Kesher Talk
Friday, March 15, 2002
Carnegie Endowment - End of Brief Affair? US and Iran
Engage Iran, please?: Daniel Brumberg says we need to get Iran on our side. "Some security issues call for the threat of sticks, but the United States must also seek to engage Iran by offering it carrots-cooperation in Afghanistan and an end to economic sanctions, in return for a commitment by Iran's leaders to cease support for terrorism and back a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."If only Brumberg could come up with a way of making those Iranian commitments stick.
Human Rights Watch: Clifford Bob writes in Foreign Policy this month on how international NGOs "that reach the global limelight often do so at dear cost—by distorting their principles and alienating their constituencies for the sake of appealing to self-interested donors in rich nations." A sidebar to his article, with an excerpt from Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2001, helps explain why they care only about one side and not the other...
The failure to include a particular country or issue often reflects no more than staffing limitations and should not be taken as commentary on the significance of the problem. There are many serious human rights violations that Human Rights Watch simply lacks the capacity to address. Other factors affecting the focus of our work … include the severity of abuses, access to the country and the availability of information about it, the susceptibility of abusive forces to outside influence, the importance of addressing certain thematic concerns, and the need to maintain a balance in the work of Human Rights Watch across various political divides.
Loony Russian Academics: I love it. I sat through a tedious lecture from Lilia Shevtsova in the summer of 1993, when I was studying in Moscow. She was director of the Center of Political Studies at the University of Moscow at the time.
Here are my favorite quotes from her lecture:
Several years later, she gets taken in by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Go figure.
Here are my favorite quotes from her lecture:
- "There are no morals in commerce." (speaking of the sale of nuclear weapons to Iran, India, and Pakistan)
- "Intellectuals like to suffer."
- "Siberian grain is the best in the world."
Several years later, she gets taken in by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Go figure.
The ongoing Jewish assault: History professor Tony Martin "offers a historian's analysis of the escalating Jewish onslaught against Black people."
Meanwhile, Jewish Tribal Review presents a compendium of articles "about Jewish and Zionist influence in popular culture, Jewish ethnocentrism, Jewish power, Jewish wealth, American Judeocentrism and Jewish political lobbying."
Meanwhile, Jewish Tribal Review presents a compendium of articles "about Jewish and Zionist influence in popular culture, Jewish ethnocentrism, Jewish power, Jewish wealth, American Judeocentrism and Jewish political lobbying."
Kesher Talk
Is Israel the bad guy?: Further on the debate with Bryan over Israeli history, Iain offers up some more facts from the Encyclopedia Britannica showing that Arabs were terrorizing the Jews in the thirties."[The period of the British mandate]When the mandatory government refused to take effective measures to forbid the sale of land to Jews and to stop the illegal Jewish immigration that increased with the persecution of the Jews in Germany after 1933, the Arab leaders announced a policy of noncooperation with the British and a boycott of British goods; at the same time, the existing restrictions on immigration, which were only partly effective, led to Jewish protests and riots. In April 1936 an Arab High Committee was formed to unite the Palestinian Arabs in opposition to the Jews; its formation was followed by a renewal of Arab attacks on the Jews, soon developing into open war. The revolt of the Arabs continued during the next three years. In November 1936 a new commission, under Lord Peel, arrived to study the situation. The Arab leaders boycotted the commission until just before its departure. The commission's report of July 1937 emphasized that cooperation between Arabs and Jews in a Palestinian state was impossible; to the dismay of the Arabs, it recommended the partition of Palestine. The report made it clear that the establishment of a Jewish state would involve radical movements of population to secure the necessary Jewish majority, even in the parts of Palestine where the Jewish population was largest. In September 1937 nonofficial representatives from the various Arab countries met at Bludan in Syria and announced the complete rejection of the Peel proposals. In Palestine the publication of the Peel report was followed by renewed Arab terrorism and violence. The British thereupon disbanded the Arab High Committee and deported its leading members. The mufti and a few others escaped arrest and fled to Lebanon, which became the headquarters of a continuing Palestinian Arab insurrection. Before long, however, the insurrection lost its singleness of purpose and degenerated into an Arab civil war as the leaders of the revolt turned their energies against their political rivals."
Then, after the UN decision to partition Palestine:
"Shocked and angry, the Arab leaders refused to recognize the validity of the UN decision and declared their determination to oppose it by force. By January 1948 volunteers were arriving from the Arab countries to help the Palestinian Arabs, but they were soon overwhelmed by the Zionist forces."
On the declaration of the state of Israel:
"On May 14 the State of Israel was proclaimed and was immediately recognized by the Soviet Union and the United States. On the following day, as the British announced the end of their mandate in Palestine, troops of the Transjordanian army, the Arab Legion, and their counterparts from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq entered the country. The Arab forces, which at this point were vastly better equipped than the Israeli forces, occupied the areas in the south and east, which were not yet controlled by the Jews, and unsuccessfully laid siege to Jewish Jerusalem."
The resulting war led to a UN-brokered peace settlement:
"Between February and July 1949 the mediator secured separate armistice agreements between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria. These agreements left Israel in possession of all the areas it had won by conquest: the whole of Galilee, the whole of the Palestinian coast minus a reduced Gaza Strip (occupied by Egypt), all of the Negev, and a strip of territory connecting the coastal region to the western section of Jerusalem. The remaining parts of Jerusalem (including the Old City), along with what remained of the Arab share of Palestine, were taken over by Transjordan, which then became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. No entity remained that was officially called Palestine. The departure of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs had meanwhile left Israel with a substantial Jewish majority."
Iain asks,
In all of this it was Arab intransigence that directly caused the Arabic woes. Perhaps you might say that the Balfour declaration and the subsequent Jewish immigration to Palestine -- a thinly-settled, unwanted land at the time -- caused the problem. If so, then where would you let the Jews have their homeland if not in their ancestral land? Uganda? Or perhaps the Jews don't need a homeland. I'm sure you agree they do.
The original UN partition plan was accepted by the Jews. It was rejected by the the Arabs, who have NEVER recognized formally the right of the state to exist. Even school maps in the Palestinian authority do not include Israel, but the fictitious state of Palestine. Arab leaders regularly tease the concession of a right to exist, but they never follow through with it (Egypt might recognize Israel -- I'm not sure -- but they sure as hell don't act like it).
... Israel is beseiged by hostile powers, with an active fifth column who regularly blow up cafes. Any Palestinian leader who makes concessions to Israel is regarded as a traitor, which is why Hamas and its brothers have gained at Arafat's expense. I cannot accept that there is any moral equivalence between the bombers and Israel taking retaliatory action in self-defence. As the Jeruslaem Post wrote recently, "So long as the Israelis are condemned for defending themselves, the Palestinians have no diplomatic reason to end terrorism."
Israel is a functioning democracy that the world community came together to create in recognition of the unspeakable wrongs done to its people. But there still remain plenty who want those wrongs to happen again. Check out www.memri.org for Arabic praise of Hitler.
...In fact, such primitive lies boggle the mind. Does Mr. Al-Jalahma actually believe them? Certainly no small number of his readers do. Or want to, as a way of demonizing Jews. Funny, but such state-sanctioned propaganda doesn't seem like the best way to prepare the Saudi people for "accepting" the state of Israel — now or ever. Indeed, it makes you wonder whether harboring much in the way of expectations for such a people constitutes, if not a Big Lie exactly, then at least a Big Delusion."
Israel the bad guys? Give me a break!
More web filth: Also discovered on that search for AIPAC was another website dedicated to exposing the Zionist conspiracy. Here, it "exposes" the "MEDIA COMPLICITY AND CENSORSHIP" which coddles Jews and Israel.
Did I mention that capital letters are one of the surest signs of mental instability on the web?
Did I mention that capital letters are one of the surest signs of mental instability on the web?
Jew Watch
Frightening things out there in web land: Tracking back through visits to my site, it appears I was discovered while someone searched for information on AIPAC. But I was not the only non-AIPAC site to appear in this search.A frightening web index of everything a psychotic Jew-hater needs, called Jew Watch, is dedicated to documenting the great Zionist conspiracy. It includes such lovely topic categories as "Jewish Hate Groups" (like the Anti-Defamation League and B'Nai Brith), "Jewish Religions" (including Atheism, Christianity, and Magic/Wiccan cults), "Jewish Banking and Financial Manipulations," "Jewish Atrocities," and "Jewish Mind Control Mechanisms."
BLOGGER
Israeli history disputed: My colleague Iain Murray is carrying on a debate about American war policy and other issues with his friend Bryan. Below, I refute several erroneous points Bryan has raised on Israeli and Palestinian history.And let us not forget that the state of Israel itself was founded some 50 years ago from a policy of terrorism and forced displacement.
After World War II, Britain (the League of Nations Mandate holder) was unable to maintain control over Palestine and transferred responsibility to the United Nations. The United Nations decided that the only means of resolving the escalating conflict between Jews and Arabs was to partition the land into two states. Although Jews constituted only one-third of the population and owned less than 7 percent of the land, the United Nations partition plan assigned 55 percent of Palestine's territory to the Jewish state. In March 1948, Zionist forces launched major operations throughout Palestine. Their attacks were brutal.
Through terror, psychological warfare, and direct conquests, Palestine was dismembered, many of its villages destroyed, and many of its people expelled as refugees.
A majority of the Arab exodus from Israeli/Palestinian lands was a result of (1) fear (grounded in reality or not) or (2) Arab leaders either encouraging that fear, or promising greater benefits when the citizenry returned triumphantly after the land was reconquered.
Was there Jewish terrorism? Absolutely. Is that what drove out the British? It was one of the factors, yes. The Stern gang and the Hagganah focused their attacks on the British, not the Arabs.
Is Jewish terrorism what drove out the Arabs? Not on your life.
By the time the British withdrawal had been completed, Palestinian resistance had been largely broken. British evacuation and the Zionist leaders' proclamation of the Israeli state on 15 May 1948-forcibly created beyond the area allotted to the Jewish community in the UN partition plan-prompted military intervention by the neighbouring Arab states, precipitating the first Arab-Israeli war.
Israel was not "forcibly created beyond the area allotted to the Jewish community in the UN partition plan." Israeli territory expanded AS A RESULT OF the war of independence. That war of independence began when all the Arab nations' armies invaded Israel, as soon as independence was declared.
Palestine was divided into three parts. The 1949 armistice agreements gave Israel control over 78 percent of the territory of mandate Palestine. Jordan occupied and annexed East Jerusalem and the hill country of central Palestine, thereafter known as the "West Bank" of the Jordan River. Egypt took temporary control of the coastal plain around the city of Gaza, later referred to as the Gaza Strip. Both Jordan and Egypt held on to these respective territories until the 1967 war, during which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian Arab state provided for in the United Nations partition plan was never established.
The current problems date back at least to there. The history of Israel does not have a good start and since it is so recent, it is hardly surprising that the dispossessed Palestinians still feel aggrieved especially as they have never been allowed the self determination that the Israelis so proudly defend for themselves.
Never mind that the Arab states controlled Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank and never allowed the slightest bit of autonomy. In fact, residents were generally kept in refugee camps. And most Arab nations took in Palestinian refugees and also kept them in camps rather than allowing them even the freedom to settle. The refugees were constantly told that Israel would soon be reclaimed and the Jews driven into the sea. It should be no surprise now that so many Palestinians expect nothing less than the goal of Israel's outright destruction.
TownHall.com: Conservative Columnists: Jacob Sullum
Even the libertarian gets it:In a country where most people serve in the army at some point, the line between legitimate military targets and innocent civilians can be thin. If these young women -- one 18, the other 20 -- had been eating pastry in street clothes, would their deaths be more troubling?
The Palestinians, in any event, do not worry about such distinctions. From their perspective, to judge by the spontaneous jubilation that greets every terrorist outrage, soldiers and civilians, men and women, adults and babies, are all the same, whether they're in Hebron or in Tel Aviv -- as long as they're Jewish.
They don't even have to be Israeli. Seventeen years ago, PLO men killed an American Jew in a wheelchair on the Achille Lauro and dumped him overboard. Today, they're happy to kill American Jews who commit the offense of studying or vacationing in Israel.
In short, this is exactly the sort of implacable, unreasoning, ruthless hatred upon which President Bush declared war after Sept. 11. Now he is urging the Israelis to make peace with it. (Jacob Sullum, Mar. 15)
Middle East game: And yes, I do mean a game! A computer game, that is. I came upon this old game while trawling through The Underdogs website of no-longer-marketed computer games.
It is called Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator and I find it quite enthralling. You play the part of Israeli prime minister, trying to protect your national security, prevent Arab states from getting nuclear bombs, develop your own, etc. The interface is weak, but still interesting. And who could pass up the opportunity to invade Syria and sign a military pact with Egypt? Or simply sign away the Palestinians to a state of their own and never have to worry about them again? Ah, entertainment does not reflect reality all that well...
It is called Conflict: Middle East Political Simulator and I find it quite enthralling. You play the part of Israeli prime minister, trying to protect your national security, prevent Arab states from getting nuclear bombs, develop your own, etc. The interface is weak, but still interesting. And who could pass up the opportunity to invade Syria and sign a military pact with Egypt? Or simply sign away the Palestinians to a state of their own and never have to worry about them again? Ah, entertainment does not reflect reality all that well...
Thursday, March 14, 2002
The Idler, A Web Periodical, 3-15
Israel, media bias, nonsense, etc.: Arlynn Nellhaus discusses media bias, at home and abroad, on Israel.Kosher for Passover
Passover is coming: Figuring out what to cook for my first hosted seder has proven hader than I thought. Here are some holiday sites: Kosher for Passover; the Pesach Page, complete with an automatic daiyenu song...Wednesday, March 13, 2002
What can we learn from Kuwait: Historian Victor Davis Hanson says "the case of Kuwait is an example of ungratefulness of a completely different magnitude — one that puts the French of the late 1940s to shame. Quite simply, by autumn 1990 Kuwait had ceased to exist. ... No Arab state or European nation took the initiative in freeing the Kuwaitis. American servicemen spearheaded their emancipation — and then graciously allowed a token armored column of Kuwaitis to enter their homeland first to "liberate" their enslaved population. If few had seen the Kuwaiti princes scamper out of town when the Iraqis came, the world now witnessed on television their staged triumphant return. Somewhere in between the two events was the intervention of the Americans.
What can we learn from this ungracious about-face? Again, the answer surely is not that we must mediate more, "work harder" on public relations, or learn more about Kuwait. What we know about it is already depressing enough. Since there is not a single democracy or free media in the Arab Middle East, there is almost no chance that religious figures, politicians, academics, intellectuals, and average people can debate honestly the growing contradictions between Islam and the modern world — or Islam's need for Western expertise and the ensuing resentment that such dependency apparently incurs. Instead the success and power of the United States — and to a lesser extent of Israel — in Pavlovian outbursts become the cheap targets when venting Middle-Eastern frustration at internal economic failure, religious hypocrisy, government autocracy, and endemic cultural contradiction, whether in an impoverished Egypt or the affluent Gulf."
Beichman on Arab demands: "Richard C. Hottelet, the CBS correspondent, once asked Maxim Litvinov, Stalin's erstwhile Soviet foreign minister: "Suppose the West were suddenly to give in and grant all Moscow's demands? Would that lead to good will and easing of the present tension?" Litvinov answered: "It would lead to the West's being faced after a more or less short time with the next series of demands." What applied to Stalin applies in even greater measure to Mr. Arafat, Prince Abdullah, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, the whole kit and kaboodle. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat tried to make peace. His reward? Assassination, Oct. 6, 1981, at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists." (Arnold Beichman, Mar. 8)
Questioning Israel's tactics in war: Reknowned Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has declared that the Israel Defence Force (IDF) will lose its war with the Palestinian terrorists. He says they have their strategy and tactics wrong.
Creveld's analysis is not wholly defeatist. He says that Israeli intelligence remains good and allows the IDF to avert many outrages. Shin Beth, the intelligence agency, has agents throughout the Palestinian community, some Arab, some Israeli passing as Arab. It also uses money, blackmail and intimidation to extract information. At present, Creveld says, Israel is winning, or at least not losing the war. However, he believes that the factors he identified during the first intifada are gaining in strength. The IDF, he says, was raised and is trained and equipped to fight wars of national survival against conventional armies in face-to-face battles. During the first intifada it was required to become a police force, which sapped its self-image as a heroic fighting force. It performed that task quite successfully, but now it is committed to reprisal missions, which often kill innocents and do not advance the object of deterring terrorists from further atrocities.This article in the Telegraph outlines some possible solutions.
... Creveld's words will have a bitter sting, for the ethos of the IDF is defined by the doctrine of "purity of arms", which allows Orthodox Jews to perform military service without violating their religious beliefs. The doctrine - an equivalent of the Christian Just War doctrine - holds that the use of violence is permissible as long as it is directed against enemies who are able to defend themselves. Once the prohibition against fighting the defenceless is broken, Creveld predicts, the army's ethos will be broken also. Worse, the breach will divide Israel and eventually provoke civil war.
MEMRI: Latest News Page
Jews Use Teenagers' Blood for 'Purim' Pastries: Sorry to have to end the blogging day on such a disgusting note, but MEMRI's latest translation cannot be missed. In an article published by the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, columnist Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University in Al-Dammam, writes that Jews use human blood to make hamentashen. And that is only the beginning of the insanity his article...Shalom. May tomorrow be a better day...
Post-Taliban mosques sit empty / Afghans rethink Islam after heavy-handed enforcement ends
As a Jew, I can sympathize...: "Now that the hard-line [Taliban] movement's strong grip on Afghan society has been released--even in the countryside, where support for it was strongest--some people are not sure they want to be Muslim at all. Most Afghans say they consider themselves devout Muslims, but few pray five times a day, as the Koran instructs. In cities like Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif, muezzins' calls for evening prayer now go virtually unnoticed as men gather in restaurants for dinner instead of going to the mosque." ("Post-Taliban mosques sit empty / Afghans rethink Islam after heavy-handed enforcement ends," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 11)Will Russia support Israel?: Russia Journal reports: "In a dramatic show of support for Israel, the speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament abruptly canceled his meeting with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. However, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov denied Tuesday that the move signaled a shift in Moscow's policy of maintaining a dialogue with both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Sergei Mironov, the speaker of the Federation Council, said that he decided not to meet with Arafat on Tuesday because "terrorist actions in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Israel have common roots, primarily financial," the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. Mironov announced his decision after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon late Monday. He said that the Israeli side viewed his decision as a show of support in the war against terror."
Yiddish, Shmiddish:
What is the origin of the practice of a dispraging a word by saying the word than dropping the first letter and replacing it with "schm?" For example, if you don't like baseball, you would say "baseball schmaseball."
The Straight Dope replies: It comes from Yiddish, of course. You have to ask?
Survey says - American youth think religion is an important part of life: Eighty-six percent of Americans aged 11 to 18 believe that religion is an important part of their lives. Reknowned sociologist Richard Gelles, in collaboration with Ram Cnaan, ran a University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Work national survey of 2,004 randomly selected households in 2000. They say that new-millennium American youth are very much like previous generations, despite some people’s views that today’s youth are less religious than previous generations.
Gelles said, "Teenagers are enormously stereotyped; yet, there are very little data on their actual religious habits."
Sixty-seven percent of youth interviewed in the Penn survey said they attended a place of worship in the past month, and 42 percent said they belong to social programs or social groups within their congregations. The survey also found that the parent’s education level plays a significant role in determining young people’s view of religion. The more educated parents are, the more likely they are to want to provide positive influences in their children’s lives, Cnaan said.
Gelles said, "Teenagers are enormously stereotyped; yet, there are very little data on their actual religious habits."
Sixty-seven percent of youth interviewed in the Penn survey said they attended a place of worship in the past month, and 42 percent said they belong to social programs or social groups within their congregations. The survey also found that the parent’s education level plays a significant role in determining young people’s view of religion. The more educated parents are, the more likely they are to want to provide positive influences in their children’s lives, Cnaan said.
Defending American Jews who do not move to Israel: In response to Yishai Fleisher's scathing indictment of Jews who do not make Aliyah (which I discussed last week), Etienne Gentin rises to our defense.
"The American Jewish community is a significant reason Israel exists and the continued service of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups will prove vital in maintaining American support when the rest of the world continues to be opposed to Israel's existence or at the very least is indifferent to her suffering at the hands of Arab terrorists. Obviously Israelis' sending their children to the army is a far greater personal sacrifice than American Jews supporting Israel financially and in other ways. However, giving financial support to Israel should not be seen as a whitewash of responsibility or as an act of guilt, but rather as an act of support and love at a time when the Jewish people should be active and open in our solidarity with Israel and vocally opposing Arafat's war." (Israeli Insider, Mar. 4)
"The American Jewish community is a significant reason Israel exists and the continued service of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups will prove vital in maintaining American support when the rest of the world continues to be opposed to Israel's existence or at the very least is indifferent to her suffering at the hands of Arab terrorists. Obviously Israelis' sending their children to the army is a far greater personal sacrifice than American Jews supporting Israel financially and in other ways. However, giving financial support to Israel should not be seen as a whitewash of responsibility or as an act of guilt, but rather as an act of support and love at a time when the Jewish people should be active and open in our solidarity with Israel and vocally opposing Arafat's war." (Israeli Insider, Mar. 4)
False public preferences:
Inhofe on why Israel should not be part of the "peace process": When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist. I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process. If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong. (Sen. John M. Inhofe's speech on the floor of the Senate Mar. 4)
Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.
One interesting question is whether a lot of the hardline Arab states are like this. Places like Iraq, Syria, or Saudi Arabia spend a lot of time telling their citizens that everyone feels a particular way, and punishing those who dare to differ, which has the effect of encouraging people to falsify their preferences. But who knows? Given the right trigger, those brittle authoritarian regimes might collapse overnight, with most of the population swearing - with all apparent sincerity - that it had never supported them, or their anti-Western policies, at all.
Perhaps we should think about how to make it so. (Gelnn Reynolds, TCS)
Inhofe on why Israel should not be part of the "peace process": When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist. I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process. If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong. (Sen. John M. Inhofe's speech on the floor of the Senate Mar. 4)
Vigilance: Every day, terrorists "are probing, testing, finding the weak spots in the system. The government has to stop all of them each and every time. They just have to get through once. Richard Reid was within a few seconds of blowing up a trans-Atlantic jet before his fellow passengers jumped on him. Maybe the next Richard Reid will find himself seated next to a Todd Beamer type. Or maybe he'll get lucky and the next seat will be filled by an Ivy League professor immersed in a long article in Harper's about how crass and misguided America's war on terrorism is because we're not concentrating on the "root causes," and he won't notice the smoking loafer until it's too late. The enemy has a simple war aim: Kill Americans--and if, along the way, you happen to kill a few Aussies, Japanese, Pakistanis or the nationals of some 70 other countries who died on Sept. 11, well, that's no big deal. Mission accomplished." (Mark Steyn, Sun-Times, Mar. 10)
Arson of historic Toronto synagogue: One of Toronto's oldest synagogues was broken into and set ablaze, angering the Jewish community which regarded the building as a landmark in its history. "It appears that there was a forced entry and a case of arson," said Sergeant Ralph Brookes of the fire at Anshei Minsk synagogue, the only downtown synagogue that is fully orthodox and provides daily prayer services. The synagogue is in the Kensington Market district, which was the hub of Toronto Jewish life during the community's early stages in the early 20th century. (CP)
Nixon and the Jews. Again. - If his tirades against Jews weren't anti-Semitism, what were they? By David Greenberg
Nixon and Graham's anti-semitism is no surprise: "As in the past, the recent reports of Nixon's Jew-bashing were followed by professions of shock. (The Anti-Defamation League's press release is here.) Such shows of indignation are probably on balance a good thing, reaffirming as they do that the president shouldn't be seeking revenge against a particular ethnic group. Yet they also betray either an incredibly short memory or a measure of disingenuousness. Have journalists forgotten the identical slurs heard on earlier tapes? Or the stories in 1994 reporting that, according to Haldeman's then-just-published diaries, Graham spoke to Nixon of "Satanic" Jews? Nixon's loyalists are no less opportunistic. For them the periodic disclosures serve as occasions to pen op-eds explaining why their benefactor, despite the slurs, really wasn't a Jew-hater. (The late Herb Stein, Nixon's [Jewish] chief economist, wrote one of these apologias in Slate.) Defending Nixon from charges of anti-Semitism has occupied his supporters for a half-century." ("Nixon and the Jews. Again." David Greenberg, Slate)
Words of peace will demonstrate the future: "This is an important fight, because it's about more than just p.r. or a peace proposal. It's about whose vision is going to dominate Arab politics. If Abdullah lets his message get watered down, it will signal not only that the Palestinians can't make real peace with Israel, but that the Arabs can't either. Therefore, no real acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East is possible — even if Israel fulfills all Arab requirements. For the Arab world, that would mean that bin Laden and Syria are in the driver's seat and that the Arab past will continue to bury the Arab future.
That's why the real question before this Arab summit is: Can the Arabs answer bin Laden by positing a different vision? Can the Arab-Muslim world show a willingness to live with pluralism — with a Jewish state in fair boundaries? Or must the area be free of all "infidels"? An Arab League that can't live with a pluralism of people can't live with a pluralism of ideas. If it can't live with a pluralism of ideas, it will never develop and will remain, at some level, alienated from the West and Israel." (Thomas Friedman, NYTimes)
That's why the real question before this Arab summit is: Can the Arabs answer bin Laden by positing a different vision? Can the Arab-Muslim world show a willingness to live with pluralism — with a Jewish state in fair boundaries? Or must the area be free of all "infidels"? An Arab League that can't live with a pluralism of people can't live with a pluralism of ideas. If it can't live with a pluralism of ideas, it will never develop and will remain, at some level, alienated from the West and Israel." (Thomas Friedman, NYTimes)
Just say no to international monitoring: "Such a scenario would result in the realization of one of the Palestinians' longest-held goals — the "internationalization"of the conflict via the installation of foreign troops to run interference for them. If the experience in Lebanon — where multilateral forces were supposed to separate the Hezbollah guerrillas from the Israeli security zone and forces there — is any guide, the insertion of American troops will not prevent terrorist attacks from being launched against Israel. It will, however, create real impediments to Israel's ability to preempt and retaliate against the attackers, lest U.S. personnel get hurt in the crossfire." (Frank J. Gaffney Jr. on NRO)
Revisionist revisits his own views: The New Yorker looks at revisionist Israeli historian Benny Morris, who has had something of a change of heart recently. "Shlomo Avineri, a prominent academic on the Israeli left, has said, "Whoever expected Yasir Arafat to turn into Nelson Mandela was proved wrong, but admitting it is hard. Incredibly hard." "
Restraint: "Just as restraint is not an appropriate policy in response to terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens, it is no more effective or moral when imposed on Israel." (Mark Levin on NRO)
How Israel can pursue peace and war: "What Israel must do is to adopt its own version of Arafat's phased war approach; it must pursue peace, or appear to pursue peace, as a phase in the longer war. It must meet Palestinian war with relentless war in return. But, simultaneously, it must become the aggressor in a new peace process--whether or not that process will ultimately lead to a peace Israel can accept. The so-called Saudi plan currently on the table is a cynical and moth-eaten fraud put forth by a cynical and moth-eaten regime. In its ultimate proposals--the abandonment of Jerusalem, the return of all Palestinian refugees--it is purposely unworkable. Israel should nevertheless grasp it (or something equally unrealistic) as the basis for a new round of negotiations.
This won't produce peace. But Israel can learn from Arafat's strategy; the great thing now is to take the long view--and meanwhile move the war to the next phase." (Michael Kelly in the Washington Post)
Revisionist revisits his own views: The New Yorker looks at revisionist Israeli historian Benny Morris, who has had something of a change of heart recently. "Shlomo Avineri, a prominent academic on the Israeli left, has said, "Whoever expected Yasir Arafat to turn into Nelson Mandela was proved wrong, but admitting it is hard. Incredibly hard." "
Restraint: "Just as restraint is not an appropriate policy in response to terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens, it is no more effective or moral when imposed on Israel." (Mark Levin on NRO)
How Israel can pursue peace and war: "What Israel must do is to adopt its own version of Arafat's phased war approach; it must pursue peace, or appear to pursue peace, as a phase in the longer war. It must meet Palestinian war with relentless war in return. But, simultaneously, it must become the aggressor in a new peace process--whether or not that process will ultimately lead to a peace Israel can accept. The so-called Saudi plan currently on the table is a cynical and moth-eaten fraud put forth by a cynical and moth-eaten regime. In its ultimate proposals--the abandonment of Jerusalem, the return of all Palestinian refugees--it is purposely unworkable. Israel should nevertheless grasp it (or something equally unrealistic) as the basis for a new round of negotiations.
This won't produce peace. But Israel can learn from Arafat's strategy; the great thing now is to take the long view--and meanwhile move the war to the next phase." (Michael Kelly in the Washington Post)
Tuesday, March 12, 2002
Green Zionism? Gil Troy is not far wrong in his assessment of what we need:
However, Troy's solution, proposed in the Forward, is not only unorthodox (no pun intended) but of no help whatsoever:
Sappy environmentalism is not a solution. I suppose it is an improvement of sorts - replacing the Zionist worship of socialism with the worship of "the environment" - but trying to displace Judaism from the debate over Israel makes no particular sense. The GZA prefers green politics to Judaism. More power to them if they can get people to follow them. But they offer no solution to Israel's problems.
Like the "Dead White Males" whom campus radicals decry as dominating the literary canon, Zionist thought remains dominated by "Dead Zionist Europeans." The classic Zionist thinkers — Theodore Herzl, Ahad Ha'am, A.D. Gordon — lived in Europe and died decades before the state was born. We need modern American Zionists. We need to start a broad and creative debate about what Zionism can mean to us, given the realities of Israel and the challenges of remaining Jewish in North America today.
We need bold new Zionist thinkers and visionary Zionist leaders. We need a new Zionist idiom that addresses 21st-century American problems, not 19th-century European anti-Semitism.
However, Troy's solution, proposed in the Forward, is not only unorthodox (no pun intended) but of no help whatsoever:
... a small but potentially revolutionary organization, the Green Zionist Alliance, or GZA. The GZA places environmentalism at the center of the Zionist agenda. "We care about humanity's responsibility to preserve creation," reads a statement on the GZA Web site, "and we accept the special responsibility of the Jewish people to preserve the many ecological treasures of Israel."
"The Land of Israel according to our tradition and text (Genesis 12:7) was assigned to us as a sacred trust," Rabbi Michael Cohen, GZA's executive director, said in an email. "That trust, if we are to take it seriously, includes the care of its holy soil, water, air and animal life. Zionism stands not just for returning the people to the land, but also the care of that very land so that the Jewish people may thrive on it."
Sappy environmentalism is not a solution. I suppose it is an improvement of sorts - replacing the Zionist worship of socialism with the worship of "the environment" - but trying to displace Judaism from the debate over Israel makes no particular sense. The GZA prefers green politics to Judaism. More power to them if they can get people to follow them. But they offer no solution to Israel's problems.
Does Sarah skate to shuel? Ami Edan laments that Jews just did not notice skater Sarah Hughes. Well, I know I did not notice her because I could not care less about figure skating (no sticks or pucks involved in it). But my fiancee certainly noticed. Anyhow, here is Edan's take in the Forward
It's not as if there were a lack of clues: Her name is Sarah; she comes from Great Neck, N.Y., she has had dreams of becoming a doctor. Still, for the most part, the Jewish media were asleep at the Zamboni wheel during the 2002 Winter Olympics, when Sarah Hughes became the first member of the tribe to capture the gold medal in figure skating.
That's right, 16-year-old Sarah Hughes has a Jewish mother, Amy Hughes née Pasternack, and reportedly grew up in a house with some attachment to Judaism. But odds are you didn't read about it in your local Jewish paper.
The Inquisition, what a show! The Inquisition, here we go! We're on a mission, to convert the Jews... Jewish groups are outraged that Spanish bishops have asked Pope John Paul II to canonize Queen Isabella I, who expelled Jews in 1492 and instituted the Inquisition. The controversial canonization has essentially been on hold since it was first proposed in the 1950s by a Spanish archbishop. At a meeting last week, however, the country´s bishops voted 60-20 to recommend that the Vatican move ahead with the process for Isabella´s beatification, the last step before making her a saint. Monsignor Juan Jose Asenjo, spokesman for the Spanish Roman Catholic Church, said the bishops consider Isabella "an exemplary Christian." He said the recommendation for sainthood should not be seen as an endorsement of her political actions. (JTA News)
Torquemada - do not beg him for mercy. Let's face it. You can't Torquemada anything...
Torquemada - do not beg him for mercy. Let's face it. You can't Torquemada anything...
Yemen, dubious ally: "Up to 100 U.S. troops, including security experts and intelligence officers, will soon be on their way to Yemen. U.S. ... It's the right step. But it is also one to be taken with care."
President Ali Abdullah Saleh cannot be trusted, according to Eric Watkins, an American journalist based in Cyprus, writing in the Wall Street Journal Europe (subscription required). Saleh "is a dubious ally, who allows U.S. troops to Yemen largely in order to avoid an outright U.S. attack."
"Even as he announced the expulsion from Yemen of around 500 foreign students enrolled in Islamist schools, Mr. Saleh said, "We believe that these British and American students belonged to security services who planted them there to gather information." Little wonder one U.S. official has characterized Yemen's help as "grudging and slow."
Yemen backed the mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan in the eighties out of self-interest - they could also be utilized in the fight against the communist government of South Yemen. After the fall of the Soviet Union, "Mr. Saleh openly allowed mujahideen of all nationalities back into Yemen, providing them with the facilities needed to move freely within his country, as well as abroad. After South Yemen was absorbed, Mr. Saleh employed the mujahideen as mercenaries in the 1994 civil war he launched against political adversaries." Yemeni officials claim that's all history.
"But the past is present in Yemen, where the infrastructure for jihad remains as solid as ever." Of course, "letting in the U.S. troops is the beginning of dealing with the problem. But it is important to bear in mind that until now -- and unlike" the leaders of the Phillipines and Georgia -- "the Yemeni president has consistently denied the presence of al Qaeda elements in his country."
"U.S. officials downplay the idea that an attack on Yemen was ever envisioned. But the Yemeni government clearly thought otherwise. The official Al Thawra newspaper -- no independent source of news -- recently described things as they were by stating that if Yemen did not "undertake the responsibility of hunting terrorism sources, the country's doors would be opened for intervention and our territories would be targeted by more dangerous and destructive action." "
America "has far to go before it can count on the Yemeni president for anything like a genuine partnership in the war on terror."
President Ali Abdullah Saleh cannot be trusted, according to Eric Watkins, an American journalist based in Cyprus, writing in the Wall Street Journal Europe (subscription required). Saleh "is a dubious ally, who allows U.S. troops to Yemen largely in order to avoid an outright U.S. attack."
"Even as he announced the expulsion from Yemen of around 500 foreign students enrolled in Islamist schools, Mr. Saleh said, "We believe that these British and American students belonged to security services who planted them there to gather information." Little wonder one U.S. official has characterized Yemen's help as "grudging and slow."
Yemen backed the mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan in the eighties out of self-interest - they could also be utilized in the fight against the communist government of South Yemen. After the fall of the Soviet Union, "Mr. Saleh openly allowed mujahideen of all nationalities back into Yemen, providing them with the facilities needed to move freely within his country, as well as abroad. After South Yemen was absorbed, Mr. Saleh employed the mujahideen as mercenaries in the 1994 civil war he launched against political adversaries." Yemeni officials claim that's all history.
"But the past is present in Yemen, where the infrastructure for jihad remains as solid as ever." Of course, "letting in the U.S. troops is the beginning of dealing with the problem. But it is important to bear in mind that until now -- and unlike" the leaders of the Phillipines and Georgia -- "the Yemeni president has consistently denied the presence of al Qaeda elements in his country."
"U.S. officials downplay the idea that an attack on Yemen was ever envisioned. But the Yemeni government clearly thought otherwise. The official Al Thawra newspaper -- no independent source of news -- recently described things as they were by stating that if Yemen did not "undertake the responsibility of hunting terrorism sources, the country's doors would be opened for intervention and our territories would be targeted by more dangerous and destructive action." "
America "has far to go before it can count on the Yemeni president for anything like a genuine partnership in the war on terror."
Monday, March 11, 2002
The Media Line - News Detail
Radio Arafat praises bombing: "Yasser Arafat’s state-run radio station gave unstinting praise Sunday morning (March 10) to two Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis Saturday night in which 13 Israeli civilians were murdered and more than 100 were wounded." (The Media Line)Peace lying in pieces: Ha'aretz has a first-person account of the coffehouse bombing: "It's our coffeehouse. We come here in the morning for an espresso and a croissant. We come here in the evening for a Kilkenny. To grasp what is left of normalcy, of our secular sanity. To grasp at what is left of our way of life. But now, ten minutes after the muffled roar of the explosion, the coffeehouse is quiet."
Conscientious objectors in the Grey Old Lady: Ishai Menuchin, chairman of Yesh Gvul, a group of IDF soldiers refusing to serve, writes an op-ed in the New York Times Saying No to Israel's Occupation.
Israel's "Vietnam Syndrome": Ira Chernus argues that Israel is developing the equivalent of America's old foreign policy affliction, 'Vietnam Syndrome.' Cute, but a paltry analogy. Ira uses it to clamor for Israeli withdrawal from "Palestine." But he trivializes the war and what the Palestinians are inflicting every day.
Vietnam syndrome grew out of public disenchantment, not military reality. America's abandonment of Vietnam had many repercussions, but aside from perhaps lengthening the Cold War, surrender in Indochina did not imperil the mainland U.S. directly. And the conflict never involved Vietcong suicide bombers blowing up New York City. That is what Israel faces.
The "backlash" to Israeli policies cannot be as threatening as the day-to-day violence Israeli citizens face.
Israel's "Vietnam Syndrome": Ira Chernus argues that Israel is developing the equivalent of America's old foreign policy affliction, 'Vietnam Syndrome.' Cute, but a paltry analogy. Ira uses it to clamor for Israeli withdrawal from "Palestine." But he trivializes the war and what the Palestinians are inflicting every day.
Vietnam syndrome grew out of public disenchantment, not military reality. America's abandonment of Vietnam had many repercussions, but aside from perhaps lengthening the Cold War, surrender in Indochina did not imperil the mainland U.S. directly. And the conflict never involved Vietcong suicide bombers blowing up New York City. That is what Israel faces.
The "backlash" to Israeli policies cannot be as threatening as the day-to-day violence Israeli citizens face.
INC looking for promised handouts: "Leaders of the Iraqi National Congress are making the rounds in Washington, try to get their hands on what they believe is $97 million in financial support they believed the U.S. government promised them during the Clinton years. They want the United States to allow them to pursue lethal action inside Iraq's borders in an effort to kick off a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein, believing the army will no longer support him. In exchange, the promise to hold some type of referendum once they take control to allow the Iraqi people to decide what kind of federalist, democratic system of government they want installed in Baghdad." (UPI's Capital Comment, Mar. 8)
A Foul Wind
Friedman's shaky history lessons:In the mid-1990's, Yitzhak Rabin was ready to take on the Jewish settlers, and he paid for it with his life. But that was the same period when Yasir Arafat took on Hamas, and eight Arab countries opened trade or diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. For a brief moment, we saw Israeli and Arab moderates working against Israeli and Arab extremists.
Um, false. Arafat did not reign in Hamas, Islamic Jihad. He only centralized power and quelled dissent - designed not to prevent terrorism or "extremism" as Friedman laughlingly calls it, but to sollidify his own dictatorship. See Friedman's foul piece in yesterday's NY Times, "A Foul Wind."
Israel Omitted from Fuji Co. Maps - Netlore Archive
Fuji Anti-Semitism: I received a forwarded email from my friend Tomer this morning imploring me to join a boycott of Fuji. The alleged antisemitism, that Fuji replaced Israel with Palestine on globes it sells, is an urban legend, debunked both by Fuji itself and by the Anti-Defamation League. Like most urban legends, the email is riddled with inaccuracies.Rabbi Berel Wein
Havdalah and the Jewish take on moral equivalence: Havdalah, the ceremony concluding the Sabbath, translates as "separation." Rabbi Berel Wein says, "the central idea that this ceremony signifies is the clear message of Judaism that as far as spiritual matters are concerned, not everything is to be treated equally.""It remarks upon the differences between light and dark, between the holy and the profane, between the sanctity of the Sabbath day and the days of the workaday week."
Thinly veiled threats from the Arab League: (Reuters) Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo said Sunday a Saudi initiative to end spiraling Middle East violence could be Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ``last chance'' for peace.
Wrapping up two days of talks that prepared the ground for a summit of their leaders in Beirut later this month, ministers from the 22-member Arab League discussed the Saudi proposal to offer Israel peace in exchange for Israeli-occupied Arab land. The plan, floated last month, is expected to top the agenda when Arab leaders meet in Lebanon on March 27 and 28.
``I believe that the Beirut summit is the last chance for Sharon and the Israeli leadership,'' said Kuwait's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah, who chaired the Cairo ministerial meeting. ``I think Arabs should offer the Israeli leadership this chance,'' he told a news conference. The Arab League's Secretary-General Amr Moussa also said the initiative could be the ``the last chance to save peace.''
Asked what measures Arabs would take if Israel failed to respond to the Saudi plan, Moussa said: ``Why should we reply to such a question?... We just give clear messages.'' Sudan became the latest Arab state Sunday to back the initiative, the official Saudi Press Agency reported. Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir called Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to voice his country's support. Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, whose country has cautiously welcomed the plan, held talks about it with Prince Abdullah during a visit to Saudi Arabia, the agency added.
OFFER OF FULL PEACE
Most Arab countries have voiced support for the plan, exceptions being Iraq and Libya. In Cairo, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said after talks earlier Sunday with Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak that Arabs were committed to peace with Israel if it withdrew from occupied Arab land and agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
``If Israel does that, it would receive full peace from Arab states,'' he said without elaborating on the term ``full peace.'' Saudi Arabia has previously used the term ``full normalization,'' which analysts said carried a clear idea of active ties, while they said ``full peace'' offered a potentially broader interpretation that might include minimal relations.
``They are using a word that satisfies the Syrians but at the same time includes normalization because that was the Saudi interpretation,'' said Abdel-Monem Said, a political analyst in Egypt, the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel.
Syria, a staunch opponent of Israel and crucial to any settlement, has called for a full Israeli withdrawal and said there can be no compromise on Arab demands for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their land.
... ``Syria will not have reservations on an initiative by the summit, as Syria would have a role in the next formulation,'' Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara said, without saying what formula Syria would accept.
Israel has voiced cautious interest in the Saudi plan, but has suggested it could be wrecked if it is loaded with demands.
The ministers' talks have been held against a backdrop of escalating tit-for-tat violence. Israel retaliated Sunday for a Palestinian suicide bombing that killed 11 Israelis by bombing the Gaza headquarters of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. In their final resolutions, ministers said they would ''continue Arab diplomatic moves in the United Nations and with concerned parties to cease Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and their leadership.'' They also condemned ``the Israeli government's policy that has torpedoed the peace process.''
Wrapping up two days of talks that prepared the ground for a summit of their leaders in Beirut later this month, ministers from the 22-member Arab League discussed the Saudi proposal to offer Israel peace in exchange for Israeli-occupied Arab land. The plan, floated last month, is expected to top the agenda when Arab leaders meet in Lebanon on March 27 and 28.
``I believe that the Beirut summit is the last chance for Sharon and the Israeli leadership,'' said Kuwait's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah, who chaired the Cairo ministerial meeting. ``I think Arabs should offer the Israeli leadership this chance,'' he told a news conference. The Arab League's Secretary-General Amr Moussa also said the initiative could be the ``the last chance to save peace.''
Asked what measures Arabs would take if Israel failed to respond to the Saudi plan, Moussa said: ``Why should we reply to such a question?... We just give clear messages.'' Sudan became the latest Arab state Sunday to back the initiative, the official Saudi Press Agency reported. Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir called Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to voice his country's support. Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, whose country has cautiously welcomed the plan, held talks about it with Prince Abdullah during a visit to Saudi Arabia, the agency added.
OFFER OF FULL PEACE
Most Arab countries have voiced support for the plan, exceptions being Iraq and Libya. In Cairo, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said after talks earlier Sunday with Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak that Arabs were committed to peace with Israel if it withdrew from occupied Arab land and agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
``If Israel does that, it would receive full peace from Arab states,'' he said without elaborating on the term ``full peace.'' Saudi Arabia has previously used the term ``full normalization,'' which analysts said carried a clear idea of active ties, while they said ``full peace'' offered a potentially broader interpretation that might include minimal relations.
``They are using a word that satisfies the Syrians but at the same time includes normalization because that was the Saudi interpretation,'' said Abdel-Monem Said, a political analyst in Egypt, the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel.
Syria, a staunch opponent of Israel and crucial to any settlement, has called for a full Israeli withdrawal and said there can be no compromise on Arab demands for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their land.
... ``Syria will not have reservations on an initiative by the summit, as Syria would have a role in the next formulation,'' Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara said, without saying what formula Syria would accept.
Israel has voiced cautious interest in the Saudi plan, but has suggested it could be wrecked if it is loaded with demands.
The ministers' talks have been held against a backdrop of escalating tit-for-tat violence. Israel retaliated Sunday for a Palestinian suicide bombing that killed 11 Israelis by bombing the Gaza headquarters of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. In their final resolutions, ministers said they would ''continue Arab diplomatic moves in the United Nations and with concerned parties to cease Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and their leadership.'' They also condemned ``the Israeli government's policy that has torpedoed the peace process.''