|
Friday, January 31, 2003
Letters to the Times
In the NY Times today, the letters page had a wealth sense about Israel. Three of the four letters were supportive of Israel. The fourth had a depressingly Jewish name as its author. You can find letters under the title of "The Israeli Vote: What Was the Message?" Yoni Rosenzweig argues:
"You would be hard pressed to find a country that would make a different decision — elect a leader who promises concession to a perceived aggressor — when the enemy shows no inclination for a peaceable solution. To Israelis, the choice lies with the Palestinians: give up your brutal leadership and tactics or watch the sovereignty — once within your grasp — evaporate."
Exactly. That sentiment flies directly in the face of yesterday's NY Times editorial, "Ariel Sharon's Paradoxical Victory." The Times wonders:
"The strong Likud showing was something of a paradox, considering that opinion polls show that a consistent majority of Israelis favor exactly what Mr. Sharon has not done so far — remove most Jewish settlements from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, establish a clear and defensible national border and help set up a Palestinian state next door."
It's not clear that this is what polls show; it is clear that this is what the Times thinks is equitable. But however generous Israelis are, they are apparently not suicidal. That's a point that the Times can't accept. Douglas Altabef contributes another valuable observation:
"The fallacious assumption underlying Gadi Taub's "pick your poison" scenario for an Israel that has not withdrawn from the West Bank (Op-Ed, Jan. 29) is that Palestinians are incapable of changing. This mind-set has always beset the peace movement: the future is solely a function of what Israel chooses to do."
That assumption underlies much of the conventional wisdom about the Middle East. At least from the West. Taub's column, "The Results are in and Peace Lost" is an obnoxious amalgam of left wing pieties that have been so prevelant in analyses of the Middle East: "Arafat and Sharon are partners out to destroy peace; Israel's hold onto communites in Yesha and Azza make peace impossible; only Mitzna had a realistic solution to the problem; etc." It's the end that really gets my goat:
The rejection of Mr. Mitzna's plan, coupled with Mr. Sharon's clear victory, could be one more step toward turning Israel into another Lebanon.
Given the proliferation of Lebanon originated suicide bombing into Israel; this is a bad joke. The surrender to the PLO/PA has, unfortunately done a lot to turn Israel into Lebanon. In Labor's successful campaign in 1992 it promised to take Gaza out of Tel Aviv - a reference to the killing of 15 year old Helena Rapp. Instead by giving the PLO/PA territory and room to operate unimpeded, Oslo brought Lebanon into Israel.
To it's great shame the Times also published "The Wrong Words" by Abdel Monem Said, which claims:
"The historical bond between the United States and the moderate Arab states and mainstream Arabs in general contributed to the stability of the Middle East. For half a century, the bond worked well — to thwart Communist expansion in the cold war, to contain the waves of Iranian Islamic revolution and to end in 1991 Saddam Hussein's radical and regional ambitions."
Notice not a word of the aid that the US gives to Egypt (Said is Egyptian) or an acknowledgement that the so-called moderate Arab states consistently vote against American interests in the UN. What's changed is that America - I think - is starting to see that there is a terrible cost to be paid for ignoring evil. America won't simply turn a blind eye to its totalitarian sometime allies in the Middle East simply because they have a lot of oil.
Soccer Dad 1:53 AM
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Is APN undermining Israel?
Folks from American for Peace Now often complained that "right-wing American Jews" who are out of touch with the mainstream Israeli view advocating peace undermined the left wing governments in Israel. Now the shoe's on the other foot. It appears that APN is not only seeking to undermine the legitmately elected Israeli government; it's undermining Israel's peace movement. Last week I pointed to an article by Debra DeLee asking the Bush 43 to emulate his father and use the withholding of loan guarantees as a way to force Israel to withdraw from Judea, Samaria and Azza. Today IMRA published an interview with Yuli Tamir who says:
I don't believe that we should do anything that would prevent loan guarantees because we know how difficult the economic situation is right here and therefore I don't think it's the right thing to do.
Ms. DeLee, one of the people you purport to be speaking for doesn't want your help. Give it up.
Soccer Dad 5:55 PM
The PA Constitution (some comic relief)
Thanks to IMRA we can see all 220 articles of the PA's constitution. Apparently the PA decided to take calls for reform seriously and drafted a constitution. Some of it has a quality of my 4 year old. If a sibling claims that he's bothering them and he replies "I didn't hit him." I can be reasonably sure he did hit his brother. If he identifies the offense; he probably did it. (If he were innocent he'd just say his brother/sister was bothering him.) Some of these articles have a quality that is so patently false, you know that the PA is admitting that the opposite will occur (and has occurred). I'm providing relevant news and commentary to selected articles of this legal masterpiece.
Article 4
Palestine is an independent state with complete sovereignty that cannot be conceded. Its system shall be republican and its lands are unitary and indivisible.
Yes it is. It is indivisible and here they are honest. Take a look at the insignia at the Fatah website if you think it means that indivisible is only referring to Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Article 6
Islam shall be the official religion of the state. The monotheistic religions shall be respected.
Article 7
The principles of the Islamic Shari`a are a primary source for legislation. The legislative branch shall determine personal status law under the authority of the monotheistic religions according to their denominations, in keeping with the provisions of the constitution and the preservation of unity, stability, and advancement of the Palestinian people.
These are of course inconsistent. Here's a sample of the "equality" Shari'a calls for thanks to dhimmi.com:
"DHIMMI: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
7th-21st century. The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to non-Muslims under Islamic rule—whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan. Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to accept a pact ("Dhimma") which rendered them inferiror to their Muslim conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a formal system of religious apartheid.
Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya.
No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.
Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude."
Yes the yellow star was not a German invention.
Article 32
The right of the Palestinian refugee to return to his home and the original home of his ancestors is a natural right which cannot expire. Its exercise may not be delegated nor surrendered.
And what happens when someone surrenders this right voluntarily? According to Carol Greenwald there's a law governing that:
The PA passed legislation in 1998 making Israeli ownership of Palestinian real estate a "harm to national security" that constitutes a "crime of high treason" punishable by death. 33 The murders of five Palestinian land dealers who sold property to Israelis indicated that the Palestinian Authority was not simply using rhetoric.
The PAL-PLC website is down, but this law was indeed written. Isn't it amazing the PA has no trouble finding real estate dealers but can't find terrorists?
Article 59
Private education has freedom provided it does not violate the public order and public decency or offend the monotheistic religions. The law shall regulate the supervision of the state over its organization and curricula.
Teaching the children about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion doesn't offend the monotheistic religion of Judaism. Does it?
Article 38
The accused my not be subject to any coercion or torture. The accused must be treated as innocent until his guilt has been proven in a fair trial granting him the guarantees of self-defense and the assistance of an attorney.
There are many examples of how the PA has fulfilled this take a look at the paragraph entitled "Executing the Retarded" here or the original article at the Jerusalem Post. This story also emphasizes the PA's commitment to due process as well as its progressiveness in treating women much the same as it treats men. (See the next article of the constitution.)
Article 63
Women are the full sisters of m. They have rights and duties as guaranteed by the shari`a and established in law.
Ever hear of honor killings?
Article 130
The remuneration of the president shall be determined by law.
And I'm sure the remuneration of all other officials will also be determined in such an honest manner illustrated in the following paragraph (emphasis mine):
As Arafat Critics Close In, Deputies Vie in the Wings
By JOHN KIFNER
A central part of this competition is between Mr. Rajoub and Mr. Dahlan, both heads of branches of the powerful Preventive Security Service, whose task under the Oslo accords was to keep Palestinian militants from attacking Israel. Both men rose from obscurity to be street-fighting leaders in the first intifada, and both endured years in Israeli jails, where they learned Hebrew. Both have also been living large: Mr. Dahlan built a mansion in Gaza so huge that Mr. Arafat had to tell him it was ostentatious. When an outraged Mr. Rajoub led a press tour of his damaged house after an Israeli rocket attack, journalists were fascinated by his marble whirlpool bath.
Any of these articles from the American Center for Democracy show us the money of the PA and where it goes. Finally, Morton Klein does a fine job of summing up the PA's past commitment to the principles of the rule of law. No doubt this overblown constitution will be the roadmap for a cleaned up PA. Not.
Soccer Dad 5:44 PM
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Peace now is oblivious
Peace Now is nothing if not persistent. In today's Washington Post APN's CEO Debra DeLee argues that the United States should be "Aiding Israel In Ending the Settlements." In short, even at this time of great trials for the Jewish state, Peace Now wants Bush 43 to emulate his father and use loan guarantees that Israel might need right now as a club with which to force Israel to transfer Jews out of their homes into areas she approves of Jews living. (DeLee, is a very prominent activist in the Democratic Party and was one of the organizers of the 1996 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Maybe the president should consider that before taking her suggestion.) In the mind of DeLee and people like Thomas Friedman, it's those damn settlements that prevent peace in the Middle East; not the Muslim hatred of Jews.
One of the outrages of Peace Now - in addition to suggesting that the President pressure Israel when Israel is in distress - is that it shows more sympathy to the PA than it does to the country whose security it says is so important. Go to the section on the APN website called Peace Links and you'll find a link to the PA's official propaganda outlet the WAFA "news" agency but not to the IDF website, which contains some of Israel's best hasbara.
Why am I going here?
Well the only current article that you can access right now at WAFA is "Address of President Arafat on the occasions of the National Day and the New Year" (There is an archive.) Well that address is Arafat's annual celebration of the PLO's first terror attack in the Israeli city of Beit She'an on January 1, 1965. That's 2 1/2 years before there was occupied territory!!! Arafat still believes that the issue is Israel in its 1948 borders; not its 1967 borders. Peace Now even provides a link to it. But the folks who run that organization simply ignore the obvious implications of Arafat's speech.
Soccer Dad 10:28 AM
Friday, January 17, 2003
Zionism a relic of the Past?
To understand Matt Rees's assessment of Zionism in Time magazine is to understand that Zionism is a reaction to the past reality of Arab hatred of Israel:
"For the past decade, Israelis felt they were leaving behind the pioneering days of Zionism, the movement that campaigned to found the Jewish state and create a strong character in its young people, all of whom had to serve in the army. The phrase post-Zionism came to describe the country's effort to build an individualistic, high-tech economy. Most Israelis hoped their country would become like anyplace else: ordinary, boring and safe. But two years of violent intifadeh — bloody Israeli occupation of West Bank towns and frequent Palestinian suicide bombings, like the twin attacks in Tel Aviv that claimed 22 lives on Jan. 5 — have snapped Israelis back into the mixture of nationalism and fear at the root of Zionism. What used to be a minority view — the conviction that Israel's enemies mean to wipe it off the map and that to make peace is to invite extinction — is now mainstream thinking. It can be measured in the high level of response to call-ups for army reserve duty by ordinary Israelis, and it's erased almost entirely any lingering support for the concessions offered to the Palestinians in the 1993 Oslo peace accord."
The fact is that Zionism exists quite apart from Arab hatred. Zionism is simply the belief that Jews came from the land originally known as Israel and that the Jewish right to the land is rooted in that history. The Arab hatred of Israel, is in no small part a reaction to Zionism; Rees has it backwards. The historical Jewish right to the land of Israel is incompatible with the tenets of Islam. In case anyone doubts that the Arabs still hate Israel and have hated Israel (and would wipe it off the map if given a chance) despite sometimes making "peace" with Israel, he should read this interview with Meir Litvak, which says, in part:
“Even for Egyptian intellectuals today, many years after the Peace Treaty, Israel's existence represents an admission of the defeat of the Arab national vision. It is a confession that Egypt has failed to realize its historical destiny and greatness. For Arab regimes it is convenient to let the anti-Semitic propaganda flourish in order to divert the attention of Arab public opinion away from their own failures. A rulers' covenant of convenience exists with the intellectuals who can vent all their frustration on the status of the Arabs against the Jews and Israel. That is much more agreeable to the Arab governments than focusing on the economic, cultural and social failure of the Arab world."
And if that's how Egypt feels do you think the feelings for Israel are any warmer in Syria?
Soccer Dad 1:17 AM
If this is success...
Well the conference between Jack Straw and various Palestinian politicians was a success. Or at least according to the enthusiastic headline the New York Times, "Britain Calls Its Conference on Palestinian Reform a Success. The Times, to its credit notes the Israeli objection to the conference by getting a pretty good quote from Zalman Shoval:
"Then this same Yasir Arafat sends people who are part of his terrorist organization in order to bask in the diplomatic limelight in London . . . If the Palestinians want to effect reform, reform should be effected right here."
to end the article. A more thorough debunking of the Palestinian reform efforts is a available at the IDF website (an excellent resource; better than MFA sometimes) here:
"In the political sphere, after successfully muting the "change demanding" voices from within, calling for significant reform in the composition of the Palestinian government, Arafat is presently engaged in removing the international pressure to make administrative changes in the Palestinian Authority including appointing a fully empowered Prime Minister (as opposed to the capacity of the Prime-Ministerial office as described in the constitution that will only become valid in the future after the establishment of a Palestinian State).
In addition, Arafat displays a positive attitude regarding the "Road Map" and the reforms it implicates. However he channels these reforms in directions that are of no threat to his personal position and is in fact unwilling to concede to the primary demand that is the very foundation of the "Road Map" which is his withdrawal from the center of Palestinian decision making.
In the constitutional sphere, The Palestinians have recently undertaken intensive high media-profile action in an endeavor to establish a constitution for the future Palestinian State. This was done by the reappearance of the "Constitution Council" headed by Nabil Sha'ath intended to write an inaugural draft of the Palestinian Constitution by January 2003 in order to gain positive points with those who endorsed the advancement of the reforms in facets that do not obligate immediate implementation. The completion of the draft on the night of the "London Conference" was intended to conceal the lack of genuine and sincere action on the Palestinian side in other facets of the reform and to assist in shifting the "spotlight" to the demands stipulated of Israel.
In the security sphere, Arafat executed a number of personnel changes, appointing a new Internal Affairs Minister, dismissing the Chief of Police, Jabali, and the Head of Palestinian Preventive Security, Rajob. These measures were damaging to the performance of these apparatuses.
Regardless, Arafat maintains exclusive control over the Palestinian apparatuses. No genuine change has occurred in the manner in which the security apparatus acts or in its reputed activity against terror. The new Minister of Internal Affaires, Hani Alhasan, has yet to take real action to restore control and peace on the ground. Hani AlHasan recent Moves in the Gaza Strip are a manifestation of the increasing acknowledgment that action must be affected in light of the demands within and from abroad and concern over Israeli action in the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, This does not implicate a change in the policy towards terror factors in the Gaza Strip and does not include clear and encompassing instruction to act against them, but an attempt to reach understandings and agreements.
In the financial sphere, Minister of Finance Fiad led a number of positive meaningful acts that restrain Arafat's control of the Palestinian Authority budget and open the possibility of deeper transparency in the institutional monetary system. Notwithstanding, he has not yet been successful in preventing Arafat's involvement and control over a large portion of the assets that the Arafat himself owns."
Very worthwhile reading.
Soccer Dad 1:16 AM
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
Gal Luft presents a case and history of Israel's policy of killing terrorists. Hillel Halkin presented the case for it in OpinionJournal back in September 2001.
Soccer Dad 12:31 PM
Monday, January 13, 2003
This is not about Israel but it is of Jewish interest. Today's Times has an article about Al Sharpton. Note how Nagourney uses the passive voice "He has been embroiled in polarizing disputes throughout his career ..." Give me a break!!! He has initiated those disputes. Why is the Times deodorizing this guy? He does it himself at his exploratory website (with the help of others.) Inexcusably and shamefully, New York's The Jewish Week gets in on the act of sprucing up candidate Sharpton. Here's a guy who tells it like it is, starting off with a picture of Sharpton and Arafat!!! It's long but worth reading. (Even if the Central Park jogger was not attacked by the young men who were convicted for nearly killing her; neither was she attacked by her boyfriend.) Fred Siegel wrote a shorter but no less outraged article for the New York Observer that is reprinted here.
"The memory hole into which Freddy's disappeared fits the pattern of Mr. Sharpton's political career. After each major outrage, Mr. Sharpton draws in the press and some selected rubes, and assures them that this time he's really reformed. The first New Sharpton, complete with fawning profiles in the New York Times Magazine and The New Yorker, came after the Tawana Brawley hoax." Siegel remembers well. Crown Heights was 1991; the fawning New York Times Magazine cover article was 1992 and Freddy's was in 1995. It doesn't take long for Sharpton to initiate a new controversy. It takes less time for his liberal defenders to forget his sins.
Of course, not only is there no Democratic politician who will criticize Sharpton, there are plenty who seek out his endorsement such as Bill Bradley and Hillary Clinton. A few weeks ago Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott lost his position on account of an unguarded remark he made suggesting that he had the warm and fuzzies for segregation. Al Sharpton's outrageous remarks are not unguarded. They are carefully tailored to bring out a strain of racism that is all too present in the African American community. Liberals obfuscate and suggest, like Nagourney, that these controversies "embroil" Sharpton. He is no passive bystander, but the instigator. He may not have been responsible for starting the riots in Crown Heights, but he kept them going. And his behavior at the Freddy's massacre was, at best, marked by reckless disregard of the threats made by those marching with him. (Funny in its history of itself and Sharpton, the National Action Network does not mention Freddy's!) If Sharpton were white he would be poison to whichever political party he attached himself. He will garner at least 10% of the vote in the primaries in which he participates. I wouldn't be surprised if that total ended up between 15% and 20%. Is there any Democrat with the guts to call Sharpton a racist and an antisemite?
Getting back to today's article, the title refers to Sharpton as "wily." He is not wily so much as he's untouchable. He knows that the most influential newspapers in the country will defer to him and not question him too closely. (Nor apparently will Tim Russert according to the article.) So if it's wily to benefit from white liberal guilt, I guess he's wily. "Cynical" is probably a more accurate description. Then there's the reflective picture of Sharton looking out a window accompanying the text. Give me a break. The New York Times should not be the campaign website of any candidate. Certainly not of Al Sharpton. This is PR that he could not buy for any price.
Guess what? This isn't the first time the Times has gone easy on Sharpton. In this excellent article here's a bit more of his "eulogy" from Gavin Cato's funeral.
Soccer Dad 2:46 AM
Sunday, January 12, 2003
I'd have thought that Daniel Pipes's positive assessment of the situation in Israel is overly optimistic. But then I read this article by Dexter Filkins of the New York Times or this article by Khaled Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post. Are the walls around crumbling around Arafat? To be sure the Filkins article attempts to absolve Arafat from responsibility by claiming "... the Israelis blamed a faction linked to Mr. Arafat ..." for last week's terrro attack in Tel Aviv. Actually it would more truthful to claim that the faction linked to Arafat claimed credit for the attack.
So is the Likud sinking in the polls? I'm not so sure. This poll from Ha'aretz says, "yes;" this one from Yedioth Ahronot says, "maybe not." A recent editorial in the Jerusalem Post argues that the Judge from the election board overstepped his bounds by cutting of Sharon's press conference. David Weinberg pointed to the hypocrisy in the Israeli media's emphasis on the Sharon scandals. Indeed, the Likud scandals (the vote buying scandal too) seemed to be convenient distractions from the Ginnosar scandal, which would have hurt Labor (and the Left).
Soccer Dad 7:40 PM
Saturday, January 11, 2003
Perhaps I'm too fast to dismiss journalism. Occasionally newspapers do good work. The Jerusalem Post reported that Achille Lauro mastermind, Muhammed Abbas, had visited Egypt. That led to this. Bravo. (Remember the Egyptians are our friends.)
Too often we don't hear of the Israeli heros. Fiama Nirenstein just wrote an article for Commentary "Israel's last Line of Defense." If it gets up on the web I'll post the link. Recently Jonathan Medved wrote Remembering Noam, about Noam Apter, who saved scores of people even as he was dying recently in the Yeshiva at Otniel. Here's an older reminisce about Chaim Smadar.
Soccer Dad 9:33 PM
Friday, January 10, 2003
Middle East Forum has a couple of provocative articles recently. One, by Ilan Berman, is about the emerging alliance between Israel, Turkey and India. It bolsters a shorter - and less rigorous but no less encouraging - article at OpinionJournal.com by Tunku Varadarajan. The other article is a blistering critique of the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror by Angelo Codevilla. While we're on the subject of OpinionJournal.com it's worth reading Insane Asylum Policy by Claudia Rosett. She makes it seem as if the Palestinian problem is one big welfare state supported and perpetuated by the UN.
On the subject of United Nations Relief and Works Agency, yesterday Paul McCann, a spokesman for the organization had a letter published in the New York Times denying the Israeli claim that when Iain Hook was killed there was gunfire coming from the UN compound. I had no reason to believe McCann. But I inadvertantly found him involved in an earlier controversy about Jenin in the Weekly Standard. Read his claims and David Tell's refutations.
Soccer Dad 10:05 AM
Here's and oldie but goodie on the PA's corruption. What's most telling are the first two paragraphs:
"Reporters traipsed through the master bathroom of Jibril Rajoub's house today, getting a highly unusual glimpse of a Palestinian security chief's whirlpool bath and shampoo collection. The marble floor was still littered with the brown glass that blew from the windows when Israeli tanks' shells struck on Sunday.
Pushed for details, Mr. Rajoub revealed that he was naked and dripping wet when the firing began, having stepped out of the shower and run into his bedroom to answer the telephone. By his account, the first of three shells missed him by 30 seconds. All told, his house was hit from three sides, his armored Mercedes was destroyed, and his 11-year-old son's bedroom, complete with Batman rug, was left with bullet-pocked walls."
The whirlpool bath, shampoo collection, and the Mercedes are all signs of very conspicuous consumption. And in a society where most everyone else is deprived these items stand out. If they made Sontag wonder where Rajoub got these resources, she doesn't let on. She doesn't investigate in the course of this article or any other. The lack of curiosity is astounding. So when the Times reports that someone in the PA is fighting corruption it feels like its trying to cover for the PA not cover it. (Rajoub and his fellow security chief Mohammed Dahlan made their fortunes by holding monopolies in certain products and taking a cut of imports/exports to/from PA territory.) Incidentally, I see no reason to distrust the Israeli claim that they were fired upon from someplace near Rajoub's house.
Soccer Dad 2:27 AM
Thursday, January 09, 2003
A few day's ago I included an item about the PA's corruption. I'd hoped to find links to an article of four years ago by Michael Kelly in the Washington Post. Good news, I just found a copy of "Investing in Yasser Arafat." Read it.
Soccer Dad 2:20 AM
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
The Israeli election committee's decision to ban two Arab candidates has caused a bit of consternation on the Left. David Newman wrote in the NY Times A Decision That Hurts Israeli Democracy that "[w]ith their two most outspoken representatives banned, Israeli Arabs are saying that once again, they will stay away from the polls." That's far from certain. The Jerusalem Post reported that Arab turnout is not expected to decrease. Two letters to the editor at the Times take opposing views of this decision. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA points out that the law supports the election committee's decision. (Scroll down to the second item.)
Soccer Dad 10:12 AM
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Earlier I linked to Amos Harel's pessimistic analysis of the Tel Aviv terror attack. Not everyone views the event so negatively. Continuing to believe that Israel's resistance to Palestinian violence has been successful, Daniel Pipes sees many signs that Israel is winning its war with the PA.
Speaking of Pipes Stanley Kurtz writes in a recent National Review Online column that Pipes has been disinvited by two different venues sponsored by institutions of higher education. I won't give you all the links, Kurtz does that quite nicely. I did follow one to Colltown, a consortium of Baltimore area colleges. Guess what? One of the institutions of higher learning that is part of Colltown is Baltimore Hebrew University. BHU, under the presidency of Robert O. Freedman was a very friendly home to Peace Now. Events for Peace Now were often publicized on official BHU stationery. Freedman is no longer president, but apparently BHU went along with the boycott of Pipes. I wonder if it went quietly or not.
I am no fan of the New York Review of Books but there is an excellent resource about suicide bombing called "The Suicide Bombers" by Avishai Margalit. To be sure, the article contains some typical leftist pieties such as,
"In December 2001, Arafat delivered a speech in which he called for the terror to stop. He had done this several times before, but always with what seemed a wink. On that occasion, he seemed serious. In the aftermath of September 11, Arafat, according to many reports, was desperate not to repeat his mistake of the Gulf War, when he sided with Saddam Hussein. When Colin Powell called for the future establishment of a Palestinian state, his speech was seen as an achievement for Arafat, at least among his followers. I have heard from well-informed Palestinian and Israeli sources that Arafat's loyalists believed that Arafat wanted in December last year to regain control and to stop the suicide bombings. People close to Arafat also believed that this was clear to the Americans and to the Israelis.
Three weeks of calm followed. Then Sharon ordered the "targeted killing" of Arafat's popular lieutenant, Raad Karmi, and Palestinian protests erupted throughout Israel and Gaza. Arafat's activists became convinced that there was no way that they could reach even a limited understanding with Sharon; the only way to fight was to adopt Hamas's tactic of using suicide bombers. It was at that point, my Palestinian sources told me, that Arafat's people joined in the deadly game of dispatching suicide bombers into Israel proper. Arafat himself, they say, most likely went along with his activists so as not to lose his control over the Palestinian Authority. At the same time it seems likely that he lost control over the al-Aqsa Brigades. In its recent report, Human Rights Watch blames the Palestinian Authority for not acting to stop the terror strikes when it could—that is, before its security apparatus was destroyed by Israel in 2002."
Still Margalit tells in chilling detail the process of convincing a bomber to kill himself.
"In preparing the shuhada for their mission, the idea of winning an instant place in paradise used to have a major part. In a remarkable account, Nasra Hassan talked to a member of Hamas who described to her how people are given instructions on how to act as a shahid: "We focus his attention on Paradise, on being in the presence of Allah, on meeting the Prophet Muhammad, on interceding for his loved ones so that they, too, can be saved from the agonies of Hell, on the houris"— i.e., the heavenly virgins. When she talked to a volunteer who was ready to carry out his mission, but for some reason stopped, he told her about the sense of the immediacy of paradise: "It is very, very near—right in front of our eyes. It lies beneath the thumb. On the other side of the detonator."
Much of the information here is excellent, even it is slightly tainted by leftist sentiments.
Incidentally Max Boot observed
"Much the same calculus seems to govern Yasser Arafat's thinking. He is, you might say, the chief exploiter of the Palestinians, followed closely by his senior goons. They reap the adulation of useful idiots abroad who celebrate them as 'freedom fighters,' but senior PA officials aren't the ones strapping dynamite to their chests and blowing up Israeli buses. Arafat's wife Suha has generously said that there would be 'no greater honor' than to sacrifice her son as a martyr. But she doesn't have a son. She has a daughter and they live in Paris."
I'll have more on the subject of how the dispatchers of the bombers exploit them, when I have time.
Whether or not you read Margalit, it's worth it to read what Pipes writes about what's involved in suicide bombing.
Soccer Dad 1:24 PM
Monday, January 06, 2003
There are other things that I'd like to get to, but this Douglas Davis article is excellent. This is a variation on the "Hamas is killing peace" canard. However this is not so naive.
"For the harsh reality is that Palestinian terrorism is not, as conventional wisdom has it, a sign of 'frustration and rage' at the slow pace of diplomatic progress. The opposite is true: Palestinian terrorism is never more intense than when peace is in the air."
The violence is managed to keep the Palestinian issue alive. It is not frustration.
Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Palestinian frustration. I'm just not convinced that it's necessarily due to the occupation. It's due to their exploitation by other Arabs as well as by their leadership as Max Boot reports in the Weekly Standard.
For Middle Eastern states, championing the Palestinian cause is even more vital because doing so provides an important pillar of legitimacy for their manifestly illegitimate governments. Naturally the Arab states' interest is in preserving "the struggle," not in succoring the Palestinian people who (along with the Israelis) are its chief victims. There are almost 4 million Palestinians and most live in conditions of unrelieved squalor; large swaths of the West Bank and Gaza Strip make the South Bronx look like Club Med by comparison. and
Anyone who visits the West Bank and Gaza Strip is struck by the contrast between the general conditions of abysmal poverty and a few glittering villas that wouldn't be out of place on the French Riviera. Who owns these palazzos? Arafat's men, of course. Since the Palestinian Authority keeps a ruthless grip not only on politics but also on the economy, anyone who gets rich within PA jurisdiction, by definition, must be one of Arafat's apparatchiks.
The pervasive corruption of the PA has long been known and resented by ordinary Palestinians, but it seldom comes out into the open, since Arafat doesn't allow freedom of the press. Revelations in the Israeli press during the past month have lifted the veil of secrecy a bit, revealing a circle of exploitation that includes not only Arafat but also some of his Israeli negotiating partners.
Soccer Dad 7:28 PM
Reading letters to the New York Times is an interesting exercise. On January 3 and 4 2003, the Times published 4 letters responding to an article about a recent court decision concluding that soldiers did not have a right to refuse to serve in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Not surprisingly, of the four letters published were three that supported the soldiers. The fourth reasonably asked how conscientious objectors would be treated in Arab countries and suggested that, unlike in Israel where objectors can get their day in court, Arab objectors wouldn't have many days left. The other three letters were
More surprising were the responses to a recent editorial advocating the "Quartet's roadmap." Of the five letters the Times published, four of them took issue with the editorial's viewpoint. Usually the Times uses its letters page to pad its "cocoon," of validating views compatible with its own. I wonder if the opposition's letters to the editor on the "roadmap" editorial outnumbered those of Times' loyal supporters by 100 to 1.
Soccer Dad 5:38 AM
Sunday, January 05, 2003
Here's a chilling interpretation of today's deadly terror attack. WHAT IT MEANS: Ha'aretz's Amos Harel on the Tel Aviv attacks. I don't know if I agree that a Hamas attack would be deadlier. This was about as deadly as any attack has gotten in the past two years.
But I think this raises a question of the way the violence is portrayed in the media. Most analysts will point to Palestinian rage against the occupation. But how has this level of violence be maintained for two plus years? Motive only explains so much. Means also have to be explained. The likelihood is that the PA used the years 1994 (from when it returned to rule in Gaza and Jericho) until 2000 to stockpile weapons and chemicals. The PA either encouraged, cooperated or simply allowed Hamas and Islamic Jihad to to build their infrastructures. (My money is on encouraged and cooperated.) When the time came in September 2000 to fight instead of negotiate everything was in place. Arafat cynically calculated that at some point he would not get everything he wanted and that a gullible world would buy his excuse that violence was a result of Palestinian frustration, finessing the question as to where and how they obtained their weapons.
Soccer Dad 8:17 PM
Something to enjoy about the NY Times coverage of Israel - the way the Times's correspondents bend over backwards to make members of the PA seem reasonable or honest. In contrast to this effort, the Times (or more specifically its correspondents) makes every effort to undermine the credibility of Israeli government positions. (When Israel captured the Karine-A last year, the Times, in its coverage, mustered every statement it could find that exonerated the PA from complicity in the outrage.) So guess what we have this week? There's a charming headline, "Palestinian Seeks Reform by Following the Money" for an article that tells the uplifting tale of Salam Fayyad, a trained economist, to inject some accountability into the PA system of malfeasance, um, er, government. Nowhere does the article address why it's taken so long for the PA to even address such problems. Wasn't accountability one of the obligations the PA took upon itself with the Oslo Accords? For all the effort James Bennett spends on promoting Mr. Fayyad's efforts, the Times did not note last week that "P.A. Official Responsible For Stealing Donated Food." Nor is the PA's corruption a new thing. Back when the PA was the PLO Daniel Pipes showed that it ran quite a lucrative enterprise in Lebanon 20 years ago. More recently Rachel Ehrenfeld has written extensively on the PA's corruption. So the Times only covers PA corruption when the PA is making its minimal PR efforts to fight it. And the Times wonders why some people believe that it is biased.
Soccer Dad 12:03 PM
There have been a number of good end-of-the-year features. Few have the bite of Michael Kelly's "2003, Through the Looking Glass" Read it, smile, and wish that the world was really like this.
Soccer Dad 10:40 AM
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Clifford Krauss of the New York Times reports that "U.S. Welcomes Thaw in Relations With 'Pragmatic' Syria." (Thanks for the scare quotes around "pragmatic!") I suppose that the following paragraph says it all, "The two countries are still in dispute over Syria's prolonged intervention in Lebanon, stubborn hostility toward Israel and the wide-ranging support for Hamas and Hezbollah militants that keeps Damascus on the State Department terrorist black list. Mob attacks against the American Embassy here in 1998 and 2000 opened new wounds, which have been salted by Syria's opening of its borders to Iraqi oil exports in violation of the United Nations-sanctioned embargo." (Note how the Times calls the Syrian ongoing occupation of Lebanon an "intervention!") But given these sins and the additional evidence that Iraq may be arming Syria's client Hezbollah isn't the United States coming close to appeasement by overstating Syria's importance in the war on terror. Maybe Syria's helped catch 20 some suspected terrorists; but the possible damage to America's interest by Syria's other actions is much greater. I hope that the "Thaw" excites the Times more than it excites American officialdom!
Soccer Dad 10:31 AM
This has nothing to do with Israel. One of the best online articles I've read recently is The Last Battle of the Civil War
by Andrew Ferguson at the Weekly Standard. Ferguson investigates whether Dr. Samuel Mudd was an accomplie of John Wilkes Booth or the victim of an out-of-control military prosecution.
Soccer Dad 10:15 AM
Wednesday, January 01, 2003
Many of Israel's critics are quick to cite Ha'aretz as proof that you can be critical of Israel and not be anti-Israel. After all if Israel's most prestigious paper criticizes the country, why can't we? But every once in a while Ha'aretz publishes an article that refutes some of the basest claims against Israel such as A constantly narrowing gap by Amnon Rubinstein. Will the New York Times or Washington Post pick this article up? I doubt it. But when Ha'aretz publishes an article alleging that Israeli soldiers are committing some sort of atrocity, you can be sure that they will.
What can we make of Sharon's support for a Palestinian state? In Sharon means what he says Gabriel Danzig writes that Sharon is trying his best to shape a bad outcome. I think he's right. However David Weinberg - Will the real Sharon please stand up? interprets some of the same observations in a less flattering light.
Poor Azmi Bishara. His brother, Marwan, wants us to believe that he's a peace loving democrat. The Guardian can always be counted on to publish articles that sound like they come from ArabNews; so they carried My brother's fight for democracy . Marwan Bishara writes "Azmi Bishara is no advocate of violence. ... His party, the National Democratic Assembly, has helped contain the religious fundamentalist camps in both Israel and the Palestinian territories." However when Bishara abused his legislative immunity and travelled to Syria, IsraelInsider reported that "Appearing on the podium beside Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, head of the Lebanese Hezbollah group, and leaders of Hamas and other Syria-based militant Palestinian groups, Bishara called for 'expanding the sphere of resistance' against 'Israel's dictates' so that 'people can carry on with the struggle.'" I guess that Hezbollah and Hamas are secular democrats just like Bishara. The Jerusalem Post argues that contrary to Azmi's brother, there is no double standard in the decision to outlaw Bishara's candidacy and allow Baruch Marzel's. If nothing else the Post's editorial notes that Baruch Marzel has professed his commitment to democracy; Azmi Bishara has not disavowed his seditious statements of the past.
Soccer Dad 6:20 PM
|
