

There is something very suspicious about everything taking place in Egypt. And something very hypocritical when the very governments that for 30 years cheered the Egyptian Israeli peace treaty only made possible by a dictator is now slammed for the very reason for existence.

Can the Egyptian people successfully make the government transition from dictator to democracy? And can that democracy provide for the betterment of all Egyptians. I sincerely hope so for the Egyptian peoples sake, and for everyone else in the Middle East. For if not, Egypt will look more like Gaza than anything else.

Israel hasn’t Abandoned the Left, the Left has Abandoned Israel

2011-01-11T02:08:00.000-08:00

Reading another article in today’s Ha’aretz titled Israel's radical left has given up on taking power I felt compelled to write a comment for the article.

The article talks about the Israeli left’s failure to make a real impact in Israel and dwindling relevance in the Israeli political scene. It reminisces about the 1992 elections, and how Yitzchak Rabin managed to round up the troops and win an election. One in which there was a wide consensus both among Israeli Arabs and Jews that wanted to move the country towards peace. And how after Rabin’s assassination the Israeli left lost its sway.

What’s remarkable to me, as an American born Jew raised in the bosom of liberal reform Jewish values and one that still holds to this day respect for all peoples of all races and religions, gender, nationality and sexual orientation (or at least those that respect me), is that I still have these values. Yet the current Israeli left, and the world opinion of Israel would seem to believe that I no longer embrace these values. And they are wrong.

And I can tell you that I’m not alone in this position. I personally know many Israelis of all colors and nationalities, genders and yes, sexual preferences, that feel this same way that 18 years ago went out and supported the Oslo process, the peace movement, and historic reconciliation. After Yitzhak Rabin was murdered, we mourned and for years attended protests, still holding onto the belief that peace was possible. Still clinging on to the hope that those on the other side of this implacable conflict wanted the same thing that we did, peaceful coexistence mutual respect of each other’s right to live freely in one’s own nation, and control of our own destinies.

And what hasn’t changed are my values, or those of the other hundreds of thousands of Israelis that went out and protested with me, of our believing that everyone is equal, or our desire to live in peace. Of believing that in the end the ideal solution would be to come to a peace agreement with the Palestinians, so they can have their own nation to build and be in control of their own destiny. No, I also haven’t abandoned my liberal values in believing that all people are created equal, and everyone should have the right to determine their own destiny, contribute their unique contribution to society, and be whatever it is they want to be.

What’s changed is that I no longer believe that the Palestinians, whether it is individuals, Palestinian society, their culture, or their government, hold these same values. Over the course of the past 18 years, with the second intifada, suicide bombings, Palestinian children murdering young Jewish couples in the forests of Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat releasing hundreds of Hamas terrorists from Jail, Palestinians electing Hamas as their government, or Palestinians Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas refusing to even sit an negotiate peace, it’s become hard to believe that the Palestinians are interested in peaceful co-existence .

And it’s not only the Palestinians that have led to this change. The international community is also responsible through broken promise after broken international promise, whether it was their promise to monitor the entry into Gaza through the Rafiah crossing to prevent the smuggling of weapons after an Israeli withdrawl, which they unilaterally abandoned at the first sign of a fight, or their broken promise to not let Hezbollah rearm after the second Lebanon war.

And of course, the growing international deligitimization campaign taking place against Israel has also had its impact, whether it be through the growing consensus among "enlightened" European nations that suggests Israel, even with a strong and independent judiciary doesn’t have the ability to make critical moral judgement for itself, the questioning of its right to define itself as a Jewish state, and even Israel's very right to exist is being questioned. Add to that the repeated public questioning of Israel's desire for peace all while the Palestinians, while completely refusing to negotiate and having clearly abandoned any pretense of coming to a negotiated peace settlement, being given unwavering support in their drive for independence inspite of their rejectionism.

Yes folks, it’s me. The same guy that believes we all deserve equal bidding in this world. I’m not alone here. I’m with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other Israelis that still hold these same values. And contrary to what Ha’aretz is trying to brainwash you into believing, we haven’t abandoned the left. We haven’t abandoned what some call liberal values, but what I prefer to refer to as respecting everyone’s right to human dignity, regardless of their political leanings, religious beliefs, race, nationality, and so forth. No, the left has abandoned us.

In Israel, Ha’aretz newspaper repeatedly tries to portray not only me, but the entire Israeli people, as a band of racist fascists. Sure, we have our serving of those, much like any country, even the United States of America, but it’s far from all of us, also like the good old US of A.

Yes, the Israeli left has abandoned the Israeli people, they aren’t even Israeli anymore. They’re ashamed of being Israeli. As opposed to trying to productively contribute to open dialog in Israel among all peoples of all faiths, nationalities and religions, they actively work in the international arena to delegitimize Israel, our actions, and our right to self defense, even our right to self determination.

The Israeli left has become extreme, and fragmented. They’re the old kooky professor you once admired in the University for his ideals, but realized he probably should have retired long ago. For while they seem to have lost their belief in Israeli society, mistakenly claiming that we’re not the same society we once were, we still stand here with the same values we’ve always had. We’re still that same group of people that went out and supported peace with all our hearts because it’s something we so desperately wanted, and wanted to believe in. It’s not our values that have changed, it’s our faith in those that were supposed to be our partners in peace, it’s our faith in those in the world that were supposed to defend our rights, and not just those of the other side.

We didn’t abandon the left. We’ve been forced to deal with a reality that shows that our partners in peace don’t even want to talk to us, aren’t interested in mutual, peaceful coexistence, and just might not have the same values for tolerance and mutual respect as we do. Just take a look at their EU funded schoolbooks. No, it’s the left that has abandoned us. And that is what has rendered them irrelevant.

Unethical Reporting: Ha’aretz Publishes Conjecture and Claims it’s Fact

2011-01-09T00:30:00.000-08:00

A shocking article appeared in today’s online version of Ha’aretz daily newspaper regarding the death of a Palestinian woman named Jawaher Abu Ramah titled The IDF uses propaganda like an authoritarian regime. In it, its author Gideon Levy tries to brainwash his readers into believing that unsubstantiated claims made by the Palestinians regarding various aspects of her death, items which are disputed by both sides and have yet to be determined, are actually “definitive facts.”

However, the only definitive fact that appears in this case is the definitive fact that the Palestinian Authority refused to conduct an autopsy or allow Israel to do it to determine the actual cause of death. And without this ability to determine the actual cause of death, there is no way in knowing what happened.

In this groundbreaking piece of corrupt reporting, Mr. Levy through the respectability of Ha’aretz is attempting to make himself an authority on a subject and convince the world that just because he claims these items are definitive facts, and that they are being published by Ha’aretz, that they are.

In the world of ethical reporting, definitive facts are those items which have been checked and verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, items that have concrete proof such as photographs, blood tests and x-rays (witness accounts are not definitive facts, they dependend upon the reliability of the witness), having obtained concrete confirmation of the information being provided.

As a matter of fact, almost every item that Mr. Levy claims as definitive fact is nothing more than conjecture. Mr. Levy Claims that Jawaher Abu Ramah was participating in this demonstration, yet there is no concrete proof like a photograph. Perhaps she was, but this is certainly not a definitive fact. And as we’ve learned many times over in the past, the Palestinians often lie. For example, during operation defensive shield none other than Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat claimed that Israel massacred more than 500 Palestinians in the Jenin refugee camp and buried them in mass graves. This accusation was later refuted by the UN.

Mr. Levy also claims that Jawaher Abu Ramah “inhaled very large quantities of the gas that Israel Defense Forces soldiers fired that day.” This also is also not a definitive fact, but another unsubstantiated claim made by Ha’aretz and its writer Gideon Levy. It is not known if Jawaher Abu Ramah inhaled any gas at all because the Palestinians refused to conduct an autopsy. And if she did, it is not known if that was the cause of death.

So all the while Ha’aretz and Mr. Levy are accusing the Israel Defense forces of making up lies (accusations he makes in his article), they themselves, a media outlet that is supposed to be the banner of ethical, responsible behavior and reporting, are taking unsubstantiated claims and trying to convince the public that they are definitive fact. So while Gideon Levy and Ha’aretz accuse the IDF of “using propaganda like an authoritarian regime,” it seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For after all, what else can you call a situation in which a media mouthpiece claims to be an authority and subsequently tries to convince its readers that something is fact when no definitive proof has been provided?

The Palestinians time and again have been caught in lies used to create anti-Israel propaganda which is then picked up by the media and spread across the world. Yet today is different. Today stands as a watershed moment, one in which a once respectable Israeli media outlet openly declares that it determines facts, and that facts aren’t some objective events that have been verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that they are the words of its author and the publication in which they are published that make them fact.Today is the day that Ha’aretz Newspaper completely destroyed its reputation as being a reliable and honest reporter of news and fact. Today is the day that the mouthpiece of the Israeli left wing, those that believe that all people are equal, that transparency is the key to proper working government and society, rob from its very constituency any shred of decency or believability. Today is indeed a sad day for Israeli society.

Selectively Applying International Law Equals Discrimination

2011-01-08T09:30:00.000-08:00

For anybody that follows the events in the Middle East, and particularly relating to Israel, whether it be the wars waged by its neighbors and the response of Israel, or the ongoing battle between the Palestinians and Israelis, one thing is certain to stand out: the regularly and reoccurring claims that Israel is breaking international law and must be held accountable.

This subject is raised again and again, whether its through binding UN resolutions which are considered international law that single out Israel's actions in protecting its citizens while ignoring those who Israel is defending against like Hezbollah or Palestinian terrorists, UN institutions like the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), whose members regularly include those countries best known for violating Human Rights like Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia, or those countries that have enacted laws that grant themselves what is known as the "Right of Universal Jurisdiction," whereby " states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country."

Indeed, almost any accusation made today in the world of court opinion and in the media try to suggest that Israel is in violation of international law and must be brought to justice. And what's truly remarkable is the proportion of accusations against Israel in breaking "international law," as compared to other countries in the world. For example, of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. Can you imagine, more than half of all UN resolutions were against Israel? With more than 190 countries in the world, many of which deep in war that see large scale massacre of civilians and persecution of their minorities, its of all places Israel that has garnered so much international ire.

But law is law, right? And the law must be enforced to protect the innocent. The funny thing is that in the Western World of democratic nations and for those who believe accountability is a fundamental principle of justice, law needs to be applied without regard to race, religion, nationality, gender or sexual orientation. In America, the Blind Lady of Justice holding her scales is the picture we all have of the judicial system, she's both objectively weighing the evidence at hand, and doing so equally for all peoples.

However it seems that in the international court of justice, whether that be the UN, courts in Spain, the UK or Belgium that have granted themselves the right of Universal Jurisdiction, or otherwise, justice isn't blind. In fact, as we can see with UN resolutions, international law is selectively applied, with the vast majority of focus falling upon one country in this world, Israel.

Think about the Goldstone commission. Not only was it created to investigate Israel's actions during wartime while no similar commission has ever in the history of the UN been created to investigate American, British, Russian, Chinese, Iranian or Sudanese actions during wartime.

This same commission's mission was set up to ONLY investigate Israel's actions during wartime and their result. Their mandate did not include investigating the reason why Israel took the actions it did, which was to stop a barrage of thousands of missles from being launched at their population centers over the period of years, it also didn't bother to investigate the other side of this conflict, Hamas, an internationally labeled terror organization, who with every missles they launched broke international law, who not only targeted Israel's civilian population, but used their own population as human shields. I mean, can you imagine?

Let's look at this from another angle. Imagine if American laws were only applied to African Americans, would you call that justice? No, it wouldn't be justice, as a matter of fact there's a term for it, and it's called discrimination. Some may even justifiably call it persecution. Furthermore, imagine if not only were laws applied to only black Americans, but when events happened, such as a fight taking place between an African American and a white American, the circumstances weren't examined, or taken into account. Imagine if members of a White Power movement attacked an African American family, and the father of this family fought back to protect them, and in the process injured or killed one or more of the White Power group. Yet the only thing that was investigated as part of the crime was how many of the white men were killed, how they were injured, while completely ignoring the fact that it was a clear case of self defense. And those members of the White Power group that attacked the black man were let off scott free, while the black man was prosecuted for the "crimes" he committed in injuring and killing others.

Sadly enough, most American's don't need to imagine this. This was the law for generations, and unfortunately it still happens today, albeit much less than it did just 60 short years ago.

And yet, Israel's treatment in the international court of law and public opinion is much the same. All too often propaganda is published in the media as fact, quotes from "witnesses" that are unsubstantiated are disseminated, and Israeli citizens are even arrested based on unsubstantiated claims, for example, in the United Kingdom. This is what the United Kingdom calls Universal Jurisdiction. A claimant can walk into any court in the UK and make unsubstantiated charges of war crimes against a visiting foreigner with no proof whatsoever, and the UK court system has the right to issue an arrest warrant for that individual. This law has been used regularly in the UK to harass Israeli officials with the threat of arrest and detention. Apparently the British call that law, where I come from that's call persecution.

So when the United Nations is used regularly to propagate resolution after resolution against Israel, and when the media regularly calls to prosecute Israelis for war crimes, while ignoring dozens of states which live by the sword and regularly murder and oppress their own populations both during peace time and war time, it is discrimination.

And selectively applying international law not only equals discrimination, it is nothing less than outright persecution. And Israel is the victim of clear and undeniable discrimination in the international justice system and international media.

When Human Rights Organizations have Something to Hide

2011-01-07T05:55:00.000-08:00

Transparency.

It’s the backbone of democracy, responsible government and free and open society. It enables all of us to understand a little bit better the driving force behind many of the decisions made that effect our lives.

And yet, more and more so transparency is slowly being purposely eroded in the very institutions in which we need them. In government, and organizations that are supposed to be protecting the rights of individuals, beyond personal bias and politics.

Last week the Israeli Parliament voted into law a bill that will require that Non Governmental Organizations working in Israel and the occupied territories, particularly Human Rights organizations, open up their books and provide transparency into the funding they receive that drives their operations, and all too often, their agenda. This bill was initiated by the Israeli right. And many in the Israeli left and in the international arena are claiming that it is yet further proof of an agenda that is persecuting the left wing.

And while by their very nature, Human Rights organizations are perceived as being left wing (many don't percieve right wing organizations as having an inherent human rights charter), the left in its claims are either confused, or purposely misleading.

Human Rights organizations, as opposed to political parties that may belong to the left or right wing, aren't political organizations, or at least they are not supposed to be political organizations. Yet sadly over the past decade, particularly as it involves the Arab Israeli conflict and that with the Palestinians, we've seen them transformed into such, taking sides in a conflict as opposed to remaining neutral and trying to help the innocent. The UNHRC or UN Human Rights Council for example has repeatedly condemned Israel while barely mentioning the world's worst Human Rights Offenders including Sudan, China, Russia, Iran and more.

Furthermore its been revealed that the literally dozens of Human Rights organizations such as the New Israel Fund that operate in Israel and the occupied territories have been actively compiling data with the express purpose of providing it to the Goldstone commission in an attempt to further persecute Israel, put Israeli soldiers in jail, and rob the State of Israel of the right to protect itself and its civilians.

For example, it was recently revealed that Human Rights Watch actually used its anti-Israel activities to raise money from none other than Saudi Arabia, a regular offender of Human Rights, in which women are oppressed, and Christians and gays are persecuted.

To put that in perspective, imagine a human rights organization working to bring American soldiers to trial that served in Afghanistan, being financed by the Taliban and to some degree subject to their agenda.

There are other organizations in the world that call themselves charities, claiming to be filling the role of human rights organizations. They provide housing to the poor, and food. Build infrastructure, and even give financial assistance to those in need. Two of these organizations are Hezbollah and Hamas. And hand to hand with their charity work, they actively work to harm Israelis. So on the one hand they're "charity organizations," and on the other they have a political agenda.

Some of these human rights organizations that operate in Israel and the occupied territories, while not using weapons, are employing lawfare, or the persecution of Israel through international law, to bring harm to Israelis and harm Israel's ability to protect its citizens. Now I don't mean to say there's an across the board equivalent of physical harm that can be caused by the bullets and missles of Hezbollah and Hamas, with lawfare that actively looks to arrest Israelis in various countries in the world and rob Israel of its right to defend itself in the international community, but indeed the similarities are there.

And to those that claim these organizations are only looking to prosecute Israeli soldiers that have broken international law, the application of international law to only one nation while ignoring the actions of others is inherently biased, and subsequently, an act of persecution and discrimination in itself. Not to mention taking actions out of context is also a form of persecution and discrimination.

Human Rights organizations benefit from what is known as the halo effect which provides an sense of infalibility. The halo effect is "a cognitive bias whereby the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of another trait of that person or movement." Or in other words because these organizations are doing very important work in trying to protect the human rights of some, people have difficulty believing they can have an agenda or be guilty of acting in unacceptable or discriminitory ways, or have a one sided agenda.

Unfortunately, as we saw with the Gaza Flotilla and the events of the Mavi Marmara, on which a large group of supposed Human Rights activists cut apart the ship and used metal bars, chains and knifes to attack Israeli soldiers that were boarding the ship, in our generation we're all sadly seeing the nature of the Human Rights movement being transformed from one in which they are actively working to for the good of all people, to organizations with political agendas, that show a clear bias, and who all too often see their role as more of a means of achieving political change than providing for the good of the under priviledged and persecuted. And if you don't believe it, just read this piece on the founder of Human Rights Watch.

But the bottom line is that that when Human Rights Organizations feel they have something to hide it should raise a red light to everybody. Since when did these organizations decide that transparency is actually a threat to their operations? And since when did the world decide that transparency is a threat to democracy?

If human rights organizations have something to hide, doesn't that in itself indicate there's something problematic going on behind the scenes. Something they feel will imperil their operations and support? If the Israeli bill demanding transparency does indeed target only left wing organizations, and because they are left wing organizations, then it should be modified to include all organizations. But let's remember, again, that Human Rights Organizations are not political organizations, even if by their nature they are percieved as left wing, and its important to make that distinction. Why? Because it shows that the law being enacted by the Israeli government is not one meant to persecute a political party based on its beliefs, its one meant to bring accountability. Accountability to organizations, that as off late, whether its through wielding knifes and axes, or working actively to deligitimze a sovereign state in international forums, are straying from their raison d'etre, the protection of the innocent, persecuted, and oppressed, irregardless of race, religion or nationality.

The Human Rights movement is at a crossroads, a watershed moment. They have been straying from their true mission which is to work as an organization beyond politics and use their resources to help all, and are morphing into organizations with a political agenda that are deciding that only the rights of some are worth fighting for, while apparently others don't have the same rights.

If these organizations which are operational in Israel truly have the well being of the oppressed and underprivileged at heart, then they should have no problem opening their books and letting the world know where their funding is coming from.

They should also cease and desist from activities that actively work to persecute Israel in international forums. When keeping these things in mind its always important to remember the three principles of examining Israel's actions, the circumstances of these actions, the intent of these actions, and the relativity of these actions against other countries under similar circumstances. Whether that be the actions of American and UN forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the treatment of Saudi Arabia and Iran of their minorities. For any judgment of Israel's actions lacking these perspectives are nothing less than discrimination.

Is Israel's new law persecuting the left? Only if you believe Human Rights organizations are political entities (which they shouldn't be) and have the right to hide the interests that define their agenda. And in any case, I have a difficult time accepting that a call for transparency is persecution. I whole heartedly agree that all Non Governmental and Human Rights organizations should be transparent about their donors, funding and operations. And if the new law is not currently worded to reflect this all encompassing view, then it should be modified to do so.

In the meantime, it seems that sadly for the persecuted in the world, Human Rights organizations are losing their halo due to prejudiced actions by organizations as important as the UN Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch. By taking up one-sided discriminatory political agendas, they risk losing their freedom to operate and fulfilling one of the most important roles on the face of the planet. And those that stand to lose the most are those that need the most help.

I want to thank my friend Dan for bringing this subject up. Its an important one and something that should be discussed by all.

Its not Racism, its the Conflict Stupid

2010-12-30T12:16:00.000-08:00

It not about race, really. Though that's what some would like you to believe. Of course, we identify ourselves as belonging to groups, have those we feel close to, and those we feel threatened by. And religion, well we all know what religion is about. Its about trying to make sense. Its about structure for those who need it, its also about identity, remembering the past, and living in the present, its about community, and its about continuity, being part of something greater than ourselves.

There's been a lot of talk about race, in Israel, and about Israel, and about racism. There have been letters from Rabbis, orthodox rabbis that have called their parishioners to not rent to Arabs, there have been letters from female Rabbis, called Rebitzens, calling for young Jewish women not to date Arab men. And indeed, ask anybody if they're surprised about these pronouncements and most will sadly shake their head no.

And the media, Israel being Israel, likes to portray Israel in a dastardly light, for after all, that is what sells newspapers, draws web traffic and increases click through rates. And then there's the Israeli left, being led by the Israeli media outlet Ha'aretz, who over the past few months has been warning of the pending fascist and racist take over of Israeli society by the "evil ones." And all these pronouncements just seem to prove their point.

And maybe in Ha'aretz eyes its true, maybe they really do see an imminent threat to a free, liberal Israeli society. But what they're missing is its not about freedom, and its not about democracy. And Israeli society, while under pressure, isn't any more at risk than the US, UK, or France, though they can't see beyond their own obsessive neruoses.

The battle being waged here in the middle east, and in Israel itself, is about acceptance. Its about rejection, and its about survival. Much as it has been for Jews for millenia. And while Jews out in the diaspora have discovered how to live in safety and security, and how to be accepted by their neighbors, Jews in the State of Israel have yet to attain that noble goal, no matter how hard they try. Sure, some of their neighbors have grudgingly accepted their existence for lack of options, but its a cold acceptance at best. And yet others, until this day, still refuse to accept them, and promise to work to their dying breath, to run us out of this land, to make us a minority, to bring it back into the embrace of Islam.

Have no doubt, there is a deep animosity, a nagging suspicion, perhaps even a hatred, and a lack of trust among many Israeli Jews, of the Arab population in general, Israeli, Palestinian, or otherwise. And the religious community, it's doing what it knows how to do best, withdrawal into itself, preserve itself, and its hold onto its people. And it also feels this threat from Arabs, a threat to its world view, its children, its way of life, and its physical safety.

And have no doubt, that the never ending pronouncements of Arab governments predicting the end of Israel, calling for Zionists to be killed, of Israeli Arabs, as few as they might be, working with Israel's enemies, and the Arab and Muslim world's refusal to this day to accept Israel, has a very big role in the pronouncements we've heard over the past few weeks.

And have no doubt, that it is a bitter, unending conflict that breeds hate and resentment, and that is really the source of these pronouncements, and not, as some would like you to believe, racism.

In the end, Israel is here to be the Jewish state, the state for the Jews, and yet democratic. And inherent in that definition, is a very clear dichotomy, one which some say make Israel undemocratic, religion and democracy being incompatible. And perhaps in some ways Israel isn't a conventional democracy. But much like the reality we live in causes us to adapt, and do what we need to survive, Israel is making the best effort it can to have the various pieces of the puzzle work together, still trying to provide equality and a decent standard of living to all its citizens, in spite of this horribly bitter, never ending conflict in which its very existence is rejected by most of its neighbors, some of its citizens, and today, many of its friends.

As much as Israel would like to provide a safe haven for the millions of Sudanese and other African refugees, it also needs to think about its existence. Its balance. It doesn't posses a landmass the size of the United States, not even of the State of Illinois. And as much as Israel would like to make its Arab citizens feel every much a part of Israel as its Jewish citizens, there will always be that resentment of its Arab citizens, at least among some, that they live in a country that defines itself and is defined as others as Jewish.

And as much as Israel would like to make peace with the Palestinians. We don't do it on any terms, we won't give up our identity, or our right to define our nation by our religion, for after all, there are already 56 countries in the world that define themselves by Islam.

To some, that makes us racist. To some, that makes us fascist. To the publishers, editors and writers at Ha'aretz that makes us a failure as a modern "liberal Western society" and all the above. But the truth of the matter is, its who we are. Stop attacking our families with bombs, misses and bullets. Stop trying to make those that defend us into criminals for doing so, stop calling our children criminals for defending us, stop questioning our legitimacy and right to be here, who we are. Start waking up to the fact that the fact we're so prominent in the international media, particularly the way we are vilified no matter what we do, and how it is only the worst of us that is apparently newsworthy in the world, is nothing less than horrid racism and a drastic failure of western liberal society.

Israel is not a perfect place, we make plenty of mistakes. Many don't agree with our actions, and most of those don't have to live here, under constant attack by all. We want peace, but are not willing to sacrifice ourselves, our children, our security. We can't make peace with a partner that refuses to talk to us, and won't make peace if we don't think that agreements we sign will be upheld.

For those of you disappointed with what you thought Israel was, well all I can say is that you never really loved her, only some lofty concept of what you thought she was. One in a vacuum, one in which 65 years of bitter conflict didn't force her to make decisions between bad and worse. It doesn't make us racist, it doesn't make us fascist, it doesn't make us bad. It makes us human doing the best we can under the circumstances.

Three Simple Tools for Examining Israel's Actions

2010-12-15T11:23:00.000-08:00

This is a short article that lays down three points of reference that can be used to understand Israel's actions.

The most fundamental problem almost everybody has when the subject of Israel's actions is involved is simply understanding what really happened. In the vast majority of cases the media and outside observers tend to make judgments by the results of an event. Bloody children, a large body count, large scale destruction, and automatically assign blame to whom they presuppose the aggressor, without really taking the time to ask some very fundamental questions that quite honestly are the absolute minimum needed to understand what actually took place. Context all to often is completely stripped from events and the world community makes judgments by what they see, without context, and without accurate framing.

The truth of the matter is that for any reasonable, intelligent human being properly examining Israel's actions is pretty simple. Whether you're having a discussion about them with friends over coffee, a heated exchange at a protest rally, discussing the subject with your students in class, or being attacked with accusations while lecturing, be sure to examine the following aspects about events that have taken place:

Circumstances - Under what circumstances was an action taken. What was the catalyst for an event? Was someone under threat? What were the parties trying to acheive?
Intent - What was the intention of the sides taking the actions? Were they trying to protect themselves or others? Were they trying to provoke the other side? Were they trying to intentionally harm the other side? Where they trying to help others? Are things as clear cut as they are portrayed?
Relativity - Frame action relative to those taken by other individuals, armies or nations under similar conditions or circumstances. What would the US do if facing a similar situation? What would Russia do? And Egypt?

Its important to remember a number of guidelines when examining an event using these tools.

Don't only analyze Israel's actions using these rules, analyze the actions of the other side as well using all three rules. Otherwise you lack context.
Be persistent and don't let someone discourage you. You can't speak about a subject, defend it, or condemn it without examining this information
Make it clear to the other party (and others observing) that you can't be convinced of any argument without doing your due diligence and understanding these all to important aspects of the event, and they shouldn't be either
Don't bully or allow yourself to be bullied, someone who is bullying is trying to win an argument without basis
You can't really know the answers to some of these questions for certain, but if you want to be able to make a judgement or argue a point, you have the moral obligation to make assumptions based on honest examination and without prejudice
Apply a healthy dose of skepticism to everything you see and are told. If something doesn't seem right, focus on that point, try to deconstruct it with what you know, ask yourself and others driving questions, like do human rights activists attack soldiers of a soverign nation with weapons?

Basic questions that you can ask to get to the bottom of things:

What was the circumstances under which a certain action took place?
Why was that person or people doing what they were doing?
Why was that person or people in that location?
What specifically were they doing?
What was their intent?
What were they trying to achieve?
Did they try other means before taking the action they did?
Did they provide any type of warning?
Did they take any precautions to try and minimize damage and injury?
Were there bystanders present?
Were the bystanders hurt?
Why were they in the location they were?
Were they being used by others?
By whom? Why?
And how is this behavior comparable to others in the world under similar circumstances?
How do they meet up with your measure of right and wrong?

When comparing actions to others under similar circumstances, its important to not only compare them to the behavior you would expect, such as that of a nation like Germany, or the USA, but to others like Saudi Arabia and Russia. We might like to hold everybody up to the highest standards, but we need to be realistic. Israel is at war with other nations and guerrilla organizations that don't follow the rules of war (and do things such as hide behind civilians when launching attacks), and once again its important to bring context.

For example, there was an alarmingly high casualty rate among Palestinian civilians in the Gaza war. Though a small detail published by the New York Times as part of the Wikileaks affairs shows that the civilian casualty rate in the Gaza war were actually lower than that normally experienced during wartime. Israel was violently attacked by human rights organizations and the media for the casualty rate. And while indeed it was tragic, it was not suprising relatively to other conflicts in the world. Important context that was stripped from the event.

The same thing can be said for Israel destroying booby trapped houses in Gaza. Another action that got Israel condemned by human rights organizations and nations alike. Yet just a few short weeks ago it was reported that in Afganistan NATO forces had destroyed hundreds of booby trapped houses. These actions were taken "to reduce civilian and military casualties" and deny "Taliban insurgents hiding places and fighting positions." So once again, taken out of context Israel's actions can be portrayed as extreme, brutal, inhumane and illegal. Yet when seen compared to others in similar circumstances, these actions, while seeminlgy extreme, were apparently used by others under similar circumstances.

And one last subject (I promised to keep this short). Perhaps the biggest challenge you'll experience when trying to examine these aspects of an event in a debate is that your interlocutor may be emotional, irrational, unwilling to let you talk, or unwilling to answer you in a reasonable manner. When experiencing this type of situation be calm and cool, and insist on the necessity to examine these three aspects of the event.

You get the point. Start examning these aspects every time you examine an event, in actuality they are the foundation of our ability to make critical moral judgment (understanding not only good from bad, but right from wrong), and as opposed to letting rhetoric, bloody pictures and what sells newspapers convince us what took place, we can let our weighed human judgment do so.

Also, be sure to share this approach with everyone you know. Post a link to this page. For this approach provides the proper lenses through which we can more competently understand events involving Israel and the Arab Israeli conflict.

By remembering to look at an event using these points of examination, you'll cut through much of the rhetoric and half truths and finally be able to answer for yourself all the questions and accusations thrown at you.

Abbas as Arafat, and Rewarding Palestinians for Refusing to Negotiate

2010-12-11T02:01:00.000-08:00

Over the past few months we've been witness to a very interesting string of events. One in which not only have the Palestinians refused to negotiate, but they've been supported by the current American administration in this refusal. Yet somehow, the majority of the world continues to blame Israel for an impasse in "peace" talks.

And much like the American administration of the past few months, most of the world is blaming Israel for this impasse due to their refusal to agree to yet another building freeze, even when the first one was wasted by the Palestinians, and even though there have never been any preconditions for holding talks, not to mention a one sided precondition in which only Israel was required give a one-sided concession as large as determining borders.

And of course, the whole point of the peace talks is to set borders and determine what land will fall within Israeli sovereignty and what land will fall within Palestinian sovereignty and where the parties can build, as stipulated in UN Resolution 242 which determines that "every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." This phrase is interpreted by all parties as meaning that final borders are a matter of negotiation and agreement. So from Israel's perspective, the Palestinians are trying to bypass negotiations, so why on earth would Israel agree to give one of the central concessions to Palestinians with nothing in return, before negotiations have even started?

Now that its clear that the US can't guarantee that Israel won't be pressured into another building freeze (in fact, making it perpetual and permanent), we're now witnessing another troubling development, the Palestinians walking away from negotiations when they don't get what they want. Mahmud Abbas is taking a page out of Yasser Arafat's playbook. In the year 2000 under the auspices of Bill Clinton the Israelis and Palestinians met at Camp David where Ehud Barak made the most far reaching proposal the Palestinians had received. An offer that was meant to lead to the end of the conflict.

Yasser Arafat didn't accept the agreement, nor did he reject the agreement and state what aspects of it were unacceptable to him. No, he walked away without so much as giving an answer, without trying to negotiate, and started the second Intifada shortly thereafter, releasing hundreds of Hamas terrorists from Palestinian jails that went on to murder more than 1000 Israelis.

Mahmud Abbas has taken this one step further. He is stating that without receiving this major concession before negotiations even start, he's refusing to negotiate at all. In fact, demanding that the American's negotiate with Israel on his behalf. Because apparently in Mahmud Abbas' mind the Palestinians have no obligation to negotiate with Israel, or make any concessions. They're demanding that America force Israel into one sided concession after one-sided concession.

I mean, can you imagine? He's the one refusing to negotiate and then expects that the full force of the United States of America be brought down upon Israel and dictate to Israel the outline of a one sided agreement? How can you have a negotiated agreement between two sides when one completely refuses to negotiate? Is this a peace partner? Is this a country that will normalize relations?

But it gets worse. Not only has Mahmud Abbas adopted the Arafat tactic of walking away from "negotiations" without making a single concession, expecting the world's superpower to negotiate on its behalf, it seems he's also adopted the next step of Arafat's strategy, waging war on Israel.

On December 9th, 2010, the Palestinians threatened to 'cancel all security commitments to Israel'. And not only are they threatening to "stop coordinating its security with Israel, in response to the US's official announcement that peace talks have failed," they are also "considering canceling its other commitments to Israel, including the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, which demand that terror organizations will stop."

Think about it, the Palestinians, not having achieved what they want through peaceful negotiations, are now threatening to "cancel" all previous commitments. They are threatening to stop preventing terrorist organizations from actively planning and killing Israelis, sound familiar? To me it sounds just like the period after Yasser Arafat walked away from Camp David, with the extra kick of breaking all their commitments and bringing an end to any pretense of being interested in coming to an agreement with Israel.

Yet there is now an even more troubling development. It seems that this entire charade that is the latest round of "peace negotiations," in which the Palestinian Authority has manipulated the American administration (apparently willingly) into forcing Israel to making one-sided concessions to Palestinians as the Palestinians refuse to negotiate at all is nothing but a smoke screen for the Palestinians real intentions. They have been working covertly in the international arena to get other nations to unilaterally recognize a "free and independent Palestinian State in 1967 borders."

They're working around their commitment of not making a unilateral declaration of independence (because they've committed to negotiations through the Oslo accords)," by having these nations recognize them.

But the real question is, will the world community reward the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate? Is world opinion so biased against Israel that they really believe that it is Israel's refusal to continue to give Palestinians further one sided concessions the cause of the failure of the peace process, and not the Palestinians outright refusal to negotiate? Unfortunately, we in Israel believe the answer is yes. The vast majority of the world, including most European nations will support the Palestinians in their breaking of all previous agreements, and will openly support their unilateral declaration of independence, even in the face of their blatant refusal to negotiate, and they will indeed continue to blame Israel.

Why? Does it really matter any more? Economic and political interests, sympathy with the underdog, latent anti-Semitism? All it will do is show the Israelis that any further concessions are futile, that the world really is out to get them, and that no matter what they do they will always be portrayed as the bad guy.

If the world chooses to reward Palestinian intransigence and refusal to negotiate with recognition and the abrogation of all their previous agreements, Israel will also no longer be bound by these agreements. Israel will also take unilateral steps. Of course, the international community will further attempt to vilify Israel, as the letter signed by former senior European leaders that call for sanctions on Israel over its refusal to obey international law, and portray it as a criminal shows us.

Not only that, but apparently these European leaders of yesterday have decided that they can determine the outcome of peace negotiations by proposing that "the EU announce that it will not accept any unilateral changes to the 1967 border that Israel carried out against international law, and that the Palestinian state would cover an area the same size as the area occupied in 1967."

What happened to UN Resolution 242 where final borders will be decided through negotiations between the parties? I forgot, when it comes to Israel, UN commitments are worthless, as we saw when UN forces abandoned their posts at the Rafiah crossing between Gaza and Egypt when Gaza was overthrown by Hamas. And as we see today that in spite of UN guarantees that Hezbollah would be disarmed as a condition for Israel to agree to a ceasefire, they have been rearmed to the teeth by Iran.

The sad fact of the matter is that Israelis are used to it.

But it should be remembered that the more that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate with Israel, the more that the American administration tries to force Israel to make further one-sided concessions, and the more that the international community tries to vilify Israel and support the new Palestinian Jihad to wretch their independence from Israel without having to make a single concession, the further the chances of any real agreement being reached. Indeed, most Israelis that were one time doves and believed there could be peace have become disenchanted. We no longer see any peace partner, and we feel the world is against us.

And in a world that is falling apart, where that purveyor of human rights China has become the world's only superpower, with the US shakes its finger as North Korea indiscriminately shells its southern neighbor, where the US economy is on the verge of collapse as the Federal Reserve prints money to no end, and where the Euro block is also on the verge of collapse, the last thing the world needs now is for the ever smoldering tinderbox of the middle east to flash up. Unfortunately it seems the world thinks they can keep it under control by forcing Israel's hand and giving the Palestinians free reign. We in Israel can only hope that the world wakes up to the fact that these "truths" they've been so convinced to believe by the American administration such as the lack of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians being the main source of instability for peace are patently false, much like we discovered through the Wikileaks releases. Or that enabling the Palestinians to refuse to negoitate or having the US negotiate in their place is a viable means of achieving a lasting peace between the Palestiains and Israelis. But us in Israel, we harbor no false illusions.

When President Obama Uses Israel's Legitimacy as a Bargaining Chip

2010-11-20T13:18:00.000-08:00

In today's Jerusalem Post Daniel Gordis published a blog post titled When Expediency Becomes Principle discussing Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's promise to Defend Israel Whatever the Cost not because he feels forced to, but as a principled stand to defend the Jewish state from unbalanced criticism and an ongoing campaign of delegitimization from the world community, in international forums and using the language of human rights, and by the worse violators of human rights at that.

This, in stark contrast to the latest strategy in President Obama's terribly managed 'quest for peace' that started with an unprecedented demand for Israel to freeze construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem, as a pre-requisite to peace talks, and his promise to the Palestinians to create a Palestinian State in two years, which made the peace process moot.

Today we see that the Palestinians are continuing to extract further one-sided concessions, as they have since the beginning of the Oslo process, on paper. And most recently, the Palestinian Authority has openly declared their intention of unilaterally declaring a state, turning these defacto concessions by Israel into a basis for their new state, without having to agree to any form of reconciliation or sign a peace agreement with Israel (you can read more about this subject here). And why should they when President Barack Obama has promised them a state within two years, no matter what.

Yet the most concerning development of all is the method by which the American administration is trying to force Israel into a renewed freeze. While Israel is requesting written guarantees that the US will not demand yet another contruction freeze after this one, believing that the Palestinians are just playing for time and concesions. The US is offering a package of "incentives" to get Israel to agree to a renewed freeze, part of which is apparently the promise to fight "the growing assault on Israel’s very legitimacy," as worded in Mr. Gordis' blog.

However, when examined what this really means is that the US is conditioning its support of Israel's legitimacy upon its agreement to a renewed settlement freeze. That's right, apparently Israel can no longer assume that the leader of the free world will defend their right to exist (nor any other nation or people in the world for that matter).

What has American politics come to when the very legitimacy of Israel's existence isn't only being questioned in international forums, but the President of the United States himself uses this most abhorrent campaign as a bargaining chip in his attempt to force Israel into freezing construction (which they already did for 10 months) and making yet further one-sided concessions in his effort to try and convince the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table. Something that would have never have been needed if he himself didn't make the unprecendented demand, as mentioned above, to freeze construction as a prerequisite to negotiations.

Everybody, and I mean everybody should be concerned when the President of the United States and leader of the free world transforms the right of Jews to self determination in their own state into a bargaining chip in what has become an absurd display of failed US policies.

Have we really come to this?

Does the current American administration no longer know how to take a principled stand? Or are principles no longer a value of this American Adminstration? Either way, Americans, America's allies, and the poor and oppressed of the world should all be very, very concerned. I know I am.

When Words Lose their Meaning

2010-11-19T05:02:00.000-08:00

Anybody watching TV, reading the papers or surfing the internet over the past few years will have undoubtedly noticed the increasing practice of using emotionally and politically charged words to accuse others of wrong doing. They'll have noticed that the habit of calling others fascists has become common place, calling people socialists or communists has returned to being popular, making comparisons between the politics of individuals, groups or nations up against Nazism and Hitler has gone mainstream, and accusing others of genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid has become an every day event.

While once upon a time the hurling of these accusations may have caused eyebrows to raise both for their seriousness and as a point of skepticism, today these practices have become so commonplace that most people don't even take notice. Unfortunately for society, it represents a very worrying trend. Why? Because using these words as a generic means of vilifying another, words that are meant to take on a very specific meaning and which should only be used under the proper circumstances, dulls their significance. And that leads to a convoluted world in which the average person is robbed of their ability to make even fundamental judgments. It makes all bad words equal to each other with no distinction or actual meaning, breaking the world down into nothing more than simple representation of good or bad, and robbing individuals of the ability to apply empirical criteria and make critical moral judgments of right and wrong.

Some may say this is simply an academic argument or a debate about semantics. I believe it represents no less than the erosion of our moral compass. Why? Because striping the actual meaning from such words as fascism and apartheid and making them generic words to vilify others will lead us to the point where we won't be able to identify actual fascism if and when it actually becomes a threat, much like the little boy that cried wolf.

Where it all Started

The starting point from where the Western value of the spoken and written word began to lose its meaning can be found in the Arab Israeli conflict, specifically among the Palestinians. While in the Western world, the English teacher and the editor of the newspapers for generations were the gatekeepers of proper usage, applying stringent criteria to determine if words were used in context, in the undeveloped world like the Arab states they had no such gatekeeprs. In fact, when using the English language the primary goal, particularly when relating to Israel, was to cause the biggest negative reaction. This may be linked to the fact that in Islamic culture, the word is little more than decoration, used to adorn religious shrines and households.

The main driver of this practice was the Palestinians, who used gross exaggerations to accuse Israel of everything under the sun in an effort to generate a response, much like screaming. For example, during the 2nd Intifada in their effort to stem a wave of suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israelis, Saeb Erekat accused Israel of committing genocide, a very emotionally charged and historically significant word. He also accused Israel of burying hundreds of massacred innocent Palestinians (which were later proven not to exist) in mass graves. Both of these accusations were proven false by the UN. We can see another example with Yasser Arafat's wife Sufa who in the presence of Hillary Clinton accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian drinking water with "chemical materials." And in another example, after the backlash experienced when it was discovered that American forces used depleted uranium in their weapons in Iraq, the Arab world (specifically Prince Mansour Al-Saoud of Saudi Ambassador) accused Israel of the same practice.

The Palestinians saw that if they could latch onto popular 'buzzwords' no matter how far from the truth they were, the press would not only parrot their accusations and splash them across the front pages of the worlds largest newspapers, but would by this result be put on trial in the consciousness of the Western world. All too often these accusations are accepted as fact by an international readership whose attention span lasts little more than 140 characters. The Palestinians learned what Mark Twain's taught us long ago, A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Coupled with the explosion of the internet where accusations are repeated as news regardless of whether or not they are valid and with no attempt to verify them, Western journalists themselves adopted the unethical practice of using hyperbole in what can be referred to as "shock reporting," to draw an audience and try to obtain market share. This practice has grown to embrace the vast majority of international media outlets around the globe.

And today it has become commonplace. In Israel for example, some politicians, such as Yossi Sarid in his piece titled 'No one knows fascism better than Israelis' (linked below), and Arab members of the Israeli Knesset such as Israeli Arab MK Haneen Zoabi (the same woman that participated in attacking Israeli soldiers on board the Mavi Marmara) in her claim that the University of Haifa is 'protecting fascism' for not allowing her to hold a conference, have themselves become purveyors of this practice. And the active support of the media in not taking responsibility for what they print and refusing to calling out public personalities when misusing language to further their political agenda has facilitated their ability to do so.

The latest campaign against Israel's legitimacy using hyperbole is being waged by none other than Israel's daily newspaper Ha'aretz, who has for weeks been warning of the pending turn to fascism by the Jewish state.

Ha'aretz reporters and columnists are notorious for using hyperbole, or as Webster's online dictionary defines it, extravagant exaggeration, to paint Israel's actions in a manner that, while perhaps serves their political agenda, has no actual relation to the meaning of the words they use. In recent weeks Ha'aretz published a wide range of pieces focusing on the fascist accusation including Israel needs a Leftist revolution to stop the fascism, A Special Place in Hell / Rebranding Israel as a state headed for fascism - No one knows fascism better than Israelis, and Fascism is already here.

You see, Israel isn't a fascist state, nor is it any closer to being one than it was thirty years ago. Fascism as defined by Webster's online dictionary is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

On the other hand, Israel is a multicultural and multiethnic state with an operating democracy, free market based economic system, a government that is voted into office by the people, a very active opposition, and proportionate representation of its minority Arab citizens in the Israeli government. Israel is hardly a dictatorship. As a matter of fact, the last Prime Minster was forced to resign after having been charged with multiple counts of corruption. Israel is not autocratic, nor does it exalt the nation above race. In fact, its much less of a fascist government than any of the Islamic republics or Arab run nations that indeed, define by their laws that anybody not of Muslim persuasion is a second class citizen.

Unfortunately, this practice has moved beyond the realm of the Arab Israeli conflict. We can see that it has become an acceptable practice, most likely due to media outlets lowering their reporting standards in an effort to retain market share and draw hits. In the United States for example, we can see accusations of socialism and communism being thrown around against the current Administration. Recently, Glenn Beck of Fox News has accused George Soros, a Jewish international financier, of helping the Nazis during WWII to round up Jews. And while I strongly disagree with George Soros' policies particularly regarding Israel, again hyperbole dulls our senses by framing an individual in the limited scope of good or bad, and strips the public of its ability to understand for themselves what is a much more complex issue, robbing them of their responsibility to determine right from wrong.

One can make similar comparisons between almost any two concepts and the policies and actions of any nation on earth. In all societies a government's actions can be taken out of context, very specific examples emphasized, and then a comparison can be made against a concept like "fascism," seem applicable, even if it is not. In war, so many actions can be taken out of context and compared up against the Nazis. Though of course the ones that really matter and aren't taking place, such as rounding up a people based on religion or race then sending them off to death camps are purposely ignored. But the bottom line is just because there may be similarities; it doesn't make them the same thing, or even close to being the same thing.

Using similar words completely out of context, even for the sake of argument is both wrong and destructive. Destructive to the very moral fiber of our societies, destructive to the very values we hold dear, and destructive our ability to apply the yardsticks these concepts are meant to represent, and make competent decisions.

What can be done to put an end to this practice? It doesn't seem like there's much. It would require that those in the media take up the role they once so proudly held, as the gatekeeper of language, of taking up a code of ethics, one which they would promise to abide by, commit to objective and ethical reporting, of publicly calling out mistakes or false accusations, and of refusing to reprint or repeat incorrect or unfounded accusations simply because they're "quoting" their source, which is all too often one that has requested to remain anonymous. In today's market of bankrupt media outlets and free content, of blogger opinion peddled to us as objective fact, there's very little that one can do besides use their own moral compass, post comments in articles that abuse language to make a point, and write letters to editors demanding objective reporting.

The best thing would simply be that the media and politicians would agree to stop using these words all together, unless they were actually applicable by objective standards, but the chances of that happening are little to none. What you can do is what they media and politicians refuse to, learn the real meaning of these big words, words like apartheid, fascism, and genocide, and confront those use misuse them for political ends.

NYTimes, Thomas Friedman and what the Palestinians Really Want

2010-11-15T01:31:00.000-08:00

Thomas Friedman and the New York Times have lost it. They've lost their ability to be objective, and they've lost their ability to see things clearly. They are so frustrated by President Barack Obama's inability to move anything forward anymore that they've decided, much like most of the Israeli blogosphere predicted, to launch a new assault on the one issue they believe can pull the President out of his funk, the Arab Israeli conflict.

To be more accurate, the Israeli blogosphere speculated that experiencing a huge loss in congressional elections would make the Obama Administration a lame duck in the US, encouraging him to focus on the one thing he believes he can actually accomplish, strong arming Israel into making further concessions in a futile one sided dialog that will never be reciprocated, and will result in the Palestinains using these concessions on paper as the basis for a state they will declare unilaterally, without an agreement with Israel.

In the past week Mr. Friedman published no less than two articles slamming the Israeli prime minister in both of them, and once again, yes, questioning Israel's desire to make peace with the Palestinians. The New York Times published a piece written by President Clinton a couple of weeks ago, and then just a couple of days ago the Editor published a piece once again, yes, not daring to breathe a word of the Palestinians rejection of the original construction freeze of 10 months (much more than the paltry 3 months the president is trying to coerce Israel into doing this time around).

In his editorial, Mr. Friedman says "Rather than take the initiative and say to Arabs and Palestinians, “You want a settlement freeze? Here it is, now let’s see what you’re ready to agree to. Netanyahu toys with President Obama, makes Israel look like it wants land more than peace and risks never forging a West Bank deal — thereby permanently absorbing its 2.5 million Palestinians and eventually no longer having a Jewish majority" Funny Mr. Friedman, I think Israel has said to the Palestinains and Arabs time and again that they want peace, and taken actions to prove it, no?

Didn't Israel pull out of Southern Lebanon, in the expectation that our northern neighbors actually meant what they said and if Israel pulled out they'd look to keep the border peaceful? Only to get it converted into an Iranian launch pad for attacks against Israeli citizens? Didn't Israel take the initiative and unilaterally pull out of Gaza, hoping to see the democratically elected Palestinian government use the opportunity to build a state, yet had the exact same result as we saw in Southern Lebanon? Didn't Israel take the initiative to freeze settlements for ten months exactly as your demanding now, just to see the Palestinians twiddle their thumbs until the ninth month, only agreeing to restart talks as the settlement freeze Israel had taken the initiative to offer was about to come to an end? And just why might have that been Mr. Friedman? Does you're political savvy give you an answer to that?

Finally, in his last piece Mr. Friedman claims that the Israeli Prime Minister values his government coalition over peace. And if he is genuine in this claim (I suspect he's not and he's once again cynically trying to use the international media to try to force Israel into capitulating to his demands), then it shows once and for all that Mr. Friedman lost any credible claim to understanding the dynamics of the Arab Israeli conflict, and Israel's interests in negotiations. He should hang up his pen from the New York Times, stop writing books on politics, and start writing for Lonely Planet.

Hello, Israel took the initiative, froze construction for 10 months, just as Mr. Friedman is demanding.

The result: the Palestinians showed they weren't interested in furthering peace talks, only bringing an end to them.

And just why is that?

Well that's exactly what shows Mr. Friedman's lost his touch, and tells us why he should retire from the business of analyzing the Arab Israeli conflict. Why is Israel loath to determine final borders or draw up other terms of a peace agreement with the Palestinians? It’s a two fold answer.

The Palestinians have shown they're not interested in peace. You read that right. Every single negotiation Israel has participated in with the Palestinians has resulted in Israel making further concessions on paper, and ending with the Palestinians walking away saying "it's not enough," while the Palestinians never made a single concession, Not a Single One!

And on many occasions the Palestinians then go off and kill Israelis. Yasser Arafat walked away from Camp David II, released hundreds of Hamas prisoners from jail and launched the second Intifada resulting in the death of over 1000 Israelis. Furthermore, today the Palestinians have made their plans clear to all. They don't want peace with Israel, they refuse to sign an agreement. What they want is for their "glorious resistance" to wrench away a state without having to recognize Israel or sign any agreement. And today they have no problem sharing with the world just how they intend on doing that: by unilaterally declaring a state and getting the world to recognize it, you guessed it, without having to make peace with the Israelis.

So then why do the Palestinians again and again toy with "Peace Negotiations?" Well with every concession Israel makes to them on paper, the Palestinians will have achieved without signing a peace agreement upon declaring a state and obtaining international recognition. Think about it.

Now with that said, we can understand why it is that Binyamin Netanyahu should make no more concessions to the Palestinians. The Israeli initiative that Mr. Friedman so desperately tried to force upon Israel (which they've already done, only Mr. Friedman is dishonestly ignoring that fact), is yet another round of what can the Palestinians get for free without having to sign a treaty, without recognizing Israel, and with being able to carry on with their glorious resistance, even continue to kill Israelis in the future (I'll also mention here the very realistic possibility that in short order Fatah in the West Bank will be violently overthrown by Hamas like they were in Gaza and Israel will have another Iran proxy on yet another border of theirs).

Yes, the concessions that Yitzhack Rabin were carried on to Binyamin Netanyahu, those Bibi made formed the starting point for negotiations with Ariel Sharon. Those made with Sharon were made the starting point for negotiations with Ehud Olmert, and those of Ehud Olmert are now being used as the starting point for negotiations with Bibi in his second term. A growing pile of concessions, no peace and the approahcing unliateral declaration of independce by the Palestinians, have we woken up yet Mr. Friedman?

All without the Palestinians having to lift a finger or sacrifice a thing. Pretty remarkable don't you think?

And most disgusting of all, Mr. Friedman and the New York Times turns around and portrays Israel and its Prime Minister as a scheming bunch of fiends trying to blackmail or coerce President Obama into giving Israel all of these "bribes," as he calls them, to freeze construction, yet again. He hasn't come to terms with the fact that President Barack Obama shot the peace process dead by demanding from Israel what the Palestinians never dared demand, a freeze in construction as a pre-requisite to peace talks, and now he's trying to dig himself out of the grave he dug for himself.

Mr. Friedman and the New York times are trying to portray it as if the President is doing Israel a big favor by playing the concerned big brother and forcing Israel's hand for its own good.

When in fact, all he's doing is forcing Israel to make further unilateral concessions leading up to a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence, with absolutely no intention of ever making peace with or recognizing Israel. They (the President of the United States and his mouthpiece the New York Times), are coercing Israel into making one sided concessions which will be as conducive to peace as Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. And then Mr. Friedman has the audacity to go out on an all out frontal assault against Israel, its government, and its desire for peace, all the while never whispering a word about the Palestinians never ending rejection of anything even resembling peace, and now call to declare independence. Something they can achieve, yes, even with an American veto.

Yes Mr. Friedman, the time has come to retire from political analysis. You have proven yourself to be at best ignorant to the real circumstances in the middle east, and at worst a dishonest tool, willing to publicly soil Israel on an international level at a time when the rest of the world is deep in the process of deligitimizing Israel in global forums.

As to what Israel's Prime Minister will do, well that I'll leave in his hands. He's best to make that judgment and as opposed to the past when I was quite loathe of Mr. Netanyahu, today I have faith in his understanding of the consequences of his decisions, and his ability to weigh the best direction forward.

Bill Clinton and the New York Times Op Ed

2010-11-04T10:57:00.000-07:00

In Bill Clinton's Op Ed piece today in the New York Times he paid a great many compliments to a great man, Yitzhak Rabin, and paid homage to his vision for peace. Indeed, regarding Yitzchak Rabin, Mr. Clinton was spot on. Rabin was indeed a visionary, a man that was born into this society, saw war and death, yet was pragmatic and felt strongly that there was only one way to change the situation, bring the bitter conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis to an end.

Mr. Clinton then called on everybody to take up the cause for which Yitzchak Rabin gave his life, as he put it "building a shared future in which our common humanity is more important than our interesting differences."

And it's an admirable desire, without a doubt. One in which Israeli families have been raising their children to dream of for generations, teaching their children songs of peace, raising in them the dream of peaceful coexistence, imbuing in them the injustice of maintaining a hold on another people. And this can all be seen by the sheer number of Israeli critics of Israel's policies, the outspoken, and the leaders in the various peace movements.

However, Mr. Clinton has yet to come to terms with a number of simple facts: for starters, that since the signing of the Oslo accords, Israel has made huge gestures, such as pulling out of Gaza, and uprooting entire communities, which only resulted in a bitter war for which Israel was accused of the worst crimes, all the while the world continues to remain silent in the face of Palestinians attacks on Israelis and incitement both in the Palestinian Authority and in Palestinian media against Israelis.

In his burning desire for peace to be achieved, Mr. Clinton has fallen into the same trap as much the rest of the world, presuming that because Israel has the political will, discipline, desire and means to compromise while the Palestinians have none of these things, that Israel should make all the sacrifices, without demanding a single thing from the Palestinians.

Mr. Clinton mentioned that Yitzchak Rabin "would work for peace as if there were no terrorism, and fight terrorism as if there were no peace process." Many Israelis were killed by horrific suicide bombings that indiscriminately targeted Israeli men, women and children, and Mr. Rabin had a term for them, "victims of peace."

At the time, the Israeli people accepted these victims in the hope and belief that deep down inside, the Palestinian people and their leadership wanted the same things that we did, mutual respect, understanding, recognition and peace. However, this very emotive expression today stands as the very reason why the Israeli public has lost faith in the peace process.

For in the 15 years since the Oslo accords, thousands of innocent Israelis have died, we've experienced a second Intifada, much more bloody than the first, pulled out of Southern Lebanon, then Gaza, only to see us go back into these territories in bloody conflicts after being terrorized from the very land we withdrew from, are currently under full scale attack in the political sphere, and in the media, and have been bloodily beaten over the head by no other than the President of the United States and his entourage, all who have repeatedly questioned Israel's desire for peace, all the while cynically remaining silent in the face of Palestinian incitement, and refusal to even sit down and negotiate.

Mr. Clinton, we in Israel have much respect for you. But you seem to unfortunately be stuck back in 1995, with all the hope we all once possessed. Much like the innocence of a child, your enthusiasm might be considered by some inspiring or refreshing. However, for many of us in Israel, your very public, international plea seems to be solely meant to address Israel, as if we were the only ones that were part of this conflict.

And much like President Obama, your wife Hillary, and other governments and media outlets worldwide, your putting the onus on Israel to take a leap of faith and make painful concessions that would put us and our children at risk, when it is all too clear to us that the Palestinians at this stage, contrary to what you claim, have no desire or will to make any form of agreement with us, is quite saddening, if not concerning. You're adding your voice to a global chorus seemingly implying that it is Israel's obligation to make peace with the Palestinians, at any cost, with no reciprocation, and this is very disappointing for those of us who look upon you as a fair and objective observer.

All you need to do is look at the list of concessions Israel has already made since your meetings both with Yitzchak Rabin and Ehud Barak, besides the life of so many of their husbands and wives, grandparents and children that have been taken whether from missles from Gaza or Lebanon, look at the further sacrifices that Israel has already made, each, and every one of them which have only led to war and an international campaign of deligitimzation. And not a single one of them reciprocated.

For us, Binyamin Netanyahu's unprecedented agreement to freeze building in Jerusalem and the West Bank was a test. It was a test to see if the Palestinians could accept our gesture, could negotiate in good faith, and had the intention of moving forward with a bilateral agreement that would lead to mutual recognition and respect. And it was a test of the international community to see if their efforts were genuine and balanced. And by continuing to not make any demands on the Palestinians while demanding Israel make even further gestures shows us that the unfortunately those in the international community have also lost their integrity.

The Palestinians sadly failed this test: they sat on their hands until the 11th hour, only agreeing to talks when they new they could bring in the international community to force Israel into a cycle of ever newer one-sided concessions all the while they sat with their hands folded and showed bad faith and no desire to actually reach an agreement.

And sadly enough, it appears as if your Op Ed, after a long chain of other international figures, has also failed the test. Continuing to sit by and passively support the Palestinians ongoing demands, without making a single demand on them.

Yes, as regarding the Arab Israeli conflict, and the peace process with the Palestinians, 65 years of war and conflict has made Israelis bitter. And the 15 years since the signing of the "peace accords," of ongoing violence forced upon Israelis has also made us bitter. No Mr. Clinton, today is not 1995. You say that "Israel has its best partner ever in the Palestinian government on the West Bank led by President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, with its proven ability to provide security and economic development." While Abbas and Fayyad may have been able to provide economic development, and to a degree, security; they have both shown that they are not interested in a negotiated agreement.

The Palestinian leadership doesn't want an agreement with Israel or Israelis. They don't want to have to shake hands with Israelis. They don't want to compromise with Israelis, they don't want to accept that Israel exists, they refuse to accept that Israel is a Jewish state. They've proven they live in a world of rejection, one in which, much like their predecessor Yasser Arafat, they have no will or interest in the least to acknowledge Israel. They want to wrest their independence through their glorious resistance without making a single compromise, concession, or acknowledgement. They want to continue with their resistance, without recognition of Israel. And it seems that President Obama has given them the ability to do so, promising them a state within two years. They want to declare victory, and that victory for them entails never having to compromise, accept or acknowledge Israel.

Your blessing and prayers Mr. Clinton are always welcome and appreciated. Unfortunately, in 2010 and the post Oslo Arab Israeli conflict, prayers and blessings and pleas and pressure to only one side of the conflict doesn't make for a peace agreement.

Without any Palestinian reciprocation, Israel has made all the concessions it can at this point. And as much as the world knows that it's only Israel that can make peace, maybe they should think of why: because Israel is the only side with the will or ability to do so. Regardless of all the promises and guarantees (of which Israel has received many in the past, which have come back to haunt them), Israel cannot make sacrifices and risk its children's lives based on hope, faith, or desire, throw caution to the wind and pray that after it signs away the ability to protect itself and gives away the keys to the kingdom, what happened in Gaza won't happen in the West Bank: particularly if the authority in the West Bank already shows its not interested in peace.

In mainstream Israel we don't want to control the lives and destiny of the Palestnians. We'd be happy to have a successful, democratic and friendly state created next to us and not worry about them wanting to kidnap and murder our children. Unfortunately, the conditions for that aren't present. It’s a choice between bad and worse, between making further obscene sacrifices that risk putting our children in harms way, or continue to maintain authority over another people. It’s a horrific choice, much like the one we have to make when choosing whether to launch a missles and risk killing another's child, or protecting our own, but it’s a choice we'll make and carry responsibility for. And unfortunately, until we can see good faith in negotiations, and a Palestinian partner that's more interested in peace and mutual, peaceful coexistence than in glorious resistance, the choice for now seems sad but obvious.

The Palestinians will push the international community to wrest control of the West Bank from Israel and put it into international receivership. And Israel will resist this tooth and nail. Not out of spite and not out of the desire to run Palestinian lives, but out of fear for our own well being and that of our children. Israel ceded to international control both in Gaza, with the UN taking over the Rafiah crossing, later running away with their pants down as Hamas overthrew Gaza, and also in Lebanon, where the UN has sat passively as Hizbulla has built up an army and smuggled 40 thousand missles against UN resolutions all aimed at Israeli households, and watched their military activities attacking and murdering Israelis while the UN acted as a human shield for Hizbulla.

And with all that said, Rabin's spirit is here with us in Israel, but his spirit, and Israel's will is not enough to make peace. For it takes two to make peace. Maybe one day you'll find the political will and strength to break free of the expectations of your wife's role in government and world expectations, and write a similar Op Ed directed at the Palestinians. One in which they are also held accountable.

A Super Short History of Israel

2010-10-24T11:52:00.000-07:00

My sister-in-law asked me for a super short history of Israel for a project she's doing and I wrote up the following. Pundits, revisionists and post zionists be damned (don't you know, post zionism is dead!).

ANCIENT ISRAEL
Ancient Israel is defined by the bible and the history of Judaism

2000 BC: Abraham, founding father of Judaism arrived to Caanan, the ancient land of Israel
957 BC: King Solomon, built the First Holy Temple in Jerusalem
586 BC: 1st holy temple destroyed by the Babylonians
538: 2nd Holy Temple is Built
Between 37 and 31 AD: King Herod fortified Masada
70 AD: 2nd Holy Temple was destroyed by the Romans
132-135 AD: During the Jews last revolt against the Romans in 73 AD Masada was destroyed Following this Revolt Jews were expelled for the most part from Ancient Israel by the Romans, leaving scattered survivors. And leaving the Jews exiled from their homeland for more than a millennia.

INTERIM ISRAEL
Interim Israel is defined by the birth of Zionism (the belief in a national home for the Jewish people) and Jewish immigration to British Mandated Palestine (ancient and modern Israel).

In the late 1800's with Russian Pogroms, and after 1800 years without a state of their own, Jewish national identity began to awaken.
In the mid 1890'sTheodore Herzyl founded the Zionist movement that started discussing a Jewish national homeland in ancient Israel, at that time occupied by the Ottoman Empire.
In 1916, control of the southern portion of the Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement after Ottoman backed Germany lost WWI and subsequently the British obtained possession of ancient Palestine.
In 1917, the Balfour Declaration was written by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The land of Israel at that time had no national sovereignty, like the majority of the middle east. It did have populations of Jews and Arabs alike.
In 1922, a legal commission for the administration of the territory of Palestine (ancient Israel) was assigned to the British by the League of Nations which included all of modern day Israel and Jordan.
Over the course of years British Mandated Palestine, which was initially established by the British to become the national home for the Jewish people, was whittled down significantly.
During WWII and the holocaust, Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler's army illegally immigrated to Israel, inspite of significant British attempts to stop them, often sending them back to their death in Europe when caught.

MODERN ISRAEL
Modern Israel is very much defined by Independence and War

In May 1948 Israel declares independence.
In 1967, Israel fought a war with Arab countries and won, gaining control of the West Bank (and East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights from Syria, Sinai and Gaza from the Egyptians.
In 1973, the Arab nations attacked Israel on Yom Kippur in what is known as the Yom Kippur war, the holiest day of the year in Judaism. Arab forces were eventually defeated again.
In 1982 Israel invades Lebanon after years of shelling and terrorist attacks by the PLO against Northern Israel.
In 1993 the Oslo Accords are signed between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Leader Yasser Arafat which were supposed to lead to a historic reconciliation and eventually peace between the two peoples.
In 1995 Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is assassinated and the Palestinians unleash a wave of suicide bombings claiming almost 1000 Israeli lives.
Palestinian uprisings or "Intifadas" take place from 1987 to 1993, and from 2000 through 2005.
In 2000 after 18 years, Israel pulls its forces out of Southern Lebanon.
In 2006 the Second Lebanon war took place in which Hizbulla, a proxy army of Iran based in Lebanon, kidnapped three Israeli soldiers, and after years of on and of shelling of Northern Israeli communities.
In 2009 the New Israeli Shekel (Israeli currency) is added to the international basket of currencies.
In 2010 Israel enters the Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Today Israel is a well developed economy that was only slightly affected by the global financial crisis and has fully recovered. Unemployment has reached pre-crisis levels of about 6.5% percent. Tourism, a major part of Israel's economy has reached historic proportions in October, where the country is enjoying record breaking occupation of hotels and foreign visitors.

The Israeli real estate market is has experienced a 50% increase in the past three years, leading to speculation of a real-estate bubble. It is currently anticipating further conflict with Iran in a confrontation regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions, and with Lebanon and Palestinian run Gaza both which have been provided with proxy Iranian armies in the form of Hizbulla (in Lebanon), and Hamas (in Gaza), funded, trained and armed by Iran.

Is Criticism of Israel Really Anti-Semitism?

2010-10-09T05:29:00.000-07:00

In continuation to a piece from the other day where I addressed the question of if it is racist to be afraid of Islam or acknowledge the connection between terrorist attacks and Islam, today I want to address the other side of the coin.

For many people feel they are unjustly vilified or called racist and anti-Semitic for what they claim is plain, simple criticism of Israeli policies and actions.

But is criticism of Israel itself anti-Semitic? Do Israel supporters use the accusation of anti-Semitism to try to stifle criticism? Is this accusation thrown around too easily? Or is there an empirical basis for it?

The truth is, it's probably a bit of both.

And in order to better understand when criticism is valid and when it can be interpreted as anti-Semitism we're going to establish a basic definition of anti-Semitism, in addition to determine a number of guidelines for distinguishing between justified criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.

What is anti-Semitism?

In its most basic form, anti-Semitism is prejudice against Jews. In its extended form we have what is called the new Anti-Semitism, which is the hatred of Jews being projected onto the Jewish state, and can be identified as the emotional, irrational, obsessive or disproportionate criticism or hatred of Israel. For a separate discussion on this subject see Europe and the new Anti-Semitism.

Why do people say that criticism of Israel is often an expression of anti-Semitism?

In the world of the politically correct, it has become unacceptable to make racist or derogatory statements about Jews. There are many that believe, however, that with Israel being the Jewish state, racism and bigotry against Jews has been redirected towards Israel as a proxy, and is now expressed through unbalanced, unjustified criticism of Israeli policies and actions that reek of the same anti-Semitic tropes that used to be directed at individuals.

How can you distinguish between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.

There are a number of ways. We first have the hyperbole test. This is the easiest way to identify when anti-Semitism is the driver of an argument and not empirical fact or valid criticism. If an argument uses hyperbole as part of its claim such as words like apartheid, Nazism or colonialism to describe Israel's actions, then it can pretty much be written off as anti-Semitism (or at the least, complete ignorance of what these concepts really mean).

Why is that? Because these terms are used to out of context in a direct attempt to demonize Israel. And when each one is taken and examined it is clear that the arguments are false.

Apartheid for example was a set of laws and a form of government established to oppress an ethnic group based on the color of their skin and rob them of their rights. People that call Israel an Apartheid state always point to the fact that Palestinians don't have the rights of Israelis. What they ignore is that Arab Israelis (who like to be called Palestinian Israelis), do have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. For a separate discussion on this subject, see Is Israel Really an Apartheid Nation?

And is Israel a Nazi state? No it is not. Why? For many reasons. First of all it's a democracy, not a dictatorship. Additionally, Israel doesn't round up Muslims, Palestinians, or any other ethnic group and put them into concentration camps. Israel doesn't rob them of their possessions, use them as slave labor, starve them to death, murder them en masse, and so forth.

And what about colonialist. Is Israel a colonialist state? This seems quite confusing to people. A colonialist state is one that purposely sets out to usurp lands that are not theirs, and continually look to expand their domain. The simple fact is that Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights are lands that Israel obtained control of as the result of defensive wars, not as a pre-planned action to expand its domain. The West Bank and Gaza strip never previously belonged to any sovereign entity (except perhaps when there was a Jewish state two thousand years ago). Subsequently the land that is today the West Bank and Gaza is really disputed territory. And Israel obtained control of them by overcoming a offensive that was launched in an effort to destroy Israel by its neighbors. In 1948 Israel accepted partition as established by the UN, the Palestinians and Arab rejected it. Today Israel is trying to find resolution to this conflict. Subsequently, anybody claming that Israel is colonialist is twisting the definition to suit their political agenda. Much like when they use the terms Nazi and apartheid to describe it.

But some of the things Israel does resemble Nazi tactics, Apartheid or Colonialist behavior.

You'll still have those people that will point to specific aspects of events that have happened, such as children being killed, prisoners being blindfolded, mass destruction, the building of settlements, etc., that will be used in an attempt to try to prove that their argument is valid. The fact of the matter is that almost all of these cherry picked items meant to form a similarity with these concepts can be found in any conflict or war taking place in the world. And the way to determine if their use is justified is to not only compare them with the definition of the actions they are being accused of, but compare them with actual actions taken by other Sovereign nations, like that of the US Army in Afghanistan, Russia's actions in Georgia, in the case of "colonization" those of the English empire or Imperial France, and for "ethnic cleansing," examine the examples of Partition of India (into India and Pakistan), the Turkish takeover of Cypress, the expulsion of Germans by Czech after WWII from Sudetenland, and more.

And that brings us to our next factor for determining if criticism of Israel is justified or not, relativity.

Are Israel's actions different to those of other western countries under similar circumstances?

This is a very important lens through which to judge if accusations against Israel are founded or not. So many claims we see in the media and the blogs point to Israel's actions and their consequences. For example, for years Israel was accused of breaking international law using drones to hunt down and kill terrorists. They called it extrajudicial killing. Today we see coalition forces doing this on a daily basis in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other locations. You can also read claims that the destruction in Gaza was disproportionate, and meant to punish Palestinians. But when we look at Baghdad or any other war zone, its clear that wide scale destruction is the result of war in general, and not only "evil Israeli retribution."

Ask yourself if Mexico was launching rockets into Texas, how the US would respond. Ask yourself if America's enemies were sending destructive weapons to a country neighboring the US, how would the US respond (we know from the Cuban Missles Crisis in 1962). In pretty much every situation you'll discover that Israel is acting to protect the life and welfare of its citizens, much like any other sovereign nation on the earth would do under similar circumstances. And to expect Israel to sit on its hands with its home front being attacked while other nations are allowed to take the actions required to protect their citizens, or in other words, trying to rob Israel of the right to self-defense is most likely a symptom of some deeper, primordial enmity, and often a subconscious, irrational belief that Israel is evil and has no right to exist.

Only Looking at Israel's Actions and its results while Ignoring the Complete Picture

Then there are more subtle means of criticizing Israel that aren't quite as blatantly in your face anti-Semitic. That's why its important for people to examine the information they're provided and not only look at Israel's actions, but try to understand why Israel did what id did.

For example, you may see genuine, biting criticism of Israel's actions that seem to make sense. But when you take a closer look you notice that in doesn't mention why Israel was doing what it was doing, or if it does so, it only does in one or two sentences, while the rest of a piece will focus on what Israel did wrong. In other words it strips out the examination of the circumstances Israel's actions, and their intent.

This can be regularly seen in reporting on Israel. Where Israel is accused of murdering innocent Palestinians, Turks, Lebanese, or Human Rights activists, yet the report barely if at all addresses why Israel took the actions it did, and most importantly, how or why it is that the innocent people got killed were in the position they were. Most often, when you look closer you'll see that the "innocent civilian" that was killed attacked an Israeli soldier with a knife, as we saw in the Flotilla incident, was holding gun as often happened in Lebanon, or was hanging out by a rocket launcher when the rocket was fired at Israel as wee see in Gaza, or was being cynically used as a human shield as we saw in most of these examples. Yet the way you read about it in the press would suggest that almost nothing the individual that was killed could have done can justify Israel's actions, essentially robbing Israel of the right to self defense.

One of the primary strategies of terrorist organizations is to launch attacks against Israel from near or within civilian infrastructure. Quite often the attackers surround themselves with groups of civilians when launching an attack. Then, when Israel responds to this type of attack, "innocent" civilians get killed. Although all too often what is meant by "innocent civilians" are people that that have willingly or unwillingly acted as human shields, or purposely put themselves in the line of danger with the belief that if something happens to them they will be made into heroes (martyrs).

We had an example of that yesterday when a group of children were apparently encouraged to setup an ambush of an Israeli vehicle and hid in wait together with a fleet of media photographers. These children jumped out at the car and started hurling rocks at it. In this particular instance there is video that exposes the members of media lying in wait together with the children that gives us an understanding of this tactic, and we can now see that opposed to the story they would have liked to publish, being evil Israeli settlers runs over an innocent child, the fact is that it was a staged event that purposely put this child's life at risk. For more information on this event see Palestinian Children as a Weapon of Choice.

Obsessing about Israel's actions while ignoring places like Congo, Russia, China, Sudan and others

This is another issue that often comes up. Those supporting Israel claming that the world is prejudiced against it often emphasize that there are horrendous crimes against humanity being committed around the world. Rape is used as a weapon of war in Congo, Sudan has experienced a bloody civil war for years where ethnic cleansing is taking place against non-Muslims. China wiped out an entire neighborhood making its residents homeless in order to build the site for the Olympics, Russia regularly suppresses free speech and persecutes those of its citizens that are vocal critics, and yet the with so many bad things in the world, the media so disproportionately focuses on Israel, and individuals looking for a cause seem to metastasize around the Arab Israeli conflict in criticism against Israel.

Whenever this is pointed out those people doing so are often accused of trying to cover up Israeli "crimes," being accuse of trying to deflect valid criticism of Israel.

The truth of the matter is that this disproportionate focus on Israel is also a form of anti-Semitism. And the fact is that if it was only a handful of people that were disproportionately criticizing Israel, it could be written off as random. But because the disproportionality of it is so immense, it's hard to ignore the fact that indeed Israel is the eternal criminal in global community's psyche. And we have to ask why. Why can there be 56 nations in the world that identify themselves as Muslims, but its considered racist for Israel to call itself a Jewish state? How is it that in many of these countries non-Muslims have less rights, by law, than Muslims. But it is only Israel that is accused of apartheid and racism? We'll get back to that in a moment.

So then, what can be construed as valid criticism of Israel's actions

In summary, any sound, balanced criticism of Israel that doesn't use hyperbole, takes into account similar actions by other countries under similar circumstances, takes into account the entire chain of events that took place and doesn't only focus on Israel's actions and its consequences, examines the overall circumstances of the entire event, and looks at Israel's intent, is valid criticism.

But one sided analysis as we all-too-often see throughout the global media, in almost every UN investigation into the results of Israel's actions with no regard whatsoever to why Israel did what it did can be attributed to some form of explicit or implicit anti-Semitism.

So then, are all people that make one-sided claims against Israel really anti-Semitic?

This is a hard one to answer. There are so many good hearted people out there trying to make a difference. Those that want to help the underdog, oppressed people of the world. There are those people that want to donate some of their time and effort support a good cause and make the world a better place, but can only pick one. And of course, we have to remember that Israel is at the heart of the global psyche, being at the seat of the founding of Monotheistic religion.

But how is it that such a inordinate amount of people choose the Palestinian cause to support or decide to join movements who's sole focus is to criticize Israel with no relation to the events and circumstances in other places in the world? How is it that we have a global movement to boycott Israeli universities, hospitals, sports clubs and businesses, while countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Libya barely come under any scrutiny? Particularly when historically boycotting an institution like a hospital has always considered unacceptable, or sports is supposed to be beyond politics? This large scale mobilization to alienate and deligitimze Israel, that involves UN bodies such as the UN Human Rights Movement, recognized leaders such as Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu, dozens of nations, artists and the media, is almost inexplicable. The outpouring of hatred that can be clearly seen expressed by so many in opinion pieces, blogs, and comments in articles across the webosphere, on TV and on University Campuses is even more startling.

It almost seems to be the result of some primordial enmity that genetically programmed into global human psyche, some deep seated hatred of Jews, which as the result of political correctness as its called in the US, or multiculturalism as its known in Europe, has resulted in the partial deflection of anti-Semitic sentiment from individuals and is now projected on to the Jew of the world, Israel.

I understand it's hard to call these good hearted people who only seem to have concern for the oppressed and poor of the world anti-Semitic. And that they feel like they've been slandered. In many cases they have many friends that are Jewish, if they're not Jewish themselves (which is often the case). They seem tolerant of modern, liberal Judaism, and yet there's still that irrational, emotional hatred. That crazed, glazed over look they get in their eyes every time a person dies at the end of an Israeli gun, without regard to the circumstance and intent of Israel's actions. And the wild, hysterical attacks against Israel are quick in coming.

And one has to wonder why this burning righteous indignation bursts out like a volcanic eruption when supposed "human rights activists" are killed by Israeli soldiers boarding a boat supposedly bringing supplies to the innocent in Gaza, or when a house is struck by an Israeli missles (launched in response to a rocket fired at Israeli population centers), but is suspiciously lacking when dozens of children are sent into war and thousands of women and children are raped in war in Congo. When an entire nation of people as we saw in Iran demand that their vote counted and voice heard the world stands near silent, making weak protests and letting an entire nation be held hostage to the will of a dangerous dictatorial regime.

Perhaps it is due to a lack of enthusiasm by the media to investigate the events in the rest of the world as much as they do in Israel. Or perhaps the decision on what events to report on by the media is made by the popularity of the articles as read and responded to by the public.

In either case, it's clear that Israel is one of the most popular topics in the media, analysis of Israel's actions and its results is what draws readers, while the source of Israel's actions doesn't seem to interest anybody.

But this blog post isn't about the media. It is about how to better determine if criticism of Israel is justified based on a balanced examination of the intent, circumstances and empirical data, and a concern for the lives and well being of the poor and oppressed. Or if it's based on some deeper, sinister, hate based motive. I hope I've brought some clarity in the matter. And I can only hope that in the future, the good hearted people of the world that want to play a constructive role and provide a positive contribution will try to analyze events with the guidelines set out above.

Palestinian Children as the Weapon of Choice

2010-10-08T11:41:00.000-07:00

Today in the Village of Silwan, just beyond the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, four children (if not more), conducted a preplanned ambush of an Israeli vehicle with rocks as no less than 6 members of the press eagerly waited for the prized footage of the inevitable injury that was to result. To read proper coverage of the event click here.

Sadly the method of using children in this pre-meditated attack is nothing new in trying to capture images to be used as propaganda and incite the world against Israel. This time the video doesn't lie, it doesn't get any uglier than this. Ask yourself what kind of human being would sit by and watch a group of children not only violently attack another individual, but actually stand in the sidelines knowing all to well that these children are putting themselves in danger. And the answer is an unethical photographer waiting to get a shot of a bloody or dead child to sell to the media.

For those of you who have to wonder who to believe, as my friend Dan did, after reading two contradictory articles in competing Israeli media outlets, wonder no more. That is, unless it makes perfect sense to you that a pack of media wolves stand idly by as children put their lives in danger to violently attack another and in an effort to score sympathy points in the media.

Warning: The following video footage contains graphic images of a child being hit by a car. Pay attention to the clip directly after the children throwing rocks get hit, in which you can see the members of the media coming out into the street to help only after they got their footage of children being harmed.

This video can also be seen at this YouTube Link

I don't know about you but I think it would have been better to prevent the kid from getting hit by the car as opposed to only helping him afterwards. But then again, I'm not an unethical photographer looking for the right footage to demonize and incite against Israel. Apparently a child's life is a price they're willing to pay.

Please pass this on. Demand accountability from the media who are so ready to put children's lives in jeopardy and cynically use them for their own political purposes. And demand ethical reporting. This is both a travesty of humanity and illustrates the corruption of the media, particularly as it pertains to coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict.

Bigotry, Political Correctness, and the Fear of Islam and Terror

2010-10-07T15:00:00.000-07:00

Is it bigoted to say things that are not politically correct or insensitive?

If so, then maybe Rick Sanchez was right to call Jon Stewart a bigot for saying insensitive things about him (though he was absolutely wrong for suggesting that Jews control the media. For an in-depth examination of if criticism of Israel is really anti-Semetic, click here).

But if it is not bigoted to say things that are not politically correct or insensitive, then why are Jon Stewart, Charles Johnson, and the mass media at large going on a rampage accusing anybody that dares to repeat what terrorists themselves proudly declare about attacks in the US and around the world (that the attacks are committed in the name of Islam) of being bigots and racists? I firmly believe that this is what is single handedly causing a major schism in American society.

The other day I was reading the blog LittleGreenFootballs, once a conservative powerhouse. Its founder Charles Johnson got fed up with the actual bigotry he saw in right wing American politics and moved towards the center, a move I respected and agreed with. In his blog I encountered a piece titled "Should People be Afraid of Islam" (now renamed Reza Aslan vs. Robert Spencer.

I had written Charles directly in the comments section of this article, suggesting that he can ask that question until he’s blue in the face, but pointing out that those conducting the attacks and declaring they were conducted in the name of Islam make the case all by themselves, and that subsequently its natural that some people are going to be afraid of Islam. Then I went on to note that to accuse people who admit fear of Islam of racism and bigotry is not only wrong, it is a form of bigotry in itself. I got into an argument with a group of people who then accused me of being a bigot, not least of which was Charles himself, who a short time later banned me. An event you can read about here.

And therein lies the rub. On one side you have a group of fanatics targeting and killing innocent people in the name of their god and religion, on another you have people that fear they might become the victims of these attacks. In the middle you have people belonging to this faith in who's name these attacks are being conducted, and you also have a large group of people that are trying to shelter those of this faith that are good, law abiding citizens, from the feeling accused or implicated in crimes they have nothing to do with.

It’s important to understand why it is without doubt problematic (and to many wrong) to emphasize the connection between terrorism and Islam. There are a number of reasons. First, not all Muslims support the actions of terrorists. And of those living in Western societies, it’s only a tiny fraction. Second, openly making the connection between Islam and terror can incite those intolerant or ignorant and lead to prejudiced and violent acts against innocent Muslims. Third, and by far the most important reason, is the basic fact that it leaves innocent, tolerant people of the Muslim faith feeling vulnerable, alienated, marginalized, and even persecuted. And finally, these feelings may push some of them into supporting the actions of the fanatics.

These are most likely the reasons behind of President Obama’s policy of stripping out all mention of Islam when relating to such attacks or reporting on them. We can see how this policy was initially put into effect with the report released on the Fort Hood attack perpetrated by Nidal Hassan which didn't mention the motive for his attack, the word Islam, or even the name of the perpetrator himself.

Even though the attack was perpetrated by an American of Palestinian origin, who screamed Allah Akbar (Allah is Great) as he strafed dozens of American soldiers and killed 12, and had a proven connection to Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born citizen of Yemenite origin, who fled to Yemen, is linked to Al Qaida, and is the first American citizen who it has been targeted for extra judicial killing (at least publicly).

This set a precedent for how the US government treats terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam; as felonies lacking any motive or common thread. And subsequently, this policy has trickled down, and been adopted by much of the national media and American society at large.

This policy is severely flawed because when you remove the motive of a crime, you remove objectivity as to how and why they were committed, and severely handicap your ability to prevent crimes of a similar nature from reoccurring. And while granted it is most likely that in practice the American government has only removed these references publicly, it sets the guidelines for how these issues are dealt with in public, and has led to the a great amount of anger among those who feel justifiable fear yet are accused of bigotry.

As much as its not politically correct to say, Jihad, hatred of the West, and beliefs taken from Islam were the primary motives for the attack at Fort Hood, and many like it. One can argue that it is only a minority of adherents that interpret Islam in a manner similar to that used to justify attacks, one can argue that it is only extremists who conducted the attacks, but the fact is none the less that Islam in some form or another played a role in these attacks.

I understand the dilemma. No decent individual wants to assign blame for terrorist attacks to all Muslims, insinuate that all Muslims are terrorists, or alienate a portion of our fellow citizens. It really is a problem for American society at large. Make a public connection between Islam and the attacks and you're inevitably alienating Americans of the Islamic faith. But don't, and as we said earlier you're eliminating the common thread that ties these different attacks together, and leading to the situation where you're creating anger in those that dare express their feelings of fear of Islam.

And in the politically correct world of the United States of America, it has become wrong in polite company to publicly acknowledge the link between terrorism and Islam in any way shape or form.

Unfortunately, the policy of stripping these attacks of their common thread has caused a large chasm in American society. For while there are plenty of people who agree with President Obama's policy that dictates mentioning the connection between terrorism that purposely targets innocent civilians across both the Eastern and Western world is problematic as to its effects of alienating their own Muslim populace, there are those that have a real and genuine fear as a result of the ongoing attacks we see in the West, and in the rest of the world.

Living in Israel, I am acutely aware of this problem. Having seen Israelis lynched by angry Palestinian mobs, seen a 16 year old boy lured by a young Palestinian woman, where he was kidnapped and then murdered by his captors, seen young Palestinians children that were indoctrinated into a culture of death chase down two young lovers in the forest of Jerusalem and murder one of them, and of course, living in a country in which dozens of suicide bombers have strapped bombs to their chests and killed and maimed scores, I can understand the fear of these people. Yet if I dare to admit that I have weighed getting off the bus after seeing a suspicious person on the bus (that was also most likely Arab), most in the Western world would call me a racist. I'd have to strongly disagree and say I'm just trying prevent myself from getting caught in a terrorist attack.

So I strongly believe that it is wrong to accuse them of bigotry and racism. Sure there are some out there who really are racist, but for the most part, those people out there protesting and screaming their lungs out are doing so as reaction to being accused of racism. There is no dialog, no discussion. The moment they dare casually mention the role of Islam in these attacks (and it is undeniably there), they are attacked publicly, humiliated. And no one seems willing to address this issue.

This phenomenon can also be seen with Jon Steward. He rips on people that express a fear of Muslims, as if their ignorant, childish, racist pigs. But in fact what he's really doing is turning them off of dialog, building resentment, and driving a wedge through American society.

So what's the bottom line? America is divided. There are those that admirably don't want Muslim Americans to feel alienated and therefore try to prevent people from pointing out the link between Islam and the terror attacks taking place around the world. And there are those that are genuinely concerned, that see this connection, that hear threats like the one we heard today from Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber, who said “the war of the Muslims has just begun,” adding that “the defeat of the US is imminent, God willing.” and warning that “more attacks are coming.”

And in between there is a great big chasm. One sadly in which people like Charles Johnson accuse any that dare to state the obvious are automatically accused of bigotry and racism. But is it really? Are these people saying all Muslims are bad? Are they saying all Muslims are terrorists? Are they really being racist? No they are not. And those casually throwing these accusations are the very same people that are dividing American society.

It is absolutely important that we are sensitive to the feelings of others. But at the same time, the feelings of those afraid of terrorist attacks and the role of Islam in them have to be acknowledged. By trying to obfuscate this most common thread between them is nothing less than lying, both to yourself and others. And to accuse those who, for no other reason admit their fear and make the logical connection to Islam, the same connection the thousands of terrorists around the world that have set out to kill and maim as many as they can make themselves, is political correctness gone bad, and bigotry in itself.

Charles Johnson, this one's for you:

Banned from Little Green Footballs? Say it ain't so.

2010-10-06T12:53:00.000-07:00

Well sadly enough it seems my experience with censorship has now solidly expanded beyond the realm of fanatic left wing publications for whom I only have contempt, to a once conservative blog that moved more towards the center and for whom I had much respect. And anybody that follows my blog knows that it was started as the result of Unethical Selective Censorship at the Guardian UK.

Little Green Footballs is a many thing to many people. Some love it, some hate it. I've always had much respect for Charles Johnson's work and occasionally check in to see what he's posting about. While once upon a time he used to be very conservative, the shift of the Republican party and birth of the Tea Party movement has moved Charles to be more moderate in his politics, a move I whole heartedly agreed with.

He's also for the most part been a strong supporter of Israel, another thing that had drawn me to him. However it seems that together with his cutting of ties with the Republicans and warmly embracing the Obama administration, his battle for reason and respect for all has somehow silenced his passion for open dialog and respect for freedom of speech.

This I experienced in a thread Charles posted titled "Should People be Afraid of Islam?" (he has now changed the title to Reza Aslan vs. Robert Spencer, I assume as the result of my comments). In its comments section I had said that he can ask that question until he's "blue in the face." The fact of the matter was that many people saw attacks being committed in the name of Islam and it scared them. And for him or others to call these peoples racists or bigots was wrong. I was attacked throughout the thread by other posters, myself called a bigot (even by Charles in the end). And as opposed to addressing this issue which I feel very important and at the core of the animosity we see today in the US, Charles blocked me, changed the title of his piece and swept the entire story under the rug.

And that was what was most disappointing. You can tell people its wrong for them to be afraid, call them ignorant, bigoted or whatever. But the simple fact is you're denying an empirical fact, one that those committing these attacks themselves proudly declare. Denying it and stifling debate about it only confuses people, and damages your credibility, no matter what your intentions.

Indeed, by voicing their concern or fear, or making that all too obvious connection, no matter how not politically correct it might be, doesn't mean they are saying that all Muslims are terrorists, nor does it mean that they are accusing all Muslims of supporting terrorism.

For example, I live in Israel and find myself from time to time looking at people I think suspicious on the bus. I don't think everyone I assume to be Arab or Muslim is a terrorist, but if I have a suspicion that an individual might be a terrorist, there's a good chance that suspicion will be heightened if I hear them speaking Arabic. Does that make me bigoted or racist? Or just someone that's trying not to get caught in a terrorist attack?

The bottom line is, to label people who admit that Islam inspires fear in them as racists and bigots is wrong, and to belittle their fears as opposed to honestly addressing them only creates resentment and hatred. So is it really any suprise these people seem so angry?

Anyway, I'll stop there. For a more in-depth piece examining this subject (something apparently Charles was unwilling to do), see Bigotry, Political Correctness, and the Fear of Islam and Terror. I just wanted to express my sorrow and disappointment at being banned from LittleGreenFootballs, and publicly mourn the loss of a once balanced, intelligent media outlet that used good old fashioned common sense in its reporting.

In closing, I leave you a screenshot of my final posts directly addressing Charles, after having re-registered under a different name. All were deleted and left empty. With Charles giving me the sendoff by calling me a Bigoted Asshole. Sadly it seems that Charles has caught a case of Rick Sanchez fever. I hope that one day he'll recover (see screenshot below).

Until then I'll still come and visit his blog, for I still see some value in it. Though sadly, I shall no longer post. I've lost the perseverance to reregister five times a day to get my message across just to be repeatedly banned and deleted. It’s always a sad day when I feel my voice has been silenced. Though its even more a tragic day for open dialog and freedom of speech. I guess Charles isn't interested in that any more, he's just become another of the tens of thousands of mouthpieces on the internet dead set on voicing his opinion and the justice of his beliefs, unwilling to listen to others. And you know what they say about opinions.

Rick Sanchez – Why Blame Yourself When you can Blame the Jews

2010-10-02T01:36:00.000-07:00

Yes, it's happened, yet again. Another well known individual opening his mouth and blaming the Jews for his own failures. Very telling how when assigning blame to someone in general people tend to call them arrogant, assholes, or whatever it may be that they feel they can pin the blame for their indignation and own shortcomings. But somehow, when that person also happens to be Jewish, their Judaism becomes the main factor, and the conspiracy theories about Jews and power and money rear their ugly head.

Of course, Rick Sanchez isn't the first media personality to pin blame for his own failures or the world's ills on Judaism. Recently we've been treated to an ever increasing parade of bigotry in the mainstream media whether it from Mel Gibson, who in a drunken rant when stopped by the police said "Fucking Jews...the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." We also had the Hollywood Producer Oliver Stone not only state that "Jews Control the Media," but for good effect threw in that "the Holocaust is overplayed." And then there's Helen Thomas, chairwoman of the White House Press Corps who told Israeli Jews to go back to Germany, but I'll leave that one alone.

Indeed, we now have three major media personalities in a short time that have come out and said that "Jews Control the Media." Maybe it's true? Do Jews really control the media? Of course, the next step is to suggest that there's some greater dastardly plan of the Jews to take over the world. Jew are accused of controlling the banks. And yes, the White House too, just look at all them Jooz in the White House. Heck, Rahm Emanuel is the son of an Israeli and was President Obama's right hand man. Obama's campaign manager was Jewish and many of George Bush's advisors were Jewish. They were blamed for "pushing" the Bush administration into attacking Iraq, they were politely called the Neocons (neo conservatives).

So what have we proven? That people of the Jewish faith are hard working and successful? We'll good for them. I can tell you that my Grandmother at the age of 8 was marching in the back of the Chicago Memorial Day Parade with the African Americans in 1929. My father and his friends were denied entry into their local country club because they were Jews (they took their revenge by sneaking in one night and blowing holes in the golfing greens with M80s).

My sister was verbally assaulted during an argument in her dorm in college being called a dirty Jew. And in high school my brother was once confronted by some idiot that told him that "Hitler didn't finish the Job."

Me? I was once working as an Au Pair in France when I had a serious disagreement with the father of a very provincial French family when we were at their summer home. I told him that maybe it better that I terminate my services, he said "fine, you can take the train back to Paris tomorrow." I said "fine, you can pay for my ticket," he said "Even though you're a Jew, I will." And those are only the things that were said to our faces, not the thoughts and drivers behind decisions people made.

To say we don't experience racism and discrimination is short sighted and ignorant. If Mr. Sanchez doesn't think our parents and grandparents, all of which were also immigrants at sometime didn't experience a hard life and fight discrimination to build a better life for their children then he's got something coming. I'll bet that his life is much better than the one his father had, and that's because his father fought for him. I'll also bet that his children have been fully integrated into America, but of course that doesn't matter, because what's at issue here is Mr. Sanchez lack of sense of humor and willingness to transform criticism into self-improvement. But that's another discussion for another time.

Perhaps our Judaism doesn't prevent us from moving up in the world, and just maybe that's because we refuse to let it. Jews were an active part in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and we've always done our best to fight for not only our rights, but others.

Perhaps Jews have succeeded in becoming mainstream in America over the years, but it doesn't mean we don't experience discrimination. We just don't use that discrimination as an excuse for our shortcomings, we use it as fuel for pushing that much harder to succeed. And its something that Mr. Sanchez unfortunately is not capable of.

Israel and the Propaganda of Peace

2010-09-18T03:25:00.000-07:00

Menachem is a friend of mine. As are his family, wife, and children. Menachem is Israeli. He was born in Austria after WWII, the child of Holocaust survivors, both Hungarian, both with unfathomable stories of escaping death again, and again. Their story was simple, after surviving the camps, never having met before, they stood in a group with other holocaust survivors and were told to "choose a spouse," because apparently in order to increase your chances of managing to survive in Palestine, and not get kicked out by the Brits, it was better to be married.

Shortly after, Menachem was born and his parents made the journey to the promised land and settled in Zichron Ya'acov. This was about 18 months before the creation of Israel. They eventually built a modest house, and lived long lives. Menachem grew up in Israel, fell in love and married a charming American woman. They lived in Israel for a few years, then decided to move to the states. Where they continued to build their lives, all the while making annual pilgrimages to where their hearts really were.

Menachem's mother passed away a few years ago, his father just a few weeks ago. His father's death was expected, and long in coming. He died quietly, after a long and extraordinary life. They are one of the many typical Israeli families. Having struggled many years, been part of this country's founding, fighting in wars and losing relatives, and always, constantly dreaming of peace.

Me and Menachem met up the other day, since his father's passing he's had some business to close up and has been in town. He decided to come down to Tel Aviv to spend Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. I headed out to his hotel Friday morning, before the start of Yom Kippur to meet up and say hi. We have a lot in common, whether that being both from the same area in Israel (my beginnings in this country are two kibbutzim bordering with Zichron), living in the same area in the US, and more.

And our political beliefs are also very similar. It's hard being an Israeli that supports and loves Israel these days in the world. We were taking a walk in Tel Aviv port, bristling with people even on this Friday morning, so close to Yom Kippur when everything grinds to a halt, and talking about politics. He was telling me about a classmate of his who also moved to the US years ago. Someone that rejects all that Israel is, someone that uses her Israeli heritage to provide legitimacy to the Israel haters of the world. Apparently she doesn't call herself Israeli, she calls herself Jewish Palestinian. I mentioned that funnily enough there have always been "Jewish Palestinians" in this land, even before Theodore Herzyl's dream of a State for the Jews, even before the first wave of immigrants from Russia in the late 1800s. Yet people like his cousin like to portray Israel as having been a land robbed from another people. People like her don't bother to acknowledge those Jews that have lived here for generations, and centuries.

I told Menachem about the recent Time Magazine cover story titled "Why Israel doesn't Care About Peace," how it first sets the story by painting Israelis as Nazi-like fascists complete with a cover photo of an Israeli with a large Jewish star tattooed on his arm, sitting on the beach smoking a hooka (water pipe), then goes on to portray Israelis as only caring about only money, that centuries old anti-Semitic canard, and finally mentioned that I had written a blog post on the subject.

Menachem gave off a snicker, more of indignation than amusement. And said how it was funny that people write that Israelis don't want peace. He told me how he had grown up on songs of peace, that hopes and aspirations for peace filled almost everything in his life growing up in Israel, that in school and summer camp they were taught to work for peace, and that Israeli poets for generations wrote about it. As we were walking a small child on a two wheel scooter passed us in the crowd. Menachem said that was exactly what the people of this country had dreamt about and fought for all these years, so their children can ride their scooters, go out and play, fall in love, and live normal lives.

Then he said, "I guess the whole thing about of Peace was just propaganda. That's what it must have been, right?" And I answered, "yes, Israelis apparently living their lives and teaching their children to strife to achieve peace was all some propaganda campaign, to convince the world that they wanted peace (even though apparently they don't). And it's been going on for 60 years." And we both shoot our heads.

Menachem then went on to say that while our schools and summer camps take kids out to be kids, to have fun, to get to be children, and yes, imbue in them a desire for peace. On the other hand, those that are supposed to be our partners in peace teach their children anti-Israel hatred in their schools, fill their songs with dreams of martyrdom, and send them to camps to learn to shoot guns and kill people, like the Hamas run summer camps in Gaza which hosted 100,000 children this summer alone.

As we began heading for our final destination, a coffee shop named Café Café in the port, Menachem asked how it is that people who don't have to raise their children knowing they will have to serve in the army, fight wars, and risk their lives, can claim that Israelis don't want peace? And it’s a good question.

Most writers of these types of pieces don't know the lives that Israelis live, they apparently haven't experienced the pain of loss. Menachem lost a cousin in the Six Day war, in the narrow alleyways of the old city of Jerusalem, and ever since he gets nervous just being in Jerusalem. Apparently the writer of the Time Magazine piece didn't have to fight during one of Israel's wars, lose a relative during one, or have a child that lost an arm, leg, or their life in a suicide bombing. Apparently he didn't have to go to the hospital and identify his 15 year old daughter by her eyeball after a suicide bombing on a bus, because that was the only piece of her intact enough for identification (the story of a friend of mine) but no matter.

Indeed, there is one thing that the Time Magazine piece did get right, Israelis are tired of it. Tired of the one sided efforts, the withdrawals, the Intifadas, the calling for Israel's destruction, the chatter of Iran getting the bomb, the smuggling of missles and weapons to the two places we've already left, Gaza and Lebanon, the sending of their children off to war. But the one thing they don't get tired of is teaching their children to yearn for peace, because if there's anybody in the world that knows the ramifications of not having peace, it’s the Israelis. The problem is, to the Israelis, it doesn't seem that the feeling is mutual.

Menachem came up with a novel idea, one I've never heard of before. He says apparently peace is too hard to achieve. For as much as we want it, we're not willing to give up everything for it. On the other hand, the average Palestinians just want to live their lives too, they're struggle to survive and do what it is they have to do to do so. When Yasser Arafat waged his war against Israel, and now that Hamas is in power, the Palestinian people still needs to feed their children. So Menachem suggested we just declare mutual quiet. If nobody can agree on peace, they can agree on quiet. Just everybody stop attacking each other. No war, no violence, just a ten year period where people live their lives, something that is what all the moderate people want anyway, (and not the "Hudna" that Hamas has suggested, in which they can continue to smuggle weapons and gain strength to attack Israel again).

For as opposed to what the blog Hurryupharry so deftly observed that in the opinion of the world "Israelis, apparently, should be constantly politically engaged and protesting their government’s policies. Americans, Brits, Turks, Australians, everyone else in the world, is allowed to work and live." That is exactly the dream of Israelis, to be allowed to work and live, in peace. Without having to worry about war, or suicide bombings, note where the nearest bomb shelter is, or be worried about if your children's government issued gas masks is too small.

Me and Menachem carried on about a lot of other subjects, about how apparently in the world sticking up for Israel makes you a bad person, how in Israel itself, and among Israelis, they make it as if nobody can do anything right anymore. How the politicians, even those that aren't corrupt, make all the wrong moves, and how the military, the one body in Israel that nobody ever questioned, today is more and more being exposed to public criticism, a fact that weakens its deterrence and ability to properly function.

But then again, as hard as these facts are to deal with, they just go to show that as opposed to all the demonization of Israel and Israelis in the world press like we saw in Time Magazine, as opposed to all the one sided fluff pieces that examine why it is that supposedly Israelis don't want peace, while completely ignoring to ask whether the Palestinians, or Arabs want it, while Israeli children have been indoctrinated into the Propaganda of peace for 60 years, while Palestinian children to this day are indoctrinated into the propaganda of war, murder and Jihdad, Israel is still a strong, vibrant democracy where everybody has the right to say what they want, where Israel's Arab Parliament Members can stand at the pulit of the Parliment and openly call for Israeli leaders to be prosecuted for war crimes, and Israeli peaceniks can on a nightly basis ironically lament the death of Israeli democracy on national and international TV.

For in any case, even if peace is still elusive, in Israel, thank g-d, the propaganda of peace is alive and well.

Netanyahu Wants to Make Peace, Do the Palestinians?

2010-09-15T00:58:00.001-07:00

The following is a comment I posted to an article in the GuardianUK by yet another individual that claims to not believe Binyamin Netanyahu's intentions regarding peace.

===

I also used to very much doubt Netanyahu's intentions. But as we've learned with previous Israeli hawks like Ariel Sharon, politicians with responsiblity do change. I'm an Israeli and I today firmly believe Netanyahu has every intention in trying to come to an agreement with the Palestinians.

What I don't believe is that the Palestinians have any intentions in making peace with Israelis. Whether it be their waiting 9 months into Netanyahu's building freeze of 10 months to agree to discussions, then threatening to walk away if building is resumes, which makes it obvious they're not in for an agreement, only to passify the

American president and want to put blame on the Israelis. Abbas' declaration that he Can't make even one concession, hardly the attitude of peace and reconcilliation, or Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Sha'ath's delcaration that The PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Meaning that their intention in the future is to get the international community to force Israel to allow millions of Palestinians to move back to Israel and transform Israel into the third Palestinian state (Gaza, and the West bank being the first three).

Indeed, over the years I've seen Israeli leaders from Yizhak Rabin who signed an agreement with the Palestinians, to Ehud Barack that offered 93% of the land for a Palestinian state and withdrew Israeli troops from Lebanon, to Ariel Sharon who withdrew Israeli communities from Gaza, to Netanyahu who for the first time in Israeli history agreed to a construction freeze make concession after further reaching concession, and all Israel gets is more demands and more bloodshed. I, along with the rest of middle Israel say no more. We want peace, but not at any cost. And until the Palestinians show a willingness to bring an end to the conflict, stop the incitement, and understand they have to both make concessions and recognize that Israeli is Jewish as in two states for two peoples, there will be no peace.

We want peace, unlike that horribly offensive article on the cover of Time Magazine tries to convince the world. Our problem is that the Palestinians don't. They want their cake and to eat it too, all without having to lift a finger.

Time Magazine - The New Anti-Semitism Goes Front Page

2010-09-09T03:25:00.001-07:00

A disturbing trend has been developing over the past few years. One in which vile anti-Semitic rhetoric can be found coursing through the comments section of articles on Israel or Jewish subjects in almost any mainstream media publication.

I first noticed the trend in the blog section of the British publication the Guardian UK. There the Guardian seems to have made it one of its main objectives to deligitimze the existence of Israel, and subsequently demonizes anybody that dares to support Israel. Its modus operandi is the application of the new anti-Semitism, which can be identified by two primary factors:

It projects traditional anti-Semitic tropes onto Israel (the Jew of the world), that insinuate that they magically control the media or politicians (in Israel's case, control the American government), portray them as Nazis, or as being driven solely by greed or their hunger for money
The coverage and criticism of Israel is extremely disproportionate to that of other nations in similar situations or just as newsworthy for other reasons

For a separate blogpost on this subject, see Israel, Europe and the New Anti-Semitism

For the most part, the Guardian was the only mainstream publication that took such bold steps to use the new anti-Semitism in mainstream blogs. It did not, however, allow its journalists to use it in regular articles, thereby being able to claim that the opinions expressed in the blog section known as Comment is Free were not necessarily their own, while still being able to promote their political agenda. The comments section of these blogs are a cesspool of barely veiled anti-Semitic sentiment. And the Guardian does little to discourage this discourse. It was so bad that a group of activists set up a monitoring website to document the anti-semetic comments and the Guardian's lack of actions to stop it, known as CIF Watch..

Over the course of the past two years, the phenomenon of anti-Semitic discourse in the comments sections of articles in mainstream publications has grown dramatically. All of the sudden one can find them in places like the New York Times, CNN, even the Wall Street Journal. Another location which this phenomenon has become particularly notable is the Huffington Post. It got so bad there that another activist setup a website to expose this activity in the blog The Brothers of Judea. Previously known as The Huffington Post Monitor.

One of the driving questions has been why would all of these seemingly respectable mainstream publications tolerate openly anti-Semitic dialogue in their comments section. They all too often seem willing to allow it to take place unmoderated. I personally experienced this on numerous occassions in the Huffington Post. One in which the word "Zionist" was used by one of the moderators as an insult. Which is discussed in a piece I wrote titled Zionist as a Racial Slur.

There are a few theories which try to explain why respectable publications allow this dialogue to take place. One popular view has it that it has to do with profitability. It's no secret that the international media is in crisis mode, with no small number of publications struggling for their existence. It seems that the international press has not managed to transition into a profitable online model and find it difficult to make money. The business model of online advertising works on the basis of what is known as click-through rates (CTR). The more traffic (clicks) a publication can get on their website, the more money (or advertisers) they can draw. If you can show advertisers that you have traffic, they'll pay money to advertise on your website.

And while articles on Israel are a magnet for traffic (its a subject everybody seems to want to read about, otherwise the media wouldn't write about it so much), it seems that anti-Semetic discourse is what keeps them clicking. Whether due to anti-Israel activists (including 1 billion Muslims worldwide) who delight in Israel bashing, Israelis or Jews looking to defend Israel, good peace loving folk that have somehow been convinced that Israel is the source of all evil in the world, or just regular passers-by that have a penchant for the gruesome, much like the gapers delay that builds up after an accident on the highway. Online publications seem to have decided that it is in their interest to let this discourse take place, rarely if ever interfering. Because in the end its profitable, and they've experienced no backlash from this practice.

Indeed, the mainstream media is all too aware of the offensive comments, and enable this offensive, even racist dialog take place because it brings traffic.

Last week, this trend took one giant leap forward when Time Magazine published an article with a Jewish star emblazoned across its cover and with it the headline piece titled "Why Israel doesn't Care About Peace."

Daniel Gordis, Senior Vice President of the Shalem Center wrote an excellent blog post detailing why the Time Magazine article is anti-semetic (highly recommended reading). In it, he points out that: "The first page of the article is a full-page photograph of an Israeli at the Tel Aviv beach. He’s got an enormous tattoo on his right arm (a Star of David, of course), dark sunglasses, and closely cropped hair. At first glance, he looks almost like a skinhead – and there’s an Israeli flag fluttering in the background." In other words, the writer is painting the average Israeli as a Nazi using images, without making a verbal accusation. And yes, portraying Israelis as Nazis, or the is considered anti-semetic. Particularly when there is no real similarity between Israelis and Nazis. At least, not any more so than any other soldiers engaged in an ongoing conflict in other places the world.

Everything about the article smacks of one-sided accusations. It only accuses Israelis of not caring about peace, painting Israel as a state of Shylocks who as long as they can make money, don't care about peace (and subsequently are willing to oppress if not exploit the Palestinians indefinitely in their quest for money). All the while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians do everything in their power to avoid negotiations, having waited 9 months into Israel's 10 month building freeze to "agree" to negotiations, while threatening if Israel renews building it will walk away, an obvious ploy to avoid negotiations while accusing Israel for their faiure.

Or like both PA Prim Minister Mahmud Abbas and Palestinian Negotiator Nab'il Sha'ath's most recent pronounecment that the Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state because then it would mean that the "Palestinian refugees can't return to their homes." In other words, the conflict will never be over until millions of Palestinians, most who have never stepped foot in Israel, are flooded into the Jewish state. Some call that the destruction of Israel. But these inconvenient facts seem unimportant to the author of the Time Magazine piece, for it is obviously only the Israelis who are at fault in his mind.

And as Mr. Gordis additionally notes: "The worst, though, is still the cover. Across bookstores and airports this week, Time’s cover will scream to those who (wisely) do not read the story that it’s Israel, and Israelis, who simply don’t care about peace. It’s a setup, of course. Because these talks are likely to stall, and then to fail. And Time has already predicted whose fault that will be."

The progression of anti-Semitism in the mainstream media is all too clear. I've noticed it and blogged about it often. And more and more people have created forums to discuss it regarding this or that website. But until now, for the most part, the mainstream media has relegated it to the comments section of its pieces. At least attempting to keep up the appearance of objectivity on subjects that touch upon Jewish issues like Israel.

And that's what's really concerning about Time Magazine's putting an article so clearly using anti-Semitic tropes on the cover of its printed edition. It signals a move from mainstream media only being willing to tolerate racist comments to their articles (for click-through rates?), to actually promoting these ideas themselves. And it can be theorized that this most stark evolution in the willingness to make these references stem from one of two reasons.

These outlets have determined that the type of B grade writing in which an issue is half addressed while weaving in anti-Semitic drivel the likes that haven't been seen in a mainstream media outlet since Hitler's Germany, pays. This is troubling because it means that not only is hate a profit driver for a business, but that a large cross section of the public agrees with it and is willing to read it. Furthermore, with its being published in a printed edition means that it's not only about the click-through rate. It means that Time Magazine see that people aren't only going in to the comments section of a website (a free activity) to read mudslinging, they're actually willing to pay for the printed edition. Probably not surprising, seeing how as I mentioned earlier, a billion Muslims worldwide like reading this material, and that magazine cover appearing in airports from Rome to Rihjad, London to Los Angeles overcomes any concern about a negative reaction.
That publishers and editors embrace these beliefs themselves. That the mainstream media has gone anti-Semitic not because it makes good business sense, but because it's an ideology they see fit to propagate.

I don't know which of these two scenarios is worse. I also have to say that I'm a bit concerned with those members of the Jewish community I grew up with, the liberal activists out there so admirably making their opinion known that they support the right of the Muslim community to build the Cordoba community center in Manhattan, and who vehemently condemn the planned burning of Korans on September 11th by the Rev. Terry Jones, seem hesitant to openly voice their concern about the incitement against Jews taking place in many of the very articles they read in places like the Huffington Post. And if it's because they haven't noticed it up until now because maybe they don't bother to read the comments, maybe its time they took a look for themselves.

Maybe one of these days soon some bold reporter will be willing to write a proper article about this phenomenon and some bold mainstream publication will be willing to publish it and examine why this is happening. Though I won't hold my breath.

Many will still continue to claim that what they're seeing is simply "legitimate" criticism of Israeli policies. I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, as long as it's proportionate to Israel's actions, takes into consideration the circumstances and intent of these actions, and is made in light of the actions of other nations living under similar circumstances. But what many people still miss is the fact that unbalanced criticism of Israel that takes the form of anti-Semitism isn't necessarily criticism of Israel, it's an expression of hatred towards Jews by proxy. And sooner or later, much like the transition from comments sections of online media to the front page of Time Magazine, the proxy anti-semetic sentiment may transition from being projected onto Israel and the "zionists" as we see in Europe with the new anti-semitism, to attacking those that dare to support her, and then finally, directly at Jews.

Shana Tova and G'mar Hatima Tova

Criticism for the Love of Israel - a Comment

2010-08-12T00:35:00.000-07:00

An old friend of mine Ira Wise shared an article by Thomas Friedman on his blog Next Level Jewish Education. The following is the complete comment I posted as a result of his blogpost.

---

I particularly agree with when you say "Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, but I think it has more to do with believing that Israel is more than a dream and more than some bitter realities."

Being an American immigrant in Israel I had a difficult time in reconciling the "ideal" of the Jewish state, a light unto the nations with the fact that, indeed, even the Jewish state has its flaws and makes mistakes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say how they used to support Israel thinking it was this wonderful idealistic paradise with hard working spirit and bursting with "Jewish" morals, only to become disillusioned when they discovered that Israel was really no better or worse than any other nation on the planet, imperfect. Israel is imperfect, and not only that, it wears its imperfections on its sleeve, much like Judaism itself.

For those people who only loved or supported Israel because they thought it was some extraordinary exemplification of the struggling underdog, as it was until 1973, then I say good day to you folks. Yes, Israel is much stronger than it was 40 years ago, but still has its weaknesses. We have good and bad, right and wrong just like every other nation. But what makes Israel special is that bond that so many of us have together, Judaism, even if you’re secular, even if you don’t practice. And perhaps today that’s why there’s so much rejection of Israel.

Apparently some think that Israel shouldn’t be allowed to be a state with Jewish character. For people who believe this, they’ve lost their admiration of Israel. In their minds it’s turned into a nationalistic, colonialist nation. They use firebrand rhetoric to explain their discontent with Israel. And they can’t see past this rhetoric. They either can’t or don’t want to see that Israel’s troubles with its Arab population stem from the Arab Israeli conflict and the rejection of Israel by its Muslim and Arab nations, and not because of some inherent, evil, “Zionist” ideology that so many seem willing to believe. Read the comments on any article about Israel in the major press and you’d be shocked at how mainstream this belief has become.

But for those that realize that it is the Judaism, for its good and its bad, that makes Israel such a special place, they’ve retained their love of Israel for it is not based on some ideological, unrealistic belief. But the knowledge that Israel shall always struggle, fight for what is right. Debate it until their last breath. They embrace Israel inspite of its imperfections, or even because of them. To make it a better place, because they really do care.

They can see past the rhetoric, past the tragedy, past the bloody conflict. They don’t defend Israel no matter what, as so many of their detractors would say. They participate in the dialog and speak their minds as they should. And that’s what makes Israel great. It’s a nation for people that want to be a part of it. It listens, and tries its hardest. For all its warts, corruption, religious conflicts (internal and external), and war, Israel, even in perpetual conflict, manages to keep the fight going, to make itself a better place. And those that condemn it without any consideration as to its circumstance and intent, and without relation to events under similar circumstances in other places in the world, only delegitimize their own voices, not Israel.

Ethnic Cleansing at the Guardian UK

2010-07-28T03:52:00.000-07:00

Ethnic Cleansing at the Guardian UK

Today there was a piece titled “Ethnic cleansing in the Israeli Negev” in which the author Neve Gordon went way overboard accusing Israel of ethnically cleansing Bedouin from a hilltop shanty town.

But the real story was of the Guardian UK Comment is Free Moderators were conducting a bit of ethnic cleansing themselves. Yesterday I had written a piece long over due titled Zionist – as a Racial Slur in which I illustrate how the word Zionist is being used to hurl abuse at Jews, Israelis and their supporters, and even goes as far as being used as racial slur. A practice long adoped by both writers and commenters in Guardian CIF.

Commenting in a couple of articles that were posted over the past couple of days in the Guardian CIF that more than proved my point, I noticed that many people’s comments were just completely disappearing. Now this is nothing new, my blog was started as a result of Selective Censorship at the Guardian. But what was fascinating is that it was taking place in a blog that was supposedly addressing Ethnic Cleansing. Well it seems that the Guardian was doing a bit of Ethnic Cleansing of its own. Ethnically cleansing those darn Zionists from the pages of their comment section.

I’d say You should be ashamed of yourselves Guardian moderators, but they know all to well what they are doing, and apparently have no problems conducting ethnic cleansing.

Bravo to commenter TheVoiceofIsrael for posting a complete slamdown of the Guardian’s mis-use of the term Ethnic Cleansing, maybe they’ll finally learn something (I won’t hold my breath). In closing, I’d like to post TheVoiceofIsrael’s rebuttle. Until next time:

"Ethnic cleansing"? Assuming this allegation were anywhere near to being true, could Mr. Gordon please explain what the logic would be?

Israeli Bedouin are citizens of Israel -- they serve in the Israel army, they are members of the Knesset (parliament), they serve in Israel's diplomatic corps (one is/was Israel consul in San Francisco), etc. No one is evicting them from Israel, so what would be the logic in supposedly evicting them from one place in Israel in order to move them to another place in Israel? Is that what "ethnic cleansing" is about?

Most of the Bedouin live in the south of Israel, in the Negev, which is mostly desert, and some live in the north (the Galilee). Many still follow a tradition of nomadic life, but most have actually settled in legitimate towns and villages, such as Rahat, Tel Sheva, or Busmat Tab'on. But occasionally, some move to a hilltop in the Negev and start building shanty towns, and then get evicted.

If this is ethnic cleansing, then this must be a new definition of the term.

Personally, I believe that the Bedouin in Israel have been shamefully neglected, similar to minorities in the United States, Australia, and probably most countries in the world. But none of that is an viable excuse. If Neve Gordon called for a demonstration in Jerusalem for more government assistance for the Bedouin I would probably come myself. But as soon as he presents it as "ethnic cleansing" it becomes cheap propaganda.

The Bedouin's plight should not be used as a propaganda tool. They have a very real grievance as do other minorities in many other countries. They deserve (and often get) the support of other Israelis.

As I said, Neve, if you are truly interested in helping tht Israeli Bedouin, drop the propaganda and the cheap rhetoric, and I (and many other Israelis) will join you.

Zionist – As a Racial Slur

2010-07-27T10:55:00.000-07:00

Zionism, what is it? In its most basic form, it is the belief in the existence of a homeland for the Jewish people, no more, no less. And a Zionist is someone who supports this belief. The Zionist movement was founded in the late 19th century "as a response by Ashkenazi Jews to anti-semitism and the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire" (as taken from Wikipedia). And ever since, it has been used as a common expression for hatred directed against the Jewish people and anybody who dares support them.

The use of the concept of "Zionism" or a "Zionist" as a racial slur was first popularized in 1903 by the Russian secret service who wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of the most vicious anti-Semitic literary works to date. This book, written as propaganda to scapegoat Jews, claimed that the Jews had a secret plan for global domination, and portrayed them as evil, power hungry manipulators. The book has long been exposed as a fake.

Hitler then adopted many of the themes from the Protocols, as it is more commonly known. He actually refers to it by name in Meim Kampf, and had it taught to German school children after the Nazis came to power.

After WWII and the Holocaust, use of the word Zionist when applied by non-Jews or those criticizing Jews or Israel in general was recognized as a form of racism and anti-Semitism, and its use in this context was mostly marginalized, particularly in public and media discourse in the West.

Though it did show its ugly head from time to time. For example, in 1975, the United Nations, the international body meant to protect the rights of the oppressed and fight racism and xenophobia, passed resolution 3379 that equated Zionism with racism. Ask yourself, how can the belief in a national home for the Jews be racism?

This most heinous of UN resolutions stayed on the book for more than 15 years, only to be finally revoked in 1991 after being recognized for what it was, a racial slur by the International community.

Today use of the word Zionist as a form of abuse, expression of hatred, an insult, and a slur is gaining traction. It seems most common among American and European activists that seem to primarily find their political home in the far left.

Their narrative sees Israel as the "foreign imperialist colonial power," that took over "Palestinian" land (Jews were Palestinians too by the way), in a pre-meditated assault after WWII (and even before) and set out to occupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip in what was apparently some watered down quest for world domination. Another is those of foreign origin, particularly Arab or Muslim, who are typically at some level hostile towards Israel. They use the term to describe anything related to Judaism or Israel, or Israel's supporters without distinction. Much like we see with Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Hizbulla and others.

The use of the word "Zionist" as a racial slur is at the foundation of what is called the "New Antisemitism, and is spreading beyond the European mainland, its native home, into the heartland of the United States. In it, political activists with little to no knowledge of the wider Arab Israeli conflict have been brainwashed into believing that Israel is the evil colonialist power that is oppressing and indiscriminately murdering Palestinians and any humanitarian that comes to their aid. And in the comment sections of online international award winning media outlets like the Huffington Post, the Guardian UK, and even the Israeli Ha'aretz can be found insulting references to Zionists (its almost never used in its true context) an any given day.

This ever growing mass of people that use the word Zionism to insult do it for one of two reasons, either out of ignorance as to its meaning and the history of the Arab Israeli conflict, or latent racism. In either case, their intended meaning when using this word is vague. It's used interchangeably to mean Jewish, Israeli, supporter of Israel, colonialist, Nazi, war criminal, kike, and more. And it is always used as an affront, an attack or a slur, meant to imply negativity, insult or offense. For the word zionist has no place in proper discourse unless discussing of whether one supports a Jewish homeland in a philisophical sense, and not, as many would like to believe, whether or not one supports Israel. Really, the word Zionist should not be used by anyone besides an historian, or someone Jewish.

When used by the racists, the vagueness is intentional. They'll typically try to justify their use of the term like we'll see in an example below, while at the same time using it as an insult. More often than not the person using it takes pleasure in its ambiguity, and is even proud of his getting away with insulting another. Once you've read a few comments written in this manner this usage becomes clear, it's meaning unmistakable.

The bottom line is that the new anti-Semitism allows people to openly project their anti-Semitic views on Israel while hiding behind what they claim is a legitimate form of anti-Israel sentiment, hence the criticism of "Zionists" and "Zionism," and not Israel or its policies.

So now that we understand how the word "Zionism" is used to offend, lets see how the modern day media and journalists from publications such as the Guardian UK bring this slur into the mainstream through a couple of examples.

The first comes to us from none other than the Guardian UK itself. In a piece titled Why this obsession with Israel and the Palestinians? the author Mr. Robert Fowke rhetorically asks the following:

"What are the implications of such a level of passionate interest (with the Israelis and Palestinians)? Perhaps I am an anti-semite? Seen from Zionist eyes, where Israel does little that is not justified, this has to be the first and most likely explanation for why I follow their affairs so closely.

We'll call this the "academic" approach. In it the author tries to absolve himself of anti-Semitism by bringing it up himself. He then goes on to accuse the "Zionists" (what exactly is a Zionist here?), of believing that "Israel does little that is not justified." In this sentence we can understand that he believes that Israel indiscriminately murders Palestinian children and that the Israelis believe it's justified. Yes, that is what he is insinuating. According to the anti-"Zionist" rulebook, anything that Israel "justifies" must be the most heinous crime one can think of. Then finally he pre-emptively accuses the "Zionists" of accusing him of anti-Semitism.

And while the point of the sentence relates to the title of his article in which he says this accusation stems from his "obsession with Israel," the truth of the matter is its much more than that. His anti-Semitism permeates his writing and the language he uses in the context of that obsession. He's just too in awe of his own cleverness to realize it.

Don't worry folks, our author (unsuccessfully) absolves himself of that very anti-Semitism in the next paragraph of his article in which he states "But delving into my deepest heart, I cannot honestly say that I am more hostile to Jews than I am towards Scotsmen and Welshmen."

Well that's good to know Mr. Fowke, if only you could lose that insulting habit of using the word "Zionist," to relate to a larger than life sinister cabal that "justifies" things.

Let's take another example. An article posted today on the Huffington Post website titled "To the Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel", the user of the forum by the name of Marcus01, the Community Moderator no less, said "I will never understand the sentiment so common among Zionist saying that Palestinians do not have a right to remain on land they have populated since ancient times. They often site dictates imposed by foreign imperialist colonial powers, these outside powers do not have these rights, only the peoples of those lands have such rights."

This is a classic example in which the person accuses those "Zionists," of the evil intentions of stealing rights from the Palestinians who have remained on "land they have populated since ancient times," (error number one, as many "Palestinians" were planted in the territory by the Ottomans as Jews that immigrated from Iraq). He then goes on saying Israel "cites" dictates by "foreign imperialist colonial powers." This is insinuating that those nasty Zionists are 1. Foreign (again, there have been Jews in this land since the time of Abraham), 2. Imperialist, and we all know that an "imperialist" in today's lingo is an bad thing, and 3. Colonialist, accusing the "Zionists" of wanting to colonialize some unnamed territory in addition to the territory they have already "colonialized:" Israel, apparently in their secret plan for world domination.

When another user, one Ralph Noyes complained of his use of the word "Zionist," by saying "I think the use of the word "Zionist" is inflammatory, at least in this context, whether so intended or not. It's like "colored" (thank you Mr. Noyes). Mr. Marcus01 rebutted, "Zionist is a descriptive term, there is no other that accurately describes them. They use it themselves."

There is no other that describe "them?" Need I say more?

So there you have it, none other than a Huffington Post Community moderator, in an article on Israel, uses the term "Zionist," to insult, insinuate any number of negative impositions. No wonder the Huffington Post, what was supposed to be a liberal, open minded forum has become infected with racists that hide behind the vague word "Zionist."

Go into the comments section of any article dealing with Israel on almost any subject and in any media publication, you'll see this discourse taking place. You will see the word zionist thrown about as a slur, if the person is not Jewish, or racial slur, if they are.

So the next time you see someone using the word Zionist out of context, as an insult, or a slur, try to analyze their usage as I did above, then call them out on it. Let them know that what they are saying is offensive, and that the way they are using this term can be interpreted to be racist. It's about time they started taking note.

Of Peace Activists, Terrorists and Soldiers of Democratic Nations

2010-06-18T12:16:00.000-07:00

140 characters, that’s the number of characters one has today in the world to get their message across. That's the attention span of most people under the age of 40. And all too often that's the depth the average person is willing to go to understand something that they are being told.

But this post isn't about 140 characters or sound bytes, its about the legitimacy of the written word, its about how we assimilate everything we read without really knowing (or caring) if its accurate, and its how as a result our world is turning into something dark and sinister. It's where we turn terrorists into human rights activists and human rights activists into terrorists.

And it all started a few short years ago, even before Twitter and before we had the Internet on our cell phones. I remember during the second Intifada, when Israel went into Jenin to arrest terrorists, sending soldiers into the line of fire instead of just dropping bombs in an effort to avoid the death of Palestinian civilians. It was the first time heard something that just didn't make sense to me. Some Palestinian representative or another was saying to the media that Israel was committing Genocide in the West Bank.

I thought to myself wait, Genocide? Sure Israel is taking action in Jenin, and both Israelis and Palestinians are dying just like in any war, but Genocide is the intentional murder of an entire ethnic people. What Israel is doing in Jenin isn't genocide. In fact, I was in Germany at the time and my friends asked me if it was true, and I was shocked that they even had to ask. I mean, don't they know what genocide is? Are they not capable of understanding this for themselves?

It was on that day that I woke up to the fact that the Muslim and Arab world didn't use the English language properly, and that educated and intelligent people didn't make much of an effort to understand if what was said was really true. And from that day onward I paid more attention to what the Arab and Muslim leadership said, and realized that they would accuse Israel of the worst crimes, genocide, war crimes, call Israel Nazis, and accuse us of Apartheid, not because there was any real similarity between what Israel was doing and the meaning of these words, but because they had no interest in portraying the situation as it was. In fact, their goal was to convince the world that Israel was the embodiment of every evil concept ever conceived.

And guess what, they succeeded.

And it's not because it's true. Its because Yasser Arafat, the person who I credit with founding the movement of what I'll call the twisting of the English language, and the inability of Western society to distinguish between right and wrong, made it a policy to always, at every opportunity, accuse Israel of the worst and every conceivable crime, believing that if they said it enough, and it was repeated enough, in association with Israel, that people would believe it.

Let's look at it theoretically for a moment, as a point of linguistics. We know what a cherry is, and we know what a watermelon is. But if the majority of the world starts to call a cherry a watermelon, then after a period of time, that cherry actually BECOMES a watermelon. Maybe not physically, but conceptually. And this would no doubt result in confusion between the characteristics of a cherry and a watermelon. For while a watermelon would still be a fruit, it would be very small, and now it would have a pit. While a cherry would be large. They'd both be red inside, but outside a watermelon would also be green outside.

Yasser Arafat and the Arab and Islamic world have large numbers of people that strapped bombs to themselves and walked into busses and pizza parlors to kill innocent civilians. They call them freedom fighters. And in Israel, we have policemen and soldiers whose job it is to stop these "freedom fighters" from killing our children. Often these "freedom fighters" hide behind their own children, and as a result of them putting their children into the line of fire, their children get killed (this also happens on a large scale like we saw in Gaza). Subsequently, Yasser Arafat, and the Arab and Muslim world would call Israeli police officers and soldiers "terrorist child killers." The media outlets would quote him and make the quote a headline which might read "Israel murders Palestinian Children." And viola, in the International psyche, uncritical of the title, looking to keep up-to-date, but not read the article, or if they did, not using their judgment to understand the circumstances, Israelis would be transformed into child murders and terrorists.

Another favorite term projected onto Israel is Nazis. And one of the most common arguments for calling Israel "Nazis" is that Israeli action during wartime or when fighting terrorists result in death or destruction, like any military action. To the Muslim or Arab leader making the claim this makes no difference. It also makes no difference to them that the Nazis are known for rounding up millions of people of a specific ethnic group (primarily Jews), either using them for slave labor while starving them to death (calculated to be efficient to save food) or sending them straight to death by gassing, then after dying pulling out their teeth and cutting their hair to use in industry, then burning their bodies to hide the evidence.

Today I had a debate with a Turk on Twitter. One avukatoglu. He was throwing every slander at the book at me. He called me a terrorist (I've never held a weapon in my life and the only people I may have terrorized at some point are my sister or my wife), he accused me of "liking to kill children," and he said "there's no difference between Israel and Hitler" (hate to tell you Mr. avukatoglu, but Israel is a country, and Hitler was a person). Another Twit (literally) by the name of minnigul joined in the fray and said "Unlike nazis, Israel chooses to kill millions without any need for secracy." Apparently these are the facts our Arab and Muslims friends are taught. And I hate to tell you Mr. minnigul, Israel hasn't killed a million people, they sure haven't killed as many as the #Turks during the #ArmenianGenocide.

You get the point. Though if you don't, the point is the Arab and Muslim population have no value for the actual meaning of a word, they don't care if its used properly, or whether its accurate description, they just want to associate Israel with everything bad possible. And with the media joining in the chorus by quoting every nutty Arab and Muslim leader like Muammar al-Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and yes, Turkey's own Recep Erdoğan, calling Israel a Nazi state of child killers or whatever the flavor of the day, and using these quotes as their headlines, well the general population who have an attention span of 140 characters see this as their news, and begins to believe it.

Another common accusation leveled at Israel is that it practices Apartheid; even senile old Jimmy Carter titled his latest book "Israel 'Peace, Not Apartheid." I'd say too bad old Jimmy doesn't have a clue what apartheid was, but the truth is he probably does, its more likely he was trying to make a politically motivated statement, like his Saudi financial backers, and not an accurate one.

Apartheid was a political system that discriminated against people of color, and determined the rights a person received by the color of their skin. In Israel, under the law all of its citizens have equal rights. Arabs and Jews share the same benches, can sit anywhere on the bus, can vote and can go to whatever school they choose. What Mr. Carter was apparently trying to do was to confuse the uninitiated, hiding the fact that Palestinian Arabs are not Israeli citizens, so don't have rights in the State of Israel, just like Mexicans living in Mexico don't have the same rights in the United States as Mexican citizens living in America with American citizenship. No matter, Mr. Carter, we know you've become morally confused too. Maybe in addition to check your moral compass, I'd recommend also getting yourself checked for Alzheimer's, or at least hypocrisy.

What's interesting is that I'm not the first to notice this phenomenon among Muslims or those that speak Arabic. It's been noted by others that Islam, being a monotheistic religion and being against idolatry, uses Arabic words as their almost sole mode of decoration. It's true; you can see it on the ceilings and the walls of their mosques, and in their societies. And there are those that claim that the actual meaning of a word is less important in Arabic as the reaction it creates, a very interesting theory indeed.

And if it was only the freewheeling use of the English language by the Muslim and Arab world with no regard for their actual meaning, it might not have been that important. But a few very specific developments over the past decade have resulted in the English language not only losing its original meaning, but due to the role that language plays in our consciousness and grasp of the world, it has resulted in it impacting our values for life, justice, desire or ability to distinguish right from wrong, and our very definition of morality.

For how could it have not, what with events such as the Turkish flotilla in which what the world calls a "humanitarian organization" (the IHH), also being a terrorist organization. In fact, many major organizations labeled by the West as terrorist organizations also have a charity wing, including Hamas and Hezbollah. And many Western leaders, including President Barack Obama, publicly declare that these charity wings are legitimate, how's that for confusing! Can you imagine if the Red Cross had a military wing that trained terrorists to attack and kill innocent civilians and launch missles at population centers? It’s the same thing, really it is.

So what are these other developments? Well, first there's multiculturalism, also known as tolerance. A primarily European practice in which people are taught of the need respect other's sensitivities, religious practices, and traditions. In Europe, multiculturalism has become a religion in itself, particularly in the wake of WWII and the holocaust. In fact, guilt for the holocaust has led the Europeans down the path of moral relativity in which their hyper-sensitive guilt prevents them from criticizing others of different cultures, even when their actions or practices would be considered a crime. It's led to an inability to take a stand based on moral principles and distinguish right from wrong for fear of being called subjective, or worse, racist. How do you shut a European up? Call them a racist (this only works as long as the subject isn't Israel or Judaism related, that's apparently an acceptable for of racism today in Europe, only they call it "Zionism").

In America, this multiculturalism is known as political correctness, a much more developed and well implemented strategy, or at least until lately. For while in America one respects others right to be different, they are all still held to the same standard, and practices such as honor killings or female circumcision are not stripped of their religious origins. At least, they weren't until the current administration in which it has become taboo to g-d forbid mention when religion is the motive of a crime.

Like we saw with Nidal Hassan the notorious "criminal" in the Fort Hood shootings that yelled Allah Akbar (allah is great) while shooting American servicemen and to whom American born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a designated terrorist by the US government was his spiritual guide. Or the latest bombing attempt in Times Square. Sadly it seems the President Barack Obama has caught Europe's multiculturalism bug and is also himself incapable of taking a moral stand based on his nation's values, dare to stand up and state it when something is wrong, particularly when it has to do with anything Arab or Muslim (but he seems to have no problem criticizing the Jewish state), and even if it resulted in the murder of members in his own constituency. That's really sad.

Then there's the digital age which not only created our "global community," but also created a world in which we want answers NOW, and in bite size form. And the media, which provides us with an overwhelming majority of our news and information, accomplishes this by creating bombastic headlines that do little more than regurgitate the words of others, including dictators. And the contents of their articles have also been tinged by the multiculturalism bug, refusing to make an open judgment, and g-d forbid, assign blame (except, once again, to Israel).

We also have the Twitter phenomenon, in which our maximum patience for reading is 140 characters, and the ability of anyone to make their case is limited to the life of what is known as a trending topic.

The real tragedy in all of this is that over the past ten years those fascist and totalitarian dictators in the Arab and Muslim world whose objective is to rob their own people of their freedoms, obtain military and political power and intimidate others in an effort to gain this power are succeeding. They have learned that in the West, the printed word is sacred, and true. And by simply making statements and using simple logic like Israel kills Muslim children and subsequently Israelis are terrorists magically become true. Because apparently those in the West either aren't willing or capable of understanding that those Muslim children died because their own government launched missles at Israeli civilians from behind these same children, and when Israel tried to destroy the rocket launcher that child died.

Much like we saw with the Turkish flotilla. The images are very clear. Turkish "peace activists" preparing for IDF troops by swinging chains and metal bars, or throwing things at Israeli soldiers riding along next to the Mavi Marmara. Yet the world somehow still has difficulty deciding whether or not these people were simply really peace activists that were defending themselves.

It all comes down to language. Language defines our reality, and our perception of things. Language is a very powerful tool. Traditionally it has helped up define our surroundings and understand the world around us. But the events over the past few years, the situation in which some in the Muslim world use English words for their impact, and not for their accuracy, the willing or unwilling participation of the media, and the resulting confusion of everyday people is not only leading us to a place where we're not willing to take a stand for fear of being called intolerant or not politically correct, its leading the west to the point in which it actually can't really distinguish between right and wrong.

It seems we can only understand that which we are spoon fed. We're not capable of deciding for ourselves whether people that cut metal rods off of boats to beat and stab soldiers are peace activists and humanitarian workers or violent mercenaries or terrorists. We're not sure if hiding behind our neighbor whether they agree to it or not while firing missles at someone else's children is a crime that should be prosecuted or a legal strategy in a "struggle for liberation."

The values for life, liberty, right and wrong that is the result of centuries of bloody war in the West are now being clouded with babble of dictators and fascists that have discovered that they only need to same something for it to become a universal truth. And much like our example with the cherry and the watermelon, not only are terrorists becoming human rights workers and human rights workers becoming terrorists, we can't even identify what attributes belong to whom. But even worse, what happens when a terrorist becomes a human rights activist and a human rights activist becomes a terrorist? What happens then?

It's literally a war of words, and together with multiculturalism, the media and technology, we're losing our ability to make critical judgments. And our leadership that has taken politically correct and tolerance to such an extreme that doesn't allow us to call a crime if its weaved together as part of a religious ideology is robbing us of our ability to not to not only good from bad, but right from wrong.

What's the solution? What can we do? Demand from the media ethical reporting and accountability. Question what you're told, when accusations or leveled by cultures that don't share our values, question their accuracy and the use of those words. Take a stand, if you think something is wrong even its not politically correct to say it, say it. And challenge others to prove they're right, or you're wrong.

Israel: Abandoned, Isolated, and Under Assault

2010-06-15T12:13:00.000-07:00

Yes, it is really that bad. That is, at least in the political (and shortly military) sphere. Looking back through modern history it's hard to find a comparable situation in which a single nation, less than 8 million citizens, democratic, perpetually at war for the last 60 years, and fighting totalitarian regime and terrorist organization alike, has been transformed by the international media and leadership of western nations into the biggest pariah state in modern history.

Today in the international community Israel stands as probably the most reviled nation in the world. More reviled that Iran, more reviled than Sudan or Somalia, almost as reviled as Hitler's Germany.

Individual companies and national movements alike are boycotting Israel. The United Nations has passed resolution after resolution slamming the state of Israel and accusing it of crimes while ignoring the very terrorists that launch missles from the yards of their children. Countries including the UK, Ireland, and Australia are expelling Israeli diplomats, Poland has arrested an Israeli suspected of illegally obtaining a German passport, and is getting ready to extradite him. The UK, who's justice system allows requesting the authorities to arrest any individual without any proof of crime, has for two years threatened to arrest Israeli official after Israeli official, and Israeli citizens themselves have been the target of terrorist attacks and at the same demonization led by the international press, who have been convinced by the same terrorists that send walking bombs into pizza parlors to kill Israeli children that murdering children is a valid political tool.

International "humanitarian" organizations which are supposed to be concerned about the welfare of humanity, volunteer their services as human shields in the service of violent mercenaries looking to attack and kidnap Israeli soldiers while at the same time with the collusion of the media get the added bonus of deligitimzing Israel's actions to prevent arms smuggling.

Israel's traditional allies, "enlightened" western nations including Germany, France and the UK have not only abandoned Israel wholesale, but are now openly demanding that Israel lift a blockade on Gaza meant to prevent the smuggling of heavy weapons that will be used to kill scores of Israelis. Their excuse, the supposed humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The real reasons? God only knows, fear of Muslim reactions in their streets, intense political pressure from the American administration, or successful brainwashing by Muslim terrorists and rogue nations in which they really believe that Israel has transformed Gaza into a concentration camp and is rounding up Palestinians for extermination as we speak.

Israel has been abandoned by its closest ally the President of the United States, who seems to have made the strategic decision to sacrifice Israel as part of his attempts to engage the Islamic world. Perhaps mixed in with a bit of his belief that Palestinians are being robbed by Israel of their freedom like African Americans were once robbed of their liberty by their slavemasters, a belief which is completely wrong. The American President has shown time and again not only his distaste for Israelis and their Prime Minister, he's shown his preference for trying to woo dictators like Syria's Bashar al' Assad, or Turkey's very own Taaycep Erdogan, even after Syria continued to allow terrorists to prepare attacks against American soldiers in Iraq from Syrian territory and after Turkey voted against the latest UN resolution lead by the US.

Though what might be most concerning is the abandonment by the very few people that are supposed to understand Israel and support them in their time of need, the American and international Jewish community. Sure, there are a few brave souls, those not afraid to openly voice their support for Israel, not afraid to criticize President Barack Obama for reneging on each and every one of his campaign promises regarding Israel, people like international human rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz, former NY Mayor Ed Koch, or my friend Dan from Chicago. But they are few and far between. The rest sit in either apathy or indifference to the events unfolding in the world, the situation of Israel in the Middle East, and the increasing drive towards critical mass.

Israel has been abandoned by almost every single one of its friends and allies. It has been demonized by the 'good' organizations in the world that believe the Palestinian people shouldn't suffer because of Hamas' actions in waging war on Israel, but at the same time seem to think the Israeli people are just as guilty of the "crimes" of the Israeli government taken while protecting Israeli citizens.

Many will say that Israel has brought it upon itself, using the hottest buzzwords adopted by the mainstream media from the Muslim fascists and left-wing anarchists, things like "it’s the natural result of their colonialist policies," or "that's what happens when you enslave people and steal their land." Just keep in mind that this is the same argument used by those that say the Arab and Muslim world has waged war against Israel because it's occupying the West Bank and Gaza. Only problem is that Israel didn't occupy Gaza before 1967, and they're not occupying Gaza now.

The real reason for Arab and Muslim hatred towards Israel is strictly that, hatred. Hatred of the fact that the land of Israel is no longer part of greater Islam like it was under the Ottomans. Hatred that Israel is a Jewish state. Hatred that we do our best to provide liberty and justice for all, even during wartime, or that our women are equal, as are our minorities (even though they'd like to claim they're not). And just maybe it's this very same hatred that is driving the rest of the world to openly participate with fascist thugs and dictators in isolating Israel. A hatred carried over for millennia, one that enabled so many of them to sit and watch while Jews were rounded up and murdered not so long ago. Sound like hyperbole, like I'm going over the top. You haven't heard the half of it.

Today, with their expulsion of an Israeli representative from the nation of Ireland, the Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said "the official concerned is a victim of the actions of the state they represent." We'll, I'm not sure exactly which actions he's referring to, but I can guarantee you that they were taken to protect Israeli lives. And realize that when he says "a victim of the actions of the state they represent" the actions he is referring to are no less and no more serious than almost every other nation in the world takes, regularly, to protect their own citizens. But in Israel's case, the Israeli government is transformed into a criminal for doing so.

But I'm not her to voice grievances, nor indignation. No, I'm way past that. That's something I've been doing for two years in my blog while the world actively participated in the deligitimization of the State of Israel's right to self defense, and at the same time legitimized, through its publishing and republishing its words, Iran's call for the destruction of Israel through its pronouncements in the media that the "evil entity called Israel" is coming to an end.

I'm here to give one last wake up call. Israel's got its back against the wall. The President of the United States Barack Obama is waging a war against Israel on almost all fronts. Its even been speculated that if Israel decides to try and attack Iranian nuclear facilities, the President may order American troops to stop the attack, even if it involves downing Israeli fighter jets. Would the President attack Israeli jets to protect the Iranians? Don't think it can't happen.

Today, Israeli representatives are being threatened with arrest in the UK, and being expelled from Ireland and Australia, the media has vilified not only the State of Israel, but has half convinced itself and the world that Israel is a state of right-wing, war mongering fanatics, while at the same time convincing itself that human rights and peace activists really do stab and beat soldiers of a sovereign nation taking legal action to protect their state, and try to kidpnap them for ransom to boot.

The world is making a concerted effort at forcing Israel to allow the flow of ten ton bombs into Gaza that can wipe out entire neighborhoods, and Israel's arch enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran that has openly stated time and again its desire to destroy Israel, is not only actively developing the weapons to do so, but as we speak is sending ships most likely packed with hundreds of mercenary soldiers to Gaza, about to spark the biggest war the Middle East has ever seen.

And all you can do is barely make an effort to read these words. Yes you, who have been instilled with the words "Never Again," you who voted for Change and got a hell of a lot more than you asked for. You, who knows right from wrong but can't quite make out whether those on the Turkish humanitarian mission attacked Israeli soldiers, or whether Israeli soldiers actually just landed on one of six boats and decided to shoot it up for the fun of it.

You, those who once upon a time understood that a terrorist was someone that killed civilians, but now can't decide if its Hamas that are terrorists, the ones' that have enslaved their own people and transformed them into human shields, or the sovereign State of Israel, the ones that that are doing whatever they can to prevent the next 12 thousand missles from falling on its citizens heads, the same missles the peace activists are fighting so violently to ship to Gaza.

And you, American Jews who can't find the desire or the strength to make your voices heard loud and clear at what is very likely the most critical and defining moment in the history of the modern State of Israel. One in which Iran and its partners have already succeeded in stockpiling tens of thousands of missles on Israel's borders, sent thousands if not tens of thousands of trained soldiers to its borders, and is waiting for the signal to open its offensive in its next and greatest attempt at achieving its goal, the destruction of Israel and ethnic cleansing of its citizens.

Just remember, if you don't speak now, you will shoulder the burden for the death and destruction that is about to rein in this land. Your silence is interpreted as tacit agreement.

So maybe I am here to express indignation, and grievance. But can you blame me? I had more faith in you, more belief in your ability to judge right from wrong, more certainty that your sense of justice would prevail, more conviction that when the time came, again, you'd stand up to the dictator and mass murderer and say never again. That you'd demand from your leaders to stand up for what's right, and not bow down and let war and darkens enveloped us once again. But today you sit in silence, and in apathy, today is the day Israel loses hope in those that claim to support them. Today I despair, today I lose faith.

This will be my last blog post in any way, shape or form making any type of plea or request. That's it, in Israel we're fed up. Apparently there's no one in the world interested in guaranteeing our right to a free and peaceful life, so we'll just have to do it ourselves. And g-d have mercy on those that attack us.

It's funny, I often hear about the end of days, the coming of the messiah, gog v'magog, the apocalypse. How the entire world turns against Israel, even its best friends, but I never took it seriously. However, today it's hard not to make a connection, to see how some prophecies in the world seem to be self fulfilling. And it's hard not to think that we just might really be at that point. Perhaps, not the end of the world, but at a point of death and destruction the likes the world has never seen, even if it's primarily in the Middle East. Though just remember the words of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, it always starts with the Jews, meaning it will arrive to your door sooner or later. Some people may laugh, I warn you to take it seriously.

If it was strictly about being abandoned by our friends and our allies, I might still take heart. But what's more ominous and more despairing is the silence of those that have professed not only their friendship, but brotherhood, those that share an emotional bond with this land, and its people. For when they sit silent, there's no one left to speak up.

Think its not as bad as all that, think again.