Caroline Glick Interview: Only Four Options In Gaza?

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, interviews Caroline Glick. It's a pretty straightforward interview about Israel's Operation Cast Lead.

At one point, Lopez asks about the future for a Hamas-led Gaza, and Glick responds:

There are four possible outcomes for Israel’s current campaign — two would be positive and two would be negative. The best outcome would be for Israel to overthrow Hamas’s regime and destroy its capacity to wage war against Israel or threaten Israel in any significant way. To achieve this goal, Israel would have to reassert control over Gaza. Since the Israeli government has already stated that Israel will not reassert control over Gaza, and since reasserting control would be extremely embarrassing for the current leadership, which led Israel out of Gaza with promises of peace three and a half years ago, it is fairly clear that this outcome will not be forthcoming.

The next best outcome would be something analogous to the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Although the U.S. left Saddam Hussein in power after that war, it asserted control over the no-fly zones and set up a clear sanctions regime that by and large prevented Iraq from rearming and apparently prevented Iraq from reconstituting its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Here too, chances that this outcome will prevail are not great because the Israeli government has already stated that it is unwilling to reassert control over Gaza’s border with Egypt which is where most of Hamas’s weapons are imported from.

The third possible outcome, which is already not a good one, would be for Israel to end its current campaign and just walk away with Hamas still in charge. In due course, Hamas would reconstitute its military forces and missile arsenals and reinstate its campaign against Israel. The positive aspect of such a future is simply that, subject to domestic political constraints, Israel would be able to go in and bomb Hamas anytime it felt that threatened. Israel would be under no international obligation to avoid defending itself, beyond the regular anti-Israel pressure.

The fourth, and worst possible outcome is that Israel reaches some sort of internationally sponsored ceasefire agreement whereby foreign powers the EU, the U.S., Egypt, Turkey, or whomever agree to form some sort of international monitoring mechanism to oversee Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt. The reason this would be the worst outcome is that Israel’s experience with such forces in Lebanon and in Gaza itself has been wholly negative. These international forces will never fight Israel’s battles for it. Instead they inevitably shield terrorists from Israeli attack while ignoring the terrorists’ moves to rearm, reassert political control over their populations and reinstate their assaults against Israel. Moreover, because these international forces fear the terrorists they shield, they tend to side with them against Israel and blame Israel for any violence that takes place.

Unfortunately, this is the outcome that the Israeli government is now pushing for in its diplomatic contacts relating to the war in Gaza. [emphasis added]

Two questions:

1. Does Israel really prefer that last option, of having foreign moderators? Is Israel really all that pleased with the results of having UN moderators in Lebanon? Noah Pollak wrote back in October about the unsurprising report the UN came out about how the UNIFIL was doing in Lebanon:

In a development certain to shock nobody, the UN has released a report on the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, the cease-fire agreement that paused the Israel-Hizballah war last summer. The new report confirms what most sentient people predicted: that Resolution 1701 would accomplish nothing. Ban Ki-moon’s report assents to what Israeli intelligence and military officials have been saying since the end of the war, namely that Iran and Syria have encountered few obstacles to rearming Hizballah with better weapons.

Read the whole thing.

I had the impression that Israel favored the option of having Fatah take over in Gaza, an option that--if put into place--would make the implementation of the two-state solution an even stronger possibility.

2. Come to think of it, why doesn't Glick mention as an option having Fatah take over in Gaza after Hamas is removed or phased out? At one point during the interview, Glick remarks that

even if the current Fatah leadership is really ready to finally lay down its arms, prosecute terrorists and reconcile to Israel, it cannot lead Palestinian society or the larger Arab world to the same conclusion.

Does Glick find having Fatah back in Gaza so unthinkable that she does not even consider the option?

Better question: why does the Israeli government apparently thing the return of Fatah is the ideal option?

In any case, we will have to wait and see what Israel is able allowed to do in Gaza.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Caroline Glick: 2 Things Left For Bush To Do In The Middle East

According to Glick:

With just six weeks remaining to his tenure in office, much of what Bush will leave behind him has already been determined. But there are two things he can still do that will impact greatly both the world he leaves behind and how he is judged by history: He can take action against Iran's nuclear program, and he can embrace Israel as an ally by pardoning four men who have been persecuted for assuming the alliance exists.

On the surface, these two agenda items couldn't be more disparate. By neutralizing Iran's nuclear installations Bush would save the lives of millions of people. By pardoning Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, he would save the lives of four people.

The situation these 4 men find themselves in is due to a large extent not merely what they did, but for whom they did it. As Glick puts it, President Bush now has the opportunity to "embrace Israel as an ally by pardoning four men who have been persecuted for assuming the alliance exists":

In 1985, when Jonathan Pollard was arrested for transferring classified information to Israel, he was not treated like a man who had transferred secrets to a US ally. He was treated like a man who had transferred secrets to al-Qaida. His sentence of life in prison was meant to serve as a deterrent for anyone who dared question the view that Israel is nothing more than an albatross placed around the US's neck by a powerful American Jewish lobby and by dimwitted politicians.

Whereas Pollard's fate was sealed long before Bush entered the White House, Franklin, Rosen and Weissman's nightmare began under his watch.

In 2006, former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was sentenced to 12 years in prison for seeking the assistance of two AIPAC lobbyists - Rosen and Weissman - in bringing the threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program to Bush's attention. By speaking with Rosen and Weissman, Franklin was behaving as countless government employees behave. He was prosecuted not for sharing information with the men, but for mistakenly assuming that his view of Israel as a US ally was shared by the powers-that-be in Washington.

Weissman and Rosen are in the midst of a long, costly, drawn-out trial and stand charged with mishandling classified information under a statute that has not been enforced since World War I. For more than four years they have been treated as criminals for doing nothing more than their job as lobbyists - for a lobby that was founded on the understanding that the US and Israel are strategic allies.

Now we need to speak up for these 4 men. Today saw the launching of the campaign to request a Presidential Pardon for Jonathan Pollard.

Who is speaking up for Larry Franklin, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Jonathan Pollard and Larry Franklin and Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman.

Caroline Glick On The Difference Between Oslo And The Disengagement

Glick writes:

Unlike the Rabin-Peres government's decision to embark on the Oslo peace process with the PLO in 1993, Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza did not take years to be discredited. It took moments.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Glick On Obama

Kathryn Jean Lopez interviewed Caroline Glick for The National Review about Obama's trip to Israel. One of Glick's observations:

His [Obama's] repeated assertions of his commitment to Israel’s security were repeatedly contradicted by the policies he wishes to adopt if elected. On the one hand he opposes permitting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, but on the other hand, he insists that the way to make this happen is to sit down and talk to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has made annihilating the Jewish state one of his main goals in office. He says he understands Israel’s need to protect its citizens from terror attacks but then he says that Israel’s interests are served by strengthening the Palestinian terror groups by extending Palestinian sovereignty from Gaza to the West Bank. Gaza is ruled by jihadists from Hamas who are bankrolled, trained and armed by Iran. How are Israel’s interests served by importing jihadist control to the outskirts of Tel-Aviv and to Jerusalem?

Then again, like Israeli Jews, American Jews are not too caught up in details. He said he supports Israel and got his picture taken at Yad Vashem and the Wailing Wall wearing a kippa. So he probably succeeded in pulling more American Jews into his camp of supporters.

No doubt.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

National Review Interviews Caroline Glick

Interviewed by Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Shackled Warrior
Israel in bondage.

An NRO Q&A

Caroline B. Glick is the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post and the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy. Author of the recently released book Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad, Glick recently spoke to National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez about the region, the book, and the American presidency.

Some selections:

Lopez: You recently wrote, “Today the Gaza strip is a terror state run by an Iranian proxy.” What can be done?

Glick: Iran’s proxy — Hamas — must be defeated militarily. Israel must overthrow its regime in Gaza by force of arms. And Israel mustn’t agree to simply replace Hamas with Fatah.

Fatah is an unacceptable alternative to Hamas for two main reasons. First of all, Fatah refuses to fight Hamas and is far less popular than Hamas among Gazans, so transferring control over Gaza to Fatah would simply permit Hamas to regenerate and reassert control. Second, Fatah itself is a terrorist organization. Even today with Hamas in power in Gaza, Fatah terrorists continue to attack Israel with missiles from Gaza. Indeed, it bears recalling that until its government was overthrown by Hamas in June 2007, Fatah smuggled more Iranian weapons into Gaza from Egypt than Hamas did.

-------

Lopez: Is there any hope for Israel in any of the presidential candidates?

Glick: Israel is at war. Its enemies seek to destroy it. The U.S. is at war; its enemies — which are also Israel’s enemies — seek to bring America to its knees with the intention of eventually destroying it also. If an antiwar candidate wins the presidential elections, and if anti-war politicians are able to win filibuster-proof control over one or both houses of Congress, it will be bad for Israel. Israel is the frontline state in the global jihad and so it will be the first to pay a price for a U.S. capitulation. If the counterjihad that Israel and the U.S. are fighting is the contemporary equivalent of Vietnam for instance, then Israel is Cambodia.

But then, unlike the North Vietnamese, our common enemies have already attacked on U.S. soil. And so in the event that the U.S. simply stopped fighting, while Israel would be the first to suffer, the U.S. would also suffer.

Moreover, unlike the South Vietnamese and the Cambodians, Israel is not dependent on direct U.S. military assistance to defend itself. It only needs spare parts. So if the U.S. cut and ran under an anti-war administration, if Israel had good leaders, it would probably do just fine.

-------

Lopez: How bad would a President Obama be for Israel? Why should that question matter to Americans?

Glick: Senator Barack Obama would be bad for Israel most of all because he refuses to acknowledge that there is a jihad being waged against the free world. Indeed, he refuses to acknowledge that there is such a thing as an “enemy” in international affairs. And as a consequence, he is unable to understand what an ally is. As the U.S.’s most stalwart ally in the Middle East, and as the frontline state in the global jihad, Israel will likely suffer greatly if Senator Obama is elected to the White House.

There are several reasons that Americans should care about the fact that an Obama White House will be hostile towards Israel. First, when Islamists perceive Israel as weak they become emboldened. And when they become emboldened, they tend to attack not only Israel but the U.S. as well. Indeed, some of the largest attacks against the U.S. — like the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 — came when the U.S. was most hostile towards Israel.

Second, when the U.S. places pressure on Israel, Israel is perceived as weak by the Muslim world. And when this happens, the tendency for wars to break out is increased. So when the U.S. has in the past blamed Israel for regional instability — the Arabs and Iran — which are the actual sources of that instability — exploit the situation by attacking Israel and sending the region into a tailspin. One can for instance attribute Yassir Arafat’s decision to attack Israel in 1996 — an attack which left 15 Israelis dead — to the Clinton administration’s massive pressure on the new Netanyahu government to accept the PLO as its “peace partner.”

Finally, U.S. pressure on Israel tends to weaken Israel and as I have argued, Israel is perceived by the jihadists as the frontline state in their war, the ultimate aim of which is global domination and the destruction of the U.S. So when the U.S. weakens Israel, the U.S. appears weak. Jihadists are then emboldened to attack not only Israel, but also the U.S. This is why, for instance, Shiite violence in Iraq rose steeply after Israel was perceived as having lost the war in Lebanon with Hezbollah in 2006. And Israel ended the war when it was under tremendous pressure from Secretary Rice to accept a ceasefire that left Hezbollah fully intact and free to rebuild its forces with Iranian and Syrian assistance.

All of this happened under U.S. administrations which in their day were considered friendly towards Israel. If Sen. Obama, who is perceived as sympathetic to the jihadists, is elected, the consequences of U.S. appeasement of Iran and others at Israel’s expense will likely be more profound — both for Israel and for the U.S.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Caroline Glick.

Conference Call With Caroline Glick

Yesterday, I participated along with other bloggers in a conference call sponsored by One Jerusalem with Caroline Glick. You can listen to the conference online. Caroline Glick the Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post and writes two weekly columns. She is also the author of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad, which you can also get directly from the publisher. You can also read what she has to say on her blog.

Caroline Glick talks about the future of Israel, the centrality of Jerusalem, Barak Obama's anti-Israel advisers, Israel's penchant for self-destruction, and what American supporters of Israel can do.

Some of the bloggers on the call were: Omri from Mere Rhetoric, Ralph from the Hedgehog blog, Oceanguy, Rick Richman from Jewish Current Issues, Richard Baehr from American Thinker, David Bogner from Treppenwitz, Anne from Boker Tov, Jerry Gordon from Israpundit and Jim Hoft from Gateway Pundit.

And thanks to Anne from Boker Tov for helping to organize the conference call.

Listen to the conference online now.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Caroline Glick.

Hear Caroline Glick in Toronto - May 4 & 5, 2008

From an email:

Invitation to hear Caroline Glick in Toronto - May 4 & 5, 2008

In recognition of Israel at 60, the Canadian Coaliton for Democracies in partnership with Canada Christian College, Christians United for Israel - Canada, Holy Blossom Temple and the UJA Federation cordially invites you to attend two public lectures in Toronto

by

Caroline Glick
Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post

Date: Sunday May 4, 2008
Time: 6:00 PM
Location (map): Canada Christian College, 50 Gervais Road, Toronto, Ontario
and

Date: Monday May 5, 2008
Time: 8:00 PM
Location (map): Holy Blossom Temple, 1950 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario

Admission: Free

Caroline B. Glick grew up in Chicago. She made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving her BA in Political Science from Columbia University. She joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, she served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity Ms. Glick was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

After leaving the IDF at the end of 1996, Ms. Glick served as Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997-1998.

From 1998-2000 Ms. Glick studied at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and received a Master’s in Public Policy in June 2000.

In March 2002, Ms. Glick accepted the position of Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. At the Post Ms. Glick writes two weekly columns. These columns are regularly syndicated.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ms. Glick covered the US-led war in Iraq as an embedded journalist with the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division. Reporting for the Post, Maariv, Israel TV’s Channel 2 and the Chicago Sun Times, Ms. Glick was one of the only female journalists on the front lines with the US forces and the first Israeli journalist to report from liberated Baghdad.

Ms. Glick’s writings, which have also been published in The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun Times, The Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine and Moment Magazine focus on the strategic and political issues challenging the Israel and the United States. She has appeared on MSNBC, FOX News, Sky News, Christian Broadcast Network, Israel Television channels 1, 2, 3 and 10. She is a frequent guest on talk radio shows in the US, Britain, Australia and Israel.

On Israeli Independence Day in 2003, Ma’ariv named Ms. Glick the most prominent woman in Israel. In December 2005, Ms. Glick was awarded the Ben Hecht award for Middle East reporting from the Zionist Organization of America. In January 2006, she was awarded the Abramowitz Prize for Media Criticism by Israel Media Watch.

Her book, Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad was released by Gefen Publishing in March 2008, and will be available for sale at Canada Christian College and Holy Blossom Temple.

Ms. Glick lives in Jerusalem.

Founded in 2003, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is a national, non-partisan, multi-ethnic, multi-religious organization of concerned Canadians dedicated to civil liberties, national security and the protection and promotion of democracy at home and abroad. CCD focuses on research, education and media publishing to build a greater understanding of the importance of national security and a pro-democracy foreign policy. http://canadiancoalition.com

For more information call 416-963-8998 or email events@CanadianCoalition.com

Technorati Tag: Israel and Caroline Glick.

A Caroline Glick Essay Without Reference To Olmert Or Palestinians

Caroline Glick writes once a month for The Jewish Press. In The Luckiest Jews In The World, she starts off writing about the Hebrew language:

Writing in Hebrew is a qualitatively different experience than writing in English. Hebrew is a more compact language than English. It has fewer words and the words it has are denser and more flexible than English words. A 1,200-word essay in Hebrew will be 1,800 words in English.

This is a mechanical difference. But there are deeper distinctions as well. One level beyond the mechanics is the multiple meanings of Hebrew words. The density of meaning in Hebrew is a writer’s dream. Nearly anyone can imbue a seemingly simple sentence with multiple, generally complementary meanings simply by choosing a specific verb, verb form, noun or adjective. These double, triple and even quadruple meanings of one word are a source of unbounded joy for a writer. To take just one example, the Hebrew word “shevet” means returning and it also means sitting. And it is also a homonym for club – as in billy club – and for tribe.

In 2005, the IDF named the operation expelling the Israeli residents of Gaza and Northern Samaria “Shevet Achim,” or returning or sitting with brothers. But it also sounded like it was making a distinction between tribesmen and brothers. And it also sounded like “clubbing brothers.”

As this one example demonstrates, one joyful consequence of the unique density of the Hebrew language is that satirical irony comes easily to even the most dour and unpoetic writers.

For a Jew, knowing, speaking and writing Hebrew is an intimate experience. This is particularly so for those of us whose mother tongue is not Hebrew – because as the secrets of the language slowly reveal themselves to us we feel we are discovering ourselves.

Hebrew encapsulates the entirety of the Jewish story. Modern Hebrew in particular is an eclectic amalgamation of classical Hebrew, Yiddishisms, and expressions from the Sephardic Diaspora experience. Greek, Roman, Aramaic, Turkish, Arabic and English expressions meld seamlessly into the stream of words. It is not simply that it is the language of the Bible. Hebrew is also an expression of the unique culture of a small, proud, often besieged, often conquered and permeable people.

Its power to explain that cultural experience and that historical baggage is something that often leaves a newly initiated member of the Hebrew-speaking world gasping in a mixture of disbelief and relief. It is unbelievable that a language can be so immediately and unselfconsciously expressive of feelings that have traversed millennia. Understanding its power as a tool of expressing the Jewish condition is one of the most gratifying discoveries a Jew can make.

But the experience of speaking in Hebrew and of living in Hebrew is incomplete when it is not experienced in Israel. It is one thing to pray in a synagogue in Hebrew or even to speak regular Hebrew outside of Israel. The former is a spiritual duty and a communal experience. The latter is a social or educational experience. But speaking Hebrew in Israel is a complete experience. Hebrew localizes the Jewishness, Judaism and Jews. It anchors us to the Land of Israel. Taken together, the Hebrew language and the Land of Israel stabilize a tradition and make the Jewish people whole.

I write all of this as a means of explaining why a Jew in the Diaspora, particularly the United States, would want to live in Israel.

Read the whole thing.

Glick touches on some aspects of Hebrew that David Hazony wrote about last year, on the occasion of the 150th birthday of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda:

Although every language is unique, there is something especially intriguing about Hebrew. Part of it is the lingual leverage: It is a compact tongue in which prepositions become one-letter prefixes, possessives become one-letter suffixes, and the word “is” does not exist. As a result, you can say in just a few words things that in English may take long sentences. The words of the prophets are both more powerful and more intimate when read in the original. And modern Israelis are constantly referring back to Old-Testament idioms and ideas.

But what is especially beguiling is the story of the language. When the founder of modern Hebrew, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, was born (150 years ago this week!), the language was essentially an ecclesiastical one, like Latin: Restricted to the Bible, the synagogue, and scholarly texts, used in conversation only when Jews of distant lands had to communicate. Of all the achievements of the Zionist movement, the re-establishment of modern Hebrew is one of the most impressive and enduring. Today, an entire country thrives on an ancient tongue, which has modernized and developed to cover every aspect of life, from sex to sports to politics to art.

Hazony links to an article by Meir Shalev, which--unlike Glick and Hazony--refers to the battle that Hebrew faces:

Yet Hebrew is also a battlefield of words and expressions, existence and survival. It rapidly goes through painful processes that other languages underwent slowly. Without intending to do so, Ben-Yehuda embarked on a process that in the future will see Hebrew split into a modern language and a classic language. At this point already, many Biblical allusions are not being understood by readers, while ancient idioms are forgotten. We also use others idioms without recognizing their origin. Should we be sorry about this ignorance? Not necessarily. When an idiom becomes detached from its origin, we know it has achieved an independent and strong status. [emphasis added]

I disagree on that last point--and it brings up where I found Glick's essay lacking: her apparent dismissing the source of Hebrew in one sentence:

It is not simply that it is the language of the Bible.

True, but the source of Hebrew in the Tanakh is anything but simple--and despite Shalev's contention to the contrary, detaching from one's origins do not necessarily lead to independence and strength. Once could argue that Israel herself provides a proof of that.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hebrew.

Q & A With Caroline Glick

National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez conducted an interview with Caroline Glick this morning. In response to the first question, "Is there anything good to come out of Annapolis?"--Glick responded in part:

...To take just the most obvious example of Rice’s moral equivalence, she upholds Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayad as moderates who seek peaceful coexistence with Israel. Yet the fact is that neither Abbas nor Fayad have taken any steps that could be considered conducive to peace. They joined a unity government with Hamas in March and would have remained Hamas’s junior partner in that Saudi-brokered governing arrangement had Hamas not decided to oust Fatah forces from Gaza in June. Fayad has continued to pay the salaries of the Iranian-trained Hamas army in Gaza since the terror group’s takeover of the area just as he pays the salaries of Fatah terrorists in the West Bank.

In addition to his position as political leader of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas is also the head of the Fatah terror organization. Due to its reputation as a secular terror group, the U.S. State Department upholds Fatah as a credible partner in peace talks with Israel. But this strains credulity. Since the onset of the Palestinian jihad against Israel in September 2000, Fatah has carried out more terror attacks against Israeli targets than either Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Just last week Fatah terrorist murdered 29-year-old Ido Zoldan.

In spite of Fatah’s moderate reputation, the fact is that Fatah terror cells in the West Bank are bankrolled by Iran and its Hezbollah proxy. Its operatives are directed by Tehran no less than Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives are.

That should give you a flavor of where Glick is coming from, in case you could not guess.
Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Annapolis and Caroline Glick.

CAROLINE GLICK:

Indeed, it seems almost axiomatic that when the going gets tough for US administrations, administration officials get tough on Israel.

Technorati Tag: Caroline Glick and Condoleezza Rice.

A Kinder, Gentler Alternative To AIPAC?

A kinder, gentler alternative to AIPAC may be in the works.

On board with this is George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and major contributor to MoveOn.org, who sent a top staffer to a meeting in September to explore the possibilities, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency:

The September meeting — and other related meetings — focused on how best to press the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration to back greater U.S. engagement toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how to better represent American Jews who don’t buy into AIPAC’s often hawkish policies.

This is the same Soros who was criticized in 2003 at a conference on funding for Israel, when he said Israel was partially responsible for the increased anti-Semitism in Europe because of its strong response to Palestinian terrorism during the intifada.

Among those who attended the September meeting were:

David Elcott, the executive director of the Israel Policy Forum, Debra DeLee, president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now; Mara Rudman, a Clinton-era member of the National Security Council and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank; Daniel Levy, a former adviser to dovish Israeli politician Yossi Beilin who now works at the New America Foundation, another Washington think tank; M.J. Rosenberg, director of IPF’s Washington office; Jeremy Rabinovitz, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), a congresswoman who often backs positions taken by the dovish pro-Israel groups; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, and his deputy, Mark Pelavin; and representatives of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, another dovish, pro-Israel advocacy group.

Apparently, part of the impetus for the project is the result of the success of three of the above groups--IPF, APN and Brit Tzedek--in killing the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which would have cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority until it renounced terrorism and recognizes Israel.

...the three dovish groups surprised many members of Congress with the vehemence of their response; Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives said that calls opposing the legislation outpaced those in support by a 3-1 margin.

Additionally, working behind the scenes, the dovish lobbyists helped moderate the Senate version of the act considerably, working in exceptions for assistance to Mahmoud Abbas, the relatively moderate P.A. president, allowing President Bush greater power to waive the sanctions and removing language that would have severely restricted aid to nongovernmental organizations working with the Palestinians.

The differences between the Senate and House versions ultimately were irreconcilable, and the bill never landed on Bush’s desk for signing.

By all appearances, an new advocacy group with such a philosophy behind it has the potential for creating all kinds of sparks as it would go head-to-head against AIPAC, although one of the organizers behind the idea denies it:

One of the organizers of the initiative insisted that the effort was not meant to replace or confront AIPAC.

“It’s kind of like GM and Ford,” said the organizer, who asked not to be identified because the effort was still in the planning stages.

“We put out a model of a product and go into the marketplace of ideas and compete. We are a group of people who are looking for the best way to ensure Israel’s survival and future,” said the organizer, describing the initiative’s aims as favoring a two-state solution and greater U.S. engagement.

“We’re going into existence because this product is not being offered right now. We want to make sure that this point of view has a clear and loud voice.”

If it is being suggested that the idea of a two-state solution "is not being offered right now," that is somewhat naive. If the purpose of the group will be to "make sure that this point of view has a clear and loud voice," the question arises if the problem really is that the point of view needs a clear and loud voice here in the US--or in Gaza and the West Bank.

Besides, GM and Ford can compete without confronting each other because they can sell different cars.
But there is only one Israel.

Based on the actions of groups and individuals associated with this initiative, Caroline Glick sees as their goal the formation of a decidedly anti-Israel lobby and suggests:

Now is the time for the Olmert government to forthrightly announce that the new lobby is not pro-Israel, but rather anti-Israel.

Even if the government does no such thing, Israel’s citizens have a responsibility to explain to the organized American Jewish community and to its umbrella organization, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, that we, the citizens of the largest Jewish community in the world, view these groups as anti-Zionist. Israeli citizens should request an explanation for the inclusion of some of these groups in pro-Israel umbrella organizations like the Conference of Presidents when their goal is to weaken Israel, to weaken Israel’s alliance with the US and to strengthen Israel’s enemies.

In any case, the halls of Washington are going to be getting a little bit more crowded--and not only because of the possible appearance of a 2nd pro-Israel advocacy group. Let's not forget about the Arab lobby:

The Arab lobby in Washington was a major factor behind American pressure on Israel to change its policy of keeping American Arabs out of Judea and Samaria, the London Telegraph reported. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice objected to the policy, claiming it could drive 35,000 Arabs with American citizenship from their homes.

"A vigorous advocacy campaign by Palestinian-Americans in the United States, echoing the kind usually associated with Washington's pro-Israel groups, is credited with getting the U.S. to pressure Israel," the newspaper stated.

Maybe George Soros and his friends could promote the creation of a dovish pro-Arab advocacy group?

Technorati Tag: Israel and George Soros and AIPAC.

Forget The Moslems, What Is Pope Benedict's Message For Jews?

Caroline Glick writes in The Jerusalem Post:

Benedict's overarching message in that lecture was that to survive, a culture must be willing to embrace its identity, for if it does not, it won't even be capable of understanding why it should survive.

But that means our having the strength to define ourselves, and not allowing others to define who we are. Thus

the best way to safeguard our freedom and our heritage, is to embrace and celebrate our identity as Jews. As Elie Wiesel once explained to me, the key to defending ourselves is to never allow our haters to tell us who we are. "Hatred only defines the haters," he said.

..."We Jews," Wiesel explained, "have always defined ourselves as the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Indeed, at Mount Sinai, in our acceptance of the Ten Commandments, the Jewish people became the first nation in history to self-consciously define itself. And each subsequent generation of Jews has remade that choice. Jews do not exist, as Jean-Paul Sarte ignorantly argued, because anti-Semites exist. The leader of the existentialist movement should have understood; anti-Semites exist because anti-Semites choose to exist.

It is the ability to define ourselves as Jews that will enable us to counter the attacks of our enemies in every generation.

But it might be at this point, at the end of her argument, that Glick overlooks someting. She writes:

Pope Benedict is able to discuss Islam because, secure in his Christian identity, he has a clear basis for judging the goodness or unreasonableness of Muslim values and behavior. Whether we agree with his judgments or not, through his willingness to judge, Benedict capably defends and advances his faith.

This is all well and good, but if you read Glick's article, and look at her definition of being a Jew, it is a cultural-nationalist definition:

• "...the state in which we live is one of the most vibrant, optimistic, "happening" countries in the world."
• "We are one of the most highly educated societies in the world."
• "Israelis are among the most patriotic citizens in the world."
• "Jewish life blossoms in Israel as it has nowhere else in our history."
• "Israel's success stems from its serving as a vehicle that allows us to express our heritage in all facets of society."
• "The Jewish people gave humanity the concepts of God, liberty and law."
• "All of the ideals that Israel represents, both spiritual and physical, have formed the foundations for human progress and freedom throughout the world for millennia."

True, "Pope Benedict is able to discuss Islam because, secure in his Christian identity"--because he is secure in his religious identity, the Pope can discuss Islam.

As described by Glick in her article, what prepares Jews for a similar discussion?

And if we are not ready for such a discussion, perhaps our enemies really have succeeded in defining us after all.

Update: On the importance of a religious worldview, check out The Reality of Religion by Michael Ledeen:

But despite the fundamental importance of religion, most of our sages and scribblers are poorly equipped to deal with it, as you can see from the awkward coverage of the pope’s speech at Regensberg. It was, as you’d expect from a pope, a religious text, but the religious content was rarely reported, aside from Benedict’s remarks about Islam — themselves a part of a broader religious message aimed primarily at Europeans.

...But I’m afraid that we’re not engaging this debate, because our leaders are afraid to do so, and poorly equipped to participate. Our educational system has long since banished religion from its texts, and an amazing number of Americans are intellectually unprepared for a discussion in which religion is the central organizing principle.

...Ignorance of things religious is terribly damaging for other reasons as well, not least of all because it prevents us from understanding the nature of our most dangerous enemies.

All the more reason for an understanding of things Jewish, to understand both ourselves, the world, and our place in it--and with Islam.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jews and Caroline Glick and Pope Benedict and Moslems.

Pallywoodland

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Thomas Jefferson

Caroline Glick has written a must-read article in the Jerusalem Post that puts gives the kind of perspective that you get blinded to when watching the mind-numbing media go through its paces.

Glick fleshes out the point made by Mere Rhetoric in reaction to the New York Times' gratuitous invocation that Centanni and Wiig "were released unharmed". As Mere Rhetoric responds:

You idiot! You total blistering idiot! Being forced to convert is a harm. It might be the oldest harm short of death - being forced to renounce your faith and your god. Millions of people - literally millions - have died rather than deign to utter words that would force them to give up their faith. No wonder liberal journalists are utterly baffled by fully half of the United States - they don't think having to give up your religion is harmful. We are beyond certain that if Muslim prisoners at Gitmo were forced to convert away from Islam as a condition of their release, the New York Times would not be putting the phrase "released unharmed" into their lede. Way beyond certain.

There's a deeper explanation for how paragraphs like this can get written. It's not really bias, as much as it is the blind spots imposed by any ideology. And within that dynamic are questions about the degree of myopia and the room for self-reflection that particular ideologies allow.

Glick also notes this myopia in the coverage of Centanni and Wiig, and it is not limited to the New York Times:

While their remarks were covered extensively, no one seemed to think that the fact that their first post-release statements were made at a Palestinian Authority sponsored media extravaganza in Gaza was significant. No one noted that the men were flanked by Palestinian "security forces," and stood next to Hamas terrorist leader and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

No mention was made of the fact that the two were initially kidnapped by just such PA "security officials," or that Haniyeh is one of the leaders of one of the most fanatical jihadist organizations in the world, an organization that the majority of the "beautiful, kind-hearted and caring" Palestinians voted into office last January.

That is, no mention was made of the fact that until the two men left Gaza, they remained unfree. No one asked whether they had been given the option of not giving a press conference in Gaza. And now that they have spoken, there can be little doubt that a second press conference by the two men, in Israel or the US where no one will force them to convert to Judaism or Christianity or threaten to kill them, will draw far less media interest. After their press conference, the two men became yesterday's news.

But that was not the only item that was in the news that day. Reuters claimed that Israel had fired missiles at their reporter, Fadel Shada.

Yet it is unclear why anyone should believe either Shana or Reuters. Shana told Reuters that as he was driving to the battle scene, "I suddenly saw fire and the doors of the jeep flew open." He claims to have been wounded by shrapnel in his hand and leg. These are minor injuries for someone whose vehicle was just hit by a missile.

But then, the photographs taken of his vehicle after the purported missile attack give no indication that the car was hit by anything. There is a gash on the roof. The hood is bent out of shape. But nothing seems to have been burned. Cars hit by missiles do not look like they have just been in a nasty accident. Cars hit by missiles are destroyed.

Yet the glass on the windshield and the windows of Shana's vehicle isn't even shattered. In the photographs taken of Shana on the way to the hospital in Gaza, he lies on a stretcher, eyes closed, arm extended in full pieta mode. He is not visibly bleeding although there are some blood stains on his shirt, but then his undershirt is completely white.

I did not see these pictures in the media coverage of the purported IDF attack on the Reuters and Iranian cameramen. I saw them on Powerlineblog Web site [see here and here]. I did not see any questions raised from either the Israeli or the international media on the veracity of Shana's tale, which of course, provides a nice balance to the Centanni-Wiig hostage story.

All of this of course brings us back to the problem of the manipulation of the media by Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the complete willingness of the media to be led by the nose in what information is available and how it should be presented.

AS IS the case with the Palestinian war against Israel, one of the most notable aspects of Hizbullah's latest campaign against Israel has been the active collaboration of news organizations and international NGO's in Hizbullah's information war against Israel. Like their rogue state sponsors, subversive sub-national groups like Hizbullah, Fatah and Hamas, see information operations as an integral part of their war for the annihilation of Israel and defeat of the West. And their information operations are more advanced than any the world has seen. As becomes more evident with each passing day, they have successfully corrupted both the world media and the community of NGOs that purportedly operate in a neutral manner in war zones.

Glick sees this as part of a wider problem.

It is not a coincidence that I saw the pictures of the Reuters' vehicle on Powerline and not in the media coverage of the purported attack. Both the global media and the international NGO community abjectly refuse to investigate themselves. As democratic governments and their militaries have proven incapable of dealing with the phenomenon (in part because they seek to curry favor with the media and the international NGO community), the blogosphere has taken upon itself the role of media watchdog.

The role of the blogosphere in all this is helpful, but a citizenship that is more critical and skeptical of its media is essential.

Some say that the falling readership of the newspapers is a sign of this.
But what if that just means they are reading the same newspapers online?

Technorati Tag: Media Bias and Israel and Reutersgate and Centanni and Hamas and Hezbollah and Hizbollah and Pallywood and Hezbollywood.

Why Supporters of Israel Should NOT Be Depressed?

On the one hand, there is Glick and Bayefsky.

On the other hand, there is Rich Lowry at The Corner, who asked an Israeli official why American supporters of Israel should not be depressed by the cease-fire agreement and came back with this list:

—"The resolution as a resolution is favorable to this country," and creates a solution in southern Lebanon that is in Israel's interest. Provided it is implemented.

—"I don't know how Nasrallah can now pretend it's a victory. The resolution says south of the Litani is a Hebollah-free zone. That means that its state-within-a-state is going to disappear."

—"Before Nasrallah was on the border, able to lob missiles and rockets and kidnap soldiers. We have pushed him north of the Litani. That is an amazing achievement. It's what we've been demanding for years."

—There is still the problem of long-range rockets, but there is an embargo and if Syria violates it, it will be open to all sorts of sanctions and punishments. Granted, those would require another U.N. resolution, but the threat is there. And the international force is going to police border crossings. They should at least be able to stop missiles coming in on semi-trailers.

—"Kofi has to report back in 30 days with a plan" about how the things in the resolution are going to happen.

—"The sense has always been that we are good at winning wars and losing the diplomacy." Now, there's lots of argument about the conduct of the war, "but there's no doubt that we won the diplomacy. The question is whether it will be implemented. As a platform it's good—it's a positive platform."

—"In Lebanon, until Qana, a lot of people were willing to be critical of Hezbollah. The cease-fire has allowed those voices to surface again. The political dynamic in Lebanon is returning to the pre-Qana dynamic."

—When people ask when Israel is going to leave southern Lebanon, the Israelis can say as soon as the international force arrives. It creates an incentive for the international force actually to materialize. Until then, the resolution legitimizes the Israeli presence in Lebanon.

—There's lot of ferment in Lebanon. The chief of staff of the Lebanese army has been quoted saying that the army won't go down to the south unless Hezbollah agrees to pull out because it doesn't want to fight Hezbollah.

—If Hezbollah decides not to honor the ceasefire, Israel is in a stronger position both politically/diplomatically and militarily to respond. It will hold its positions on the Litani River.

—But again, it all depends on the implementation.

Ummm, isn't that last point a good reason for us to get depressed?

More to the point is this National Review editorial:

In the final tussling over the resolution, Israel insisted that there be no “vacuum” between the exit of its forces and the arrival of an international force, as such a vacuum could be exploited by Hezbollah to return to the south. But since Hezbollah was never fully pushed from the area, it is going to be there, vacuum or not. The Lebanese army, a pathetic rust-bucket riven by sectarian tensions, isn’t going to seriously challenge Hezbollah. It’s not clear at the moment whether it even has the capability to transport itself to the south, and in recent weeks it has been evident that Hezbollah is in a position to dictate to the Lebanese government, not the other way around. Nor will the international force threaten Hezbollah, even if its mandate is exceedingly ambitious by milquetoast U.N. standards. Over time, as the sense of urgency behind its mission declines, it will surely begin to look more and more like the old accommodationist UNIFIL force.

Hezbollah has a crucial advantage over any competitors for ultimate control of the south — not just the legitimacy that comes with the support of the Shia population, but the sheer will that motivates it to fight and die for its cause. Are French and Italian troops willing to die for the enforcement of Resolution 1559, calling for the disarming of Hezbollah? To ask the question is to answer it. In theory, an international force could police Lebanon, but that would require a tough-mindedness and a willingness to sacrifice that aren’t on offer.

The editorial concludes with a point that shows the above list of Israeli accomplishments for what it is and warns of what the future will bring if the West continues upon its current half-hearted path:

If current trends continue, the Bush administration’s project in the Middle East will require the same sort of expedient we have just seen in the Israel–Lebanon conflict: a papering over of what is essentially a failure.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Lebanon and UN and Hizbollah and Hezbollah.

Glick and Bayefsky on The Cease-Fire

Artuz Sheva offers the following summary of the points made by Caroline Glick and international legal scholar Prof. A. Bayefsky in their damning analysis of the UN cease-fire, An Unmitigated Disaster.

* Responsibility for determining compliance is in the hands of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has "distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense while ignoring the fact that in attacking Israel, its enemies are guilty of war crimes."

* No mention of Hizbullah-patrons Syria or Iran, thus ignoring the regional aspect
of the war.

* Rewarding Hizbullah's aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territory - namely, the Shaba Farms - via acts of aggression. Moreover, by allowing Lebanon to make territorial claims on Israel despite the fact that in 2000 the UN determined that Israel had withdrawn to the international border, the resolution sets a catastrophic precedent for the future.

* Though Israel had demanded an an arms embargo against Hizbullah, this issue is put off to a vague date in the future - and the power to oversee such an embargo is placed in the hands of the Lebanese government, of which Hizbullah is a member.

* The resolution calls upon Israel to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon even before Lebanese and UNIFIL forces are fully deployed in the area - creating a vacuum allowing Hizbullah to reinforce its positions in south Lebanon.

* The resolution makes no operative call for the release of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev being held hostage by Hizbullah. "By relegating their fate to a paragraph in the preamble, which then immediately turns to Hizbullah's demand for the release of Lebanese terrorists held in Israeli jails, the resolution all but eliminates any possibility of their returning home."

* It should be assumed that Hizbullah's presumptive victory in its war against Israel will act as a catalyst for violence by Hizbullah allies in Iraq against the Iraqi government and coalition forces in the weeks to come.

* Iran emerges as the main victor in the current war.

* By handing a victory to Hizbullah, the resolution strengthens the belief of millions of supporters of jihad throughout the world that their side is winning and that they should redouble efforts to achieve their objectives of destroying Israel and running the US out of the Middle East.

Of course, Olmert can always spring into action--reiterating for the umpteenth time that he is still going to plow ahead with the Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

It's hard to find anything positive about the cease-fire--other than the fact it serves as a reason to remove Olmert from office.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Lebanon and UN and Hizbollah and Hezbollah.

The Winds of War Shift?

That is the title of an opinion piece by Jonathan Rosenblum in today's Yated Ne'eman.

How I would like to remove that question mark from the title. And until midday yesterday (Sunday), it finally appeared that a more definitive and positive statement might be possible. Now, however, the question mark must return.

Last week ended with the Israel’s political echelons subjected to withering criticism from two of its best friends in the international media: Charles Krauthamer and Bret Stephens. Stephens, the former editor of the Jerusalem Post, pronounced Israel to be losing the war, both politically and militarily, in the Wall Street Journal. He pointed out that Prime Minister Olmert had consistently downgraded Israel’s war goals from the outset of fighting. Initially, Israel had spoken of "breaking" Hizbullah, then of evicting it from the Israeli border, still later of "degrading" Hizbullah’s capabilities, and, finally, of creating the circumstances for an effective international force to police the border.

Yet after scathingly critical articles by Bret Stephens, Caroline Glick, and Charles Krauthammer, there seemed to be a definite shift in Israel's favor.

And indeed by the end of last week, it appeared that the tide had turned in Israel’s favor. Israeli troops were now operating against Hizbullah positions in twenty or so villages in southern Lebanon, as opposed to the two that had occupied all the IDF’s attention in the war’s first weeks. And in a daring commando raid, deep in the Beka’a Valley, more than 60 miles north of the Israeli-Lebanese border, an Israeli force managed to capture five Hizbullah fighters and valuable intelligence information, and return home without incurring any casualties. Naval commandos landed off the Lebanese coast, and entered the coastal city of Tyre, from which most of the missiles aimed at Haifa have been launched. "The IDF has been able to learn on the go, and learn well," pronounced Glick.

But then, just as quickly and without warning, the tide seems to have turned once again--against Israel.

The horrendous casualties when a katyusha landed directly on a group of reservists gathering at Kfar Giladi on the Lebanese border, killing 12, however, seemed to have changed all that. The Jerusalem Post reported Monday morning that the IDF no longer planned to push to the Litani, and would content itself with securing a 6-8 kilometer security zone from the northern border.

With a cease-fire that would allow Israel to leave its forces in place till a suitable international force could be formed to take its place, Hizbollah would still be able to claim victory for being able to live to kill another day. never mind the question of what kind of international force can possibly be found that can stand up to the intimidation and bribes of Hizbollah--which so obviously undercut UNIFIL, currently under the command of the French.

Rosenblum suggests a way for Israel to keep Hizbollah under control:

Is there anything else Israel can do to deter Hizbullah? At least one school of thought assumes there is: Put Syria on notice that it will be held accountable for Hizbullah.

Hizbullah depends on Syrian support. And there is reason to believe that Syria will listen if the threat is credible. In 1998, Turkey threatened to go to war with Syria if Syria did not cut off support for Kurdish rebels in Turkey. Syria did. The time has come, writes Efraim Inbar, for Israel to talk Turkey to Syria.

The only question is: Does any Israeli leader know Turkey.

After Rosenblum finished his article, news came out that Israel might yet take the battle to Hizbollah and the winds might yet shift once again.

According to Arutz Sheva:

Halutz, who has not appeared in public in recent days, announced Tuesday that his deputy chief of staff, Major-General Moshe Kaplinsky (photo above), will work alongside Adam, overseeing all military forces operating in Lebanon.

...Others explain that the move signals more than dissatisfaction, but also a clear sign that Halutz expects to receive the green light from the prime minister for a large-scale military operation, one that will involve more than the close to 100,000 reservists already activated for service, one that will bring IDF forces deeper into Hizbullah territory in Lebanon.

Military historians report that Halutz’s move is not without precedent, citing that during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, then Chief of Staff David Elazar appointed his predecessor, former IDF Chief of Staff Chaim Bar-Lev to take command of the southern district, replacing Southern District Commander Major-General Shmuel Gonen (Gorodish).

...Since the start of the warfare, 105 Israelis, civilians and military personnel, have been killed. 3,487 Katyusha rockets were fired into Israel, and Magen David Adom emergency medical service officials responded to 1,070 calls for assistance resulting from rocket attacks. Air force officials’ report pilots have carried out over 5,127 sorties, and foreign sources report close to 800 Lebanese have been killed.

Despite Peretz’s and Halutz’s definitive position, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is moving cautiously, with aides admitting the prime minister remains undecided. Olmert is seeking additional guarantees regarding a decisive IDF victory, realizing the past four weeks have not produced the desired results. Analysts agree that IDF forces have ‘won’ most battles, but Hizbullah has not exhibited true signs of defeat as rockets continue to pound civilian population centers.

One thing is clear, when this operation is finished, there will be an investigation--both on how the 2 soldiers were abducted to how the operation was run. There will be tough questions, and answers that Israel will not be happy with.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah

'Peace Now' Could Teach Hamas A Thing Or Two

Arutz Sheva reports that Peace Now, in order to achieve their goal to get Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders is largely funded by foreign governments.

This is not really earth-shattering news.

Back in 2002, CAMERA reported that:

The EU reportedly provides much of Beilin's personal funding. According to an investigative report by Yoav Yitzchaki published in the Feb. 8, 2002 edition of the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, Beilin's salary is largely provided by the European Union (EU), as are his travel expenses. Beilin draws an annual salary of 350,000-400,000 NIS ( $80,000-$90,000) from the EU-funded Economic Cooperation Foundation (ECF) which he established.

Caroline Glick wrote, also in 2002, that the EU funded organizations like Rabbis for Human Rights, which organized delegations of foreign activists to stand in front of IDF tanks and try to force their way through IDF roadblocks.

One year before that, in 2001, the Jerusalem Post reported on the justification given by the EU for the funding they provide to left-wing organizations in Israel:

"The European Union has always held a policy of supporting non-governmental organizations that work for peace, democracy, and human rights in the civil societies around the Mediterranean," an EU official told The Jerusalem Post. "The Israeli government is fully aware of this funding and has never complained about it. The EU has never provided financial support for political parties," he stressed.

..."We don't look at the political complexion of the people who apply to us," the official said. "We look at the project and if it meets our criteria, it is a candidate for our support."

That the Israeli government has stood by and let this happen is just one more indication of their paralysis and inability to take even the most basic stands in the interests of the country. On the other hand, for the EU to brag that they do not look at the "political complexion" of whom they give financial support to--in a region that is drowning in politics--is irresponsible.

But apparently the EU feels that the PA qualifies as one of those "non-governmental organizations that work for peace, democracy, and human rights in the civil societies around the Mediterranean" since it provided financial support to Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority. According to Glick in her article, the EU was the single largest contributor to Arafat's PA since its inception, despite the evidence that the PA is a terrorist entity.

But now, according to Arutz Sheva, David Bedein is claiming that he has documents showing that in 2005, Peace Now bypassed the EU and has gone directly to individual countries, receiving payments directly from Britain, Norway, and Finland, totaling nearly a half million dollars. He also claims that for its 2006 budget, Peace Now has approached Britain, Norway, Canada, Germany, Holland, and Finland, with commitments from Britain, Norway, and Finland.

Considering how Israel has learned that one is beholden to the one you accept money from, the question arises how these foreign countries may have impact

This issue of accepting foreign money goes further than the fact that Peace Now is engaging in an activity that would require it in the US to register as a foreign agent. Peace Now is out to challenge the status of Jewish communitees in the West Bank and see to it that the Israeli government dismantles them. The article makes it clear that:

Such challenges often have direct impact on government policy and on the country's fragile social and political fabric. The government's decision to dismantle nine homes in the town of Amona, for example, followed a Supreme Court petition filed by Peace Now, claiming the homes were built illegally. The homes were destroyed in
a violent police action, in which hundreds were injured.

The violence and sharp polarization of Israeli society ensuing from the Amona tragedy may be playing into the hands of the same foreign governments which fund Peace Now. This is so to the extent that divisions within Israel's political communitiy weaken the government's ability to maintain Israeli control of Judea and Samaria in the face of world criticism.

All of this: funded by countries that are foreign--both geographically and in terms of their friendship--to Israel. That makes it all the more unsettling that Bedein claims Finland's contribution to Peace Now was forwarded to Finland by the U.S. government, according to what a member of the Finnish Parliament told him.

It's not surprizing that over the years Peace Now has become more emboldened--and successful--in looking for financial aid from abroad. No doubt they could teach Hamas a thing or two.

Once again, the Israeli government has taken a passive role and allowed these things to happen. It is not enough for the Israeli government to periodically authorize the IDF to make daring strikes against terrorist leaders. It is in the basic day-to-day running of the country that Israel's future will be assured.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Peace Now and EU.

Dont Take the Bond Between Orthodox Jews and Israel For Granted

Arutz Sheva has an article today entitled Orthodox Judaism Growing Among Young American Jews about a study done by the American Jewish Committee. Buried in the middle of the article is the following:

The role played by the State of Israel is also much less important to
young Jews today, found the report. "The Holocaust continues to be
profoundly important to a broad spectrum of young Jews," it read, "yet
Israel appears to be much less important in positively affecting
Jewish identity."

The exception to the rule is the group of Jews who have either
traveled to Israel or who identify themselves as Orthodox, both "for
whom Israel has powerful positive resonance," it stated.

Why would the Holocaust be more meaningful to so many Jews as opposed to Israel? In an article in another context, Richard Baehr proposes 7 reasons to explain why the Left is estranged from Israel. Part of the problem is that Israel becomes identified with the US and what the Left opposes in it. As Tim Cavanaugh asks in connection to the protests on behalf of Darfur as opposed to the apathy for the plight of Iraq:

Why does it always seem like progressives support any intervention that clearly does not advance any American interests?

This may be part of the issue we are facing in American Jews and their attitude towards Israel as well.

Meanwhile, a strong sense of identification with Israel by Orthodox Jews goes beyond the US. In Israel, the contributions of Orthodox Jews goes beyond their numbers. Caroline Glick notes that while religious Jews in Israel are 15% of the population, they constitute more than 30% of the combat soldiers of the IDF. They are a plurality of the cadets in combat officer training. They are a majority of most of the commando units.

It is tempting to see a close correlation between one's religiousity and one's identification with Israel.

Dr. Yitzchak Mansdorf, a writer and speaker who lives in Israel, conducted a survey in April 2004 and published the results in a report entitled "Knowledge and attitudes of post high school Jewish-American orthodox students in Israel available in PDF format. He later summarized the results in an article in The Jewish Week entitled Is Modern Orthodoxy the “great white hope” for the Jewish world? The results that Dr. Mansdorf finds are not what we would expect:

One world with which American Orthodoxy has not totally assimilated itself, however, is Israel. While Orthodox Jews appear to reflexively and enthusiastically support political positions that mirror the Israeli far right, this does not always appear to be out of an educated understanding of the issues involved. However zealous the American Orthodox community is in expressing this fervor, it falls short when it comes to effectively educating its youth in a fundamental aspect of the modern Jewish personality.

What few dare to speak of publicly or admit is the relative failure of Modern Orthodoxy in America today to inculcate its youth with a functional and articulate Zionist identity. With some notable exceptions, the same youth that routinely profess undying love of "Eretz Yisrael" do not speak passable Hebrew, have little knowledge of contemporary Israeli society and do not have the skills or knowledge to effectively advocate for Israel.

An impressive percentage of these young adults eventually do make their way to Israel, where many spend a post-high school yeshiva year or two with, for the most part, the same peers with whom they have grown up. They have minimal exposure to "real" Israelis and leave the country without understanding what is written in a newspaper or broadcast on radio news. Their exposure to Israeli society is often limited to a 10-square-block area in downtown Jerusalem, where they learn which restaurants have the best steaks and which hotels their families prefer. They set themselves apart from Israeli youth not only by segregating themselves in dress, language and habits, but also in attitude. [emphasis added]

Dedication to Judaism apparently does not automatically translate to dedication to Israel--but that of course will depend on how we define our terms. The issue, as defined in the article boils down to a basic finding that, "for many, Eretz Yisrael is a concept and not a reality that manifests itself in a thriving, problematic and challenging country called Israel." Dr. Mansdorf emphasizes that this is an issue that should not be confused with the question of making Aliyah:

The difficult and often formidable choice to move to Israel is not the central issue here. Without understanding modern Hebrew, without knowing Israeli history and without understanding the social issues challenging Zionism today, young Jews will not be able to become meaningful participants in the future of the Jewish people.

In this generation, Modern Orthodoxy in America may be keeping the youth committed to religious Judaism. Whether or not this commitment will ever include seeing life in Israel as a priority as important as building a synagogue in America of Jerusalem stone, however, remains to be seen.

Not everyone agrees with the survey nor with the way it was formulated. There is an online forum of The Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora that discussed the survey around the time it first came out. A number of educators tackle the questions raised by the study head-on. One poster who saw the survey believes the questions were confusing and misleading; he also questions the criteria for deciding what constitutes basic Jewish knowledge. He points out:

If they want to be activists they will read and study the facts as they need them. The question is whether students leave Israel more committed emotionally to Israel. This is certainly the case for most.

One can question whether pro-Israel activists can acquire the tools they need by reading and study. Dr. Mansdorf has spoken as an advocate when he visits the US and obviously puts a great emphasis on being able to speak out competently for Israel and answer anti-Israel propaganda. Whatever questions you may have about how the survey was conducted, keep in mind that half of the respondents got the following question wrong:

5 Which one of the following fought for Israel in 1948?
a. Yitzchak Rabin
b. Bibi Netanyahu
c. Natan Sharansky
d. Ehud Barak

The educators outline some of the things they are doing to address the issue. While some in the forum question aspects of the survey--and according to page 2 in the actual survey that gives background information, there were some problems with it--the teachers in the forum consider the report to be an important warning.

We should as well.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Judaism.

In This Game, No One Is Called For Interference

During the first week of the new year, Amir Taheri made a policy that was in effect during the first few decades of Israel's existence:

For a war to be won, it is not enough for one side to claim victory. It is also necessary for one side to admit defeat. Yet in the Arab-Israeli wars, the side that had won every time was not allowed to claim victory, while the side that had lost was prevented from admitting defeat. Why? Because each time the United Nations had intervened to put the victor and the vanquished on an equal basis and lock them into a problematic situation in the name of a mythical quest for an impossible peace.

Israel was always expected to play nicely. As if it were all a game, what was won was expected to be returned--because the UN or some other world power said so. Natural consequences were never allowed to take their course and so a situation has been allowed to artificially fester and grow.

But the fact that there no longer all-out wars has not limited the opportunities for foreign countries to interfere. Hillel Halkin writes about a current example in the New York Sun about the Palestinians and The Right to Make Bad Choices:

Recognizing a government as a legitimate expression of popular will that is therefore entitled to rule is one thing. Supporting a government by extending financial or other aid to it is something else. It is patronizing to treat the Palestinian people as ignorant innocents who did not know what they were doing when they elected a party that calls for the destruction of Israel. They were aware of it and knew whom they were voting for. To now argue that financial assistance to a Hamas-led PA should continue as before, because if it doesn't the PA will collapse financially, is absurd. It is treating the Palestinians like children who are not responsible for what they do. [Registration required. Summary here]

The aid in question is from foreign as well as Israeli sources to again interfere and prevent the natural consequences of decisions and actions from taking effect. Halkin's point ties in with Treppenwitz's post from last week and the point that needs to be hammered home:

This word 'infantilization' must be brought into consistent and mainstream use wherever and whenever the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is discussed. It is untenable that Israel be the only party cast in the role of grown-up; making concessions, living up to agreements, being held accountable for actions (or inaction), simply because the other side is allowed to be portrayed as too immature and undeveloped to be held to the same standard.

But the world does not merely see the Palestinians as immature and Israel as grown-up. The world is not just telling Israel what it should do and bending its arm until it submits. Whether the issue is that the West really does think it knows better or is terrified of standing up to the Moslem world, direct interference in Israel's internal affairs has been going on to a degree unheard of within a Democratic country.

Caroline Glick traces the history of US Presidents who meddled in Israeli affairs and lists instances of interference to varying degrees.

o George H. W. Bush helped get Yitzhak Rabin elected 1992 by undermining Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir--refusing to provide Israel with $10 billion in loan guarantees to enable her to absorb one million Jews from the former Soviet Union.

o In 1996, Bill Clinton came to Israel and actively campaigned for Peres. It was the Palestinian terrorism secured Netanyahu's win over Peres.

o In the 1999 elections, Clinton sent Bob Schrum, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg to Israel to manage Barak's campaign against Netanyahu.

o And President George W. Bush, after refraining from getting involved in the Israeli elections in 2001 and 2003:

the administration has made it self-evident that it wants a Kadima victory and is willing to do a great deal to ensure that such a victory comes about. Since Sharon's second stroke two weeks ago, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have made it clear that in Sharon's absence they want Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to form the next government.

Apparently in the US, meddling in Israel's internal affairs is not limited to Presidents--anyone can play. When Arutz Sheva reported last year on the opening of the Rafiah border under Rice's personal intervention under the headline "U.S. Jews Pushed Rice Into ´Unprecedented´ Intervention", it noted:

The left-wing Israel Policy Forum, Reform movement members and Americans for Peace Now met with Rice to express their backing before her recent trip to the Middle East. The Forum also sent a letter to Rice stating the "strong support" that the Bush administration has "from Jewish Americans on both sides of the aisle."

Of course the US is not the only country meddling.

Soccer Dad has a post on foreign investment in Israel. He refers to a post by Tel-Chai Nation on how the bulk of Peace Now's activities comes from foreign governments. and notes among the sources of foreign funding:

Britain (220,000 pounds), Norway (2.4 million kroners), Finland (50,000 Euros), Holland, Germany and Canada (900,000 Euros altogether)

In an article in 2002, Caroline Glick wrote about--

o money that the EU gave to Yossi Beilin's Economic Cooperation Foundation

o money that the EU gave to Rabbis for Human Rights, "which recently participated in organizing delegations of foreign activists who were brought here to stand in front of IDF tanks and attempt to force their way through IDF roadblocks."

o the Norwegian government being one of the chief contributors to the Shimon Peres Center for Peace, whose operation is the main subject of Glick's article.

In a separate article from 2002, Glick pointed out both the irony and the consequence of the foreign funding of what Glick refers to as "peace profiteers":

These peace profiteers have for nine and a half years made their personal fortunes by illogically arguing that Arafat is both the problem and the solution - that without his dictatorial consent, Israel will get no peace deal with the Palestinians.

...The truth is that the problem has gotten worse because so many so-called peace advocates have made personal fortunes by dint of their close relations with Arafat and his cronies. When we look around us, after two years and three months of the PA terror war and wonder how it is possible that Oslo and the corrupt terror regime it spawned still has domestic and international support, we need only to look to the money for our explanation. [emphasis added]

Arafat is gone but his role is currently being played by Hamas, as the financial meddling and political pressure of foreign governments in Israel's affairs continues unabated.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Peace Now and Bush and Clinton and Palestinians and Peres and Beilin.

Torture and Murder of French Jew by Muslim Gang--Not Anti-Semitic

The Observer, sister paper to the Guardian, reports the following story:

Torturers' Iraq link

Criminals who tortured and killed a young hostage, keeping him naked and hooded and burning him repeatedly before throwing him from a train, were inspired by images from Iraq, according to a French prosecutor.

If you read the entire article, some facts are missing--

o The victim's name (Ilan Halimi)
o The fact that the victim was Jewish
o The fact that the missing gangleader is Moslem
o The possibility that when a Moslem kills a Jew there may be anti-Semitism

Though the report does give the name of the ringleader, Youssef Fofana, that may be because of how stupid it would appear to report that the police are looking for the ringleader and then not report on who the police are looking for.

Or maybe not.

The Times--another British newspaper--gives some of the information hidden by the Observer, yet still manages to skirt around the issue:

Photofit leads to capture of Paris 'honeytrap' gang

Paris police have arrested a dozen people suspected of kidnapping and torturing a young man to death after a blonde woman used to bait their honeytrap gave herself up.

They reveal the name of the victim and even go so far as to admit that the Jewish community is concerned by the fact that 4 other Jews were targeted in botched kidnapping attempts. But according to The Times the key to the gang is not that the victim was horribly tortured, but that it is a "honeytrap" gang that uses women to lure the victim--and the model was not Iraq, but a 1995 movie called L'Appât (The Bait).

At least Haaretz puts the pieces together. It reports that there is disagreement between the family and the authorities on whether there was anti-Semitism:

"We think there is anti-Semitism in this affair," Rafi Halimi, Ilan's uncle, told the press.

"First, because the killers tried to kidnap at least two other Jews, and second, because of what they said on the phone," Rafi Halimi added. "When we said we didn't have 500,000 euros to give them they told us to go to the synagogue and get it," Rafi said. "They also recited verses from the Koran."

But the Paris public prosecutor, Jean-Claude Marin, told Parisian Jewish radio on Thursday that "no element of the current investigation could link this murder to an anti-Semitic declaration or action." The umbrella group of French Jewish secular organizations, CRIF, issued a statement Friday calling on the Jewish community "to keep calm, cautious and wait for developments in the investigation."

Apparently the fact that 4 other Jews were targeted is not enough of a hint.

Why is it that Europe can have laws that outlaw denial of the Holocaust, but when Moslems beat up, torture, and kill Jews, anti-Semitism is the evil that dare not speak its name?

For more on the media in Great Britain, see Great Britain Keeps a Stiff Bloody Lip

Update: Adloyada notes that:

It's interesting to compare the Observer's report to the European Jewish Press report, which links Halimi's treatment more explicitly to the Abu Ghraib tortures

According to the prosecutor, however, Halimi was tortured in scenes
reminiscent of the abuse of prisoners at Baghdad’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail.

Held prisoner in a Bagneux apartment, "naked, with his face covered," he was abused in "a repetition of scenes seen elsewhere", the prosecutor said.

Update: There is more in another Haaretz article here.

Update: At The Corner, Cliff May quotes from an article by Nidra Pollers online at the Wall Street Journal (registration required):

“The highest echelons of the French government are now preoccupied with the murder of Ilan Halimi. … Once again, as in the suburban riots of 2005, the country is forced to come face to face with the criminalized, alienated and racist Muslim youth and their adult enablers in its midst. …

“The murder of Ilan Halimi invites comparison with the November 2003 killing of a Jewish disc jockey, Sébastien Selam. His Muslim neighbor, Adel, slit his throat, nearly decapitating him, and gouged out his eyes with a carving fork in his building's underground parking garage. Adel came upstairs with bloodied hands and told his mother, "I killed my Jew, I will go to paradise." …

BIG UPDATE (3/3/06):
(This was going to be a separate post, but there are other blogs already covering this)

Last week France finally was openly and freely admitting that the brutal torture of Ilan Halimi which led to his death was motivated by anti-Semitism. The French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy said the members of the gang "were convinced that 'Jews have money'... That's called anti-Semitism by conflation." Furthermore:

Sarkozy revealed that some suspects possessed extreme Islamic and pro-Palestinian literature and documents. What they confessed to the police further confirmed the apprehension that Halimi was subjected to barbaric abuse because he was a Jew.

Caroline Glick is more specific on the nature of the documents that were found:

It appears that Ilan Halimi's murderers had some connection to Hamas. Tuesday, French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said that police found propaganda published by the Palestinian Charity Committee or the CBSP at the home of one of the suspects. The European Jewish Press reported this week that Israel has alleged that the organization is a front group for Palestinian terrorists and that in August 2003 the US government froze the organization's US bank accounts, accusing it of links with Hamas.

Glick is relentless in her critcism of how the Israeli government responded to the murder and to the Jewish community in France:

o No Israeli official condemned his murder.

o No Israeli official demanded French authorities investigate why the police were so slow to take anti-Semitism into account while Halimi was held captive

o No Israeli official flew to Paris to participate in Ilan's funeral

o The Foreign Ministry's Web site has no mention of Halimi's murder.

o The Israeli Embassy in Paris did not publicly express its condolences to the Halimi family until February 23--10 days after Ilan was found.

o The French press has noted that the Israeli media has not given the story prominent coverage.

o Halimi's murder has not appeared on the front pages of the papers or at the top of the television or radio broadcasts.

While Glick gives the French government credit for pursuing the murderers once they finally admitted the gang's anti-Jewish motivation, she not only faults the Israeli government but singles out Kadima:

Israel's societal meekness accords well with Kadima's ideology. Its creed was best expressed by Foreign Minister, Justice Minister and Immigration Minister Tzipi Livni last month at the Herzliya Conference and is best characterized as "conditional Zionism." In her speech, Livni explained that Israel's international legitimacy is conditional. Unless a Palestinian state is established in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, she warned, Israel will lose its legitimacy as a Jewish state.

So for Livni, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres and the rest of the Kadima gang, unlike every other people in the world, the Jewish people does not have an inherent, natural right to exist as a free, sovereign and independent people in its homeland. For Kadima, the Jewish people's right to self-determination in our land years is conditional on our enemies' acceptance of our right to be here.

I thought that part of the Zionist ideal is that besides being a homeland and destination for Jews, Israel is here to help defend and look out for Jews around world.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Anti-Semitism and France and Jews.