|
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Shlomo Argov
I was really bothered by the Associated Press's obituary of Shlomo Argov, Israel's former ambassador to Britain. Here are three paragraphs from the obit:
The attack was Israel's stated pretext for invading Lebanon four days later and laying siege to Beirut for three months until the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, and his fighters were forced out of the country. The invasion began an 18-year Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon, which ended with Israel's withdrawal in May 2000.
Reuven Merhav, a former colleague, said Mr. Sharon, who was defense minister at the time, had actually planned the Lebanon invasion well before Mr. Argov was shot.
Mr. Merhav, referring to Mr. Sharon's invasion strategy on Israel Radio on Sunday, said: "The war plan was ready. He made no secret of it. He had presented the plan to the Americans some months earlier."
Argov was reduced to being the pretext for war. Other factors such as regular shelling by the PLO of Northern Israel are ignored. I suppose that by mentioning Sharon's "invasion strategy" the report is implicitly acknowledging the ongoing threat to Israel. Arutz-7 gave a more complete view of the time.
The next day Israeli jets bombed PLO ammunition depots and training bases. This triggered a massive PLO bombardment against Israel's northern settlements, causing extensive damage and loss of life.
Even this fails to acknowledge that the PLO was attacking Israel prior to the attack on Argov. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs gives the most complete account of Argov's life.
Shlomo Argov received a B.A. in political science from Georgetown University in Washington D.C. (1952) and an M.A. in international relations from the London School of Economics (1955). After several years in the Prime Minister's Office under David Ben-Gurion, he joined the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1959. His first postings were to the Israeli embassies in Ghana and Nigeria. He later served in New York and Washington, as well as Deputy Director-General for Information of the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, before being appointed Ambassador to Mexico (1971-1974) and the Netherlands (1977-1979).
In September 1979 he assumed his final post as Ambassador to Britain. During his three years in Britain, Argov forcefully and articulately put forward the Israeli case to a generally hostile Foreign Office and media. He was held in high esteem by Anglo-Jewry and traveled often to visit outlying Jewish communities.
On the night of June 3, 1982, Ambassador Argov was shot and critically wounded by Palestinian terrorists from the Abu Nidal group of the PLO outside London's Dorchester Hotel, where he was one of 80 diplomats attending a private dinner. He was hospitalized in Jerusalem for 21 years and remained permanently incapacitated until his death on February 23, 2003 at the age of 73.
Cross-posted on IsraPundit and David's Israel Blog
Soccer Dad 8:31 PM
Monday, February 24, 2003
Comparing Arab and Jewish Exremists
Recently the New York Times has run two separate articles; one was called "The Unsettlers" about a small group of Israelis who take up positions in what the Times calls "outposts," the other about various armed bands of Palestinian terrorists called "Armed With Weapons and a Will, Palestinian Factions Plot Revenge." The contrast between the two articles is fascinating.
I suppose the one paragraph that most got my goat was from the "Revenge" article:
In referring to attacks "inside Israel," Abu Mujahid was touching on a long-running dispute within the intifada. Mr. Arafat says — and some of Israel's top intelligence officials affirm — that he is pursuing an independent state only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the territories Israel occupied in 1967.
Here's a very conscious effort to whitewash Arafat. Even "Israel's top intelligence officials affirm" that Arafat's aims are limited to "the territories Israel occupied in 1967." Of course there may be some top officials who have that view. Bennett doesn't name them. But surely many others dispute it. (The current chief of staff, Gen Yaalon, among them.) But that's not what important to Bennett. Here he is clearly taking sides. Arafat is a moderate says the NY Times reporter. Arafat is a moderate say Israeli intelligence officials. Arab extremists say that Arafat is a moderate.
Does it make a difference what the PA's media says? Does it make a difference what the PA's educational systems says? Does it make a difference that the militia associated with Arafat disputes this characterization? Does it make a difference that Arafat himself disputes this?
Well, no it doesn't. Arafat is a moderate and we have the word of the NY Times reporter to vouch for him.
Compare the treatment given to Moshe Zar the focus of the "The Unsettlers." He's associated with the Israeli terrorist underground and with PM Sharon. Worse:
since 1979, Zar has been buying land in the territory from individual Palestinians. It is a controversial practice; some Palestinians who have sold land to Jews have been killed as collaborators.
Horrors. It's controversial because Arabs have been killed for doing it. But the underlying Nuremberg type rationale, is not controversial. According to the Palestinian Legislative Council, selling land to Jews is high treason.
So it goes Arafat's association with extremists is a way to exonerate him. He's different. Sharon's association with extremists is a way to convict him. He's just like them. Worse, the Arab extremists seek to kill; the Jewish ones seek to build. But to the NY Times who's worse?
Cross Posted to Israpundit and David's Israel Blog
Soccer Dad 10:21 AM
Thursday, February 20, 2003
All the News That's Fit to Spin
Who caused the explosion that killed six Hamas terrorists this past Sunday? It's an interesting question that's still not entirely clear. The Washington Post, for example, noted in an article "6 Palestinians Die in Gaza Blast; 3 Killed in West Bank " that:
The Israeli army has killed numerous Palestinian militants by rigging cars, telephone booths and cellular telephones with explosives. But many other Palestinian militants have died while trying to build or transport often unstable homemade bombs. Similarly in a New York Times article, "Hamas Says Israel Killed at Least 6 in Gaza Blast" the reporter notes:
Hamas blamed Israel for the blast today, suggesting that the men were killed by a booby-trapped toy plane. But the Israeli government did not comment on the deaths. Israel has tracked down and killed scores of militants, often without claiming responsibility. Many have also died by accidentally triggering bombs they were assembling.
James Bennet of the New York Times does all he can to suggest that the Israeli government was responsible for the explosion. For example, in the above paragraph, he uses the Israeli government's silence on the explosion as support for his belief.
Still the Washington Post reports:
It was unclear tonight which scenario was more likely the cause of today's deaths, which occurred in the al-Zeitun neighborhood of Gaza City, a Hamas stronghold.
The Jerusalem Post, on the other hand, makes it clear that it believes that the explosion was the result of a work accident: Six Hamas men killed while packing drone with explosives The JPost seems to be focusing on a Hamas statement:
Hours after the incident Hamas released a statement declaring the six were planning to pack an unmanned drone with explosives to blow up inside Israel in a mega-attack.
Still the JPost doesn't clarify that the terrrorists were actually working on rigging the plane at the time. The NY Times on the other hand even plays down the Hamas statement:
Later, in a statement, Hamas said the men had been working on a small remote-controlled plane, which they evidently planned to use in an attack. Hamas said the men had received the plane today, implying that it had been booby-trapped by Israel.
"[E]vidently?" Both the JPost and Ha'aretz reported that Hamas claimed that the terrorists were planning to use a remote-controlled plane in an attack on Israel. Evidently the confirmation by Hamas is not enough for the Times. The Washington Post also seems to have missed something here:
In the Gaza Strip, the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, identified the six dead men as its members and said in a statement that they were killed in an explosion that occurred while the group was examining an item in the trunk of a car.
What that object might be isn't explained by the Washington Post. And the WPost is the only story of the four that doesn't mention that the terrorists were working with remotely controlled plane. The only drone the WPost mentions is the Israeli one that Hamas claimed triggered the explosion.
The report with the most details was the one from Ha'aretz:
Palestinian sources said the six had purchased the drone not long ago and that it had apparently come with a bomb hidden inside. Yesterday, the six were standing in a courtyard as the drone carried out a test flight overhead when the bomb exploded. Hamas' military wing is now trying to figure out how and from whom the six purchased the drone.
Army sources said that Hamas first showed an interest in pilotless drones, both as a means of collecting intelligence and as a means of carrying out attacks, about a year ago.
There seems to be a disconnect here: the suggestion in the first paragraph the drone was rigged by Israel; the second says that Hamas has been eyeing drones for an attack for awhile. (Of course, it's possible that Israel, aware of the new threat, boobytrapped a prototype. But there's no suggestion, except from Ha'aretz that that may have been the case. The American papers mostly consider the possibility that the killing of the six terrorists was revenge for the deadly attack by Hamas.)
Eric Silver of the Indpendent takes the Hamas line, pretty much uncritically, in his account of the explosion:
Hamas accused Israel last night of detonating a car bomb that killed six of the Islamic movement's activists and wounded three in a farm south of Gaza City yesterday.
The dead included Nidal Farkhat, a leading militant, whose brother killed five Jewish students in a Gaza settlement a year ago.
Palestinian witnesses said Sunday's blast was set off by remote control from a pilotless drone flying overhead. An Israeli spokesman lent credence to the report by declining to confirm or deny it. The explosion came as Israel was burying four soldiers killed on Saturday in the Gaza Strip after a roadside bomb, planted by Hamas, blew up their tank.
Israeli tanks entered Gaza City in the early hours of this morning, surrounded the house of a leading militant.Witnesses said about 35 tanks moved into position around a five-storey building in Gaza City where Ahmed Ghandour and his family live. Palestinians said Mr Ghandour is an aide to Hamas' bombmaker, Adnan al-Roul, believed responsible for planning the attack on the tank.
The war of revenge and counter-revenge is escalating. Abdul-Aziz Rantissi, a Hamas spokesman, said last night: "We will retaliate for this new crime, for Israel's new act of terror. They will pay a very expensive price."
By associating the explosion with the blockade of Ahmed Ghandour, Silver is attempting linkage. Even if Israel was responsible for knocking off the six terrorists, it seems unlikely it had anything to do with tank attack. Finally, it's worth mentioning that on January 14, 2003, DebkaFiles reported on, "Arafat’s New Terror Weapon: Exploding Toy Planes."
The Palestinian leader’s daily routine, as revealed by our intelligence data, is particularly revealing.
He is fully occupied in arranging the funding and deployment of new weapons, tricks, ruses and devices for the coming cycle of terrorist operations, that bank heavily on the effectiveness of… a toy: Model planes packed with explosives and operated by remote control .
Last month, Palestinian toy importers in Jerusalem and Ramallah were told to order hundreds of these toys for distribution to Palestinian children in hospitals. Subsidies from European Union member-governments could legitimately be allocated to this humanitarian purpose.
The model airplanes were purchased in Europe and shipped quite openly to the Palestinian shopkeepers.
According to our sources, not a single toy reached an injured Palestinian child. The model planes were sent to Palestinian workshops for conversion into miniature air bombers with explosive payloads. Tanzim militiamen from Arafat’s Fatah, sent out to open areas near Jericho to test the new weapons, discovered they could fly to a distance of 1 kilometer and an altitude of 300 meters. The only problem was how to guide the plane to target inside an Israeli built-up area when it was no longer visible to the remote control holder. A small adjustment was made in the engine enabling him to cut it out from a distance, so that it dropped to the ground and blew up.
Ha'aretz, pretty much confirms the gist - though not the particulars - of this report. For the papers - Washington Post and Independent - that ignored the reports that the PA is attempting to use remote control planes for terror attacks, it's one more example of how the media - wittingly or unwittingly - covers for Arafat & co. While I shed no tears for the six who were killed, I am no more convinced now that Israel killed them than I was when I started. The New York Times was wrong for (echoing Eric Silver and ) slyly supporting the view that Israel arranged the explosion. I know that the Baltimore Jewish Times carries Eric Silver from Israel. I've never been a fan, but after reading this piece, I'm even more disgusted. How can any Jewish publication carry reports from a guy who openly sides with the enemy? This isn't my being upset over balance. Silver will say that I have blinders on for Israel. He clearly has blinders on for Hamas as he uncritically carries that organization's account in his report.
Soccer Dad 9:30 AM
Thursday, February 13, 2003
How America influences Israel
Robert Kaiser's "Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy" has been discussed on IsraPundit. I've found another article documenting the ties between the current governments in Israel and the US. AFTER IRAQ by Nicholas Lemann is free from a lot of the sneaky terms that Kaiser uses. I get the feeling that Lemann is not comfortable with the likes of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. But it's also clear from the article that he feels that it's more a matter of Americans in a position to influence having a similar worldview to people in the Israeli government. If anything he suggests that it may that it's a case Americans affecting Israel's direction rather than the other way around. Check it out while you can.
Soccer Dad 10:35 AM
Cycle of violence.
For a while Daniel Pipes has been predicting that if Israel held firm it would eventually win the war against the PA. Maybe this is overly optimistic but according to "Analysis / IDF reverses suicide bombers' success-failure ratio" by Amos Harel in Ha'aretz, there is evidence that that Israel's refusal to give in is starting to make a difference. In addition the PA is starting to realize that it has something to lose:
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz made one recent comment which attracted little attention in Israel but the Palestinians noted it very carefully. He said in interview with Israel Radio that if the Kassam rocket fire from Gaza continued, Israel would consider reoccupying the Gaza Strip. Although an invasion is far from happening - and the wisdom of it is hotly disputed within the IDF - yet this was no slip of the tongue.
"The Palestinians are developing a real fear of losing the Strip," a senior General Staff officer told Haaretz. "Mofaz made them made them worry that what has already happened in the West Bank will happen in Gaza as well. So far the PA has succeeded in retaining relative control in Gaza. Its senior officials have much to lose if their reign there collapses."
The Palestinians are very aware of something that most Israelis have barely noticed - before the outbreak of the Intifada in September 2000, Gaza was a Palestinian "sea" with a few "islands" of settlements, but is now a collection of isolated Palestinian enclaves surrounded by wide "corridors" controlled by the IDF. They also understand that IDF operations to stop the rocket fire, such as those now being conducted around Beit Hanun, could easily be transformed into a permanent IDF presence in these areas.
Is this a decisive reversal? Maybe, maybe not. But it has brought about some change in the rhetoric of the leaders of the PA. According to MEMRI "Palestinian Leaders: Our Strategy Brought Sharon Victory." Granted many of the comments are self serving and they show little remorse except to the degree that the violence against Israel hurt the Palestinian cause. But a lot of the bluster is gone. (Though perhaps it persists in other comments.) Here too we have a leader of the PA saying that he rejects suicide bombings. Of course the interview is self serving and not a single tough question is asked. I particularly liked this:
Doesn’t it make you laugh when the side that loses 4,000 is [said to be] the aggressor and the one that did the killing is not responsible? The Palestinians didn’t choose armed struggle. During the first month after Sharon went to al-Aqsa [a visit to a holy Muslim site in Jerusalem that is widely blamed for restarting the intifada] Israel killed 107 and two Israelis died. Yet there were no suicide attacks....I believe the Israeli army killed [Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin because they were against a peace treaty; they want a security treaty, not a peace treaty. Mofaz wants to stay in the West Bank while the Palestinian security should work under Israeli domination. That’s why [the Israelis] escalated [the conflict.]
Of course no one (in the West) argues that NATO was the aggressor against Serbia just because Serbia suffered more losses than NATO. Also, the notes here show a bias. Why doesn't the editor acknowledge that there was evidence that the PA was planning the renewed violence for months? Finally, the conspiracy theory here is incredible and the interviewer doesn't follow it up with, "What's your evidence?" Still, at least the PA is acknowledging that they have to take action to prevent violence against Israel. Even if they're insincere about it. If they take action and fewer innocents are killed that is a start.
Soccer Dad 3:16 AM
Sunday, February 09, 2003
Good News from Israel
Tired of all the cynical reporting from Israel; focusing almost excusively (not too mention obsessively) about Israel's warts? There is an antidote: Israel21c. Israel might not be thriving like it was five years ago; but neither has it hidden its head in the sand. Go here and see not only how Israel helps itself; but how it helps the world.
Soccer Dad 9:47 PM
Why I'm glad that Gore lost
Rober Kaiser's article "Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy" (already explicated by Joseph Norland) is one of those articles that again reinforces my belief that Israel is fortunate to have a sympathetic President residing on Pennsylvania Avenue. It was only five years ago that a Washington Post reporter could barely contain his glee that President Clinton was practicing "snub diplomacy" with then-PM Netanyahu. Aside from Joseph's accurate criticism of Kaiser's article that it implies that "America's foreign policy is being made by Israeli PM Ariel Sharon" and thus echoing the vile views of the ZOG believers, what's disturbing about the article is its premise. Kaiser, though he is dispassionate and clinical throughout seems amazed that anyone should assume that one side (specifically Israel) should be favored over the other. Kaiser, for example, quote retired General Anthony Zinni:
Since then, U.S. policy has been in step with Sharon's. The peace process is "quiescent," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's special envoy to the region. "I've kind of gone dormant," he added.
Does he mention that each of the three times Zinni was dispatched to the Middle East, his arrival was greeted by stepped up Palestinian terrorism? Would the fact that "peace moves" seem to breed terror have anything to do with the Bush administration's beliefs?
Kaiser even seems befuddled about the notion that anyone might consider anything other than that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the central issue in the Middle East. Did Iraqi aggression have anything to do with Israel?
Despite my misgivings about Kaiser's article I find it re-assuring. For now Israel and the U.S. seem to be on the same page.
That's not to say there aren't concerns.
Today's Arutz-7 gives voice to some of these concerns, quoting its correspondent Haggai Huberman:
"Both sides are interested in showing that there's talks. Sharon knows that after Iraq, there will be intensified American interest in our region. He therefore wants to be able to show that there's something going on, as if to tell the Americans that they don't have to come down on us too hard. He doesn't want them forcing the Road Map timetable on him... The Palestinians are interested in having talks because they want to do everything they can to show that they're not associated with Saddam Hussein. They're trying to extricate themselves from this image, especially as Saddam's fall will put his allies next on the target..."
Huberman concluded that he has trouble believing that Sharon "is really pushing for a process with dangers of which he is quite aware. I'm not saying we can be complacent - he needs to be watched very carefully - but I don't think he will let these talks come to fruition and lead to a withdrawal, certainly not at present."
Still if we'd gotten Al Gore to be President this might have been the prevailing wisdom:
A particular imbalance in the process is the remarkable blind spot of Israelis for the regular nonviolent protests by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. A suicide bombing that kills only a few speaks louder than thousands of hours of Palestinian nonviolent protest
And this says nothing of the incitement that springs seemingly from every single organ of Palestinian society. The above comes from an op-ed by Hady Amr who was identified as "national director for ethnic American outreach for Al Gore's presidential campaign." Who would you rather have on your side? Condoleezza Rice's boss or Hady Amr's?
Soccer Dad 9:38 PM
Life Under Saddam
Saddam isn't simply some misunderstood bully he is a very dangerous one. What's he up to? A recent article in the Washington Post describes a conversation between Saddam's bombmaker Khidhir Hamza and Richard Perle:
Afterward, this odd, portly pair -- Perle the Washington insider, Hamza the former paladin of Saddam's palace -- get down to the details. They delight in swapping the latest intelligence about how Iraq may have modified aluminum tubes to enrich uranium.
It's something of a preview of Powell's U.N. assertions: that those tubes, which Iraq said were for ordinary missiles, were crucial to building a nuclear weapon. "This was part of the deception program," Perle says. Hamza nods in agreement. "I know, I know."
So Hamza thinks that Saddam's after a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, the article, "The Smoking Gun," doesn't give much information about Iraq. For more on Iraq and the kind of man read Daniel Pipes's review of Hamza's book "Saddam's Bombmaker," or "Tales of the Tyrant" by Mark Bowden from the Atlantic. Here is a description of Saddam's first purge:
On July 18, 1979, he invited all the members of the Revolutionary Command Council and hundreds of other party leaders to a conference hall in Baghdad. He had a video camera running in the back of the hall to record the event for posterity. Wearing his military uniform, he walked slowly to the lectern and stood behind two microphones, gesturing with a big cigar. His body and broad face seemed weighted down with sadness. There had been a betrayal, he said. A Syrian plot. There were traitors among them. Then Saddam took a seat, and Muhyi Abd al-Hussein Mashhadi, the secretary-general of the Command Council, appeared from behind a curtain to confess his own involvement in the putsch. He had been secretly arrested and tortured days before; now he spilled out dates, times, and places where the plotters had met. Then he started naming names. As he fingered members of the audience one by one, armed guards grabbed the accused and escorted them from the hall. When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam shouted back, "Itla! Itla!"—"Get out! Get out!" (Weeks later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome last words before their firing squads.) When all of the sixty "traitors" had been removed, Saddam again took the podium and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of those who had betrayed him. Some in the audience, too, were crying—perhaps out of fear. This chilling performance had the desired effect. Everyone in the hall now understood exactly how things would work in Iraq from that day forward. The audience rose and began clapping, first in small groups and finally as one. The session ended with cheers and laughter. The remaining "leaders"—about 300 in all—left the hall shaken, grateful to have avoided the fate of their colleagues, and certain that one man now controlled the destiny of their entire nation. Videotapes of the purge were circulated throughout the country.
It was what the world would come to see as classic Saddam. He tends to commit his crimes in public, cloaking them in patriotism and in effect turning his witnesses into accomplices. The purge that day reportedly resulted in the executions of a third of the Command Council. (Mashhadi's performance didn't spare him; he, too, was executed.) During the next few weeks scores of other "traitors" were shot, including government officials, military officers, and people turned in by ordinary citizens who responded to a hotline phone number broadcast on Iraqi TV. Some Council members say that Saddam ordered members of the party's inner circle to participate in this bloodbath.
I read in another account that the last detail did indeed happen. So this is the man President Bush is proposing to disarm and people have a problem with that? It seems that the antiwar movement is really more the pro-Saddam movement. These "pacifists" should make the case why he should be left alone.
Cross posted on David's Israel Blog.
Soccer Dad 4:13 AM
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
The Play's the Thing
Muslims in Cincinatti are trying to stop the production of play called "Paradise" that features a seventeen year old suicide bomber. It is based on the true story of the killer of Chaim Smadar and Rachel Levy. Though the playwright understands:
Mr. O'Malley continued, "There was one man who said — chillingly — that suicide bombing was `the same as "Give me liberty or give me death." ' To my mind there is nothing about adult men strapping bombs onto kids — male and female — and sending them off to kill themselves and murder others that resonates even remotely with Patrick Henry's now axiomatic saying about the American Revolution."
he still has the unhealthy tendency to equate both sides such as saying, "I've worked to show the hard-line point of view from both sides of the conflict without justifying or condoning suicide bombing." FWIW the young murderess got a rather sympathetic writeup in the NY Times. Fortunately, Bret Stephens of the Jerusalem Post did a nice job of critiquing the Times story. I'll quote him because the link is no longer valid. Stephens notes that:
"But who's kidding whom? There's a hero to this story. She's a quiet, studious, beautiful Palestinian girl, with a rich and mysterious inner life, who one day bids a nonchalant farewell to her classmates, leaves a "grim warren of alleys and tightly packed dwellings," and commits something perfectly abrupt and terrible, in the stylized manner of ritual Japanese suicide or a French art-house film. The Rachel Levy of Greenberg's telling is, by contrast, just another transplanted JAP."
He also importantly points out that the effort to compare Rachel Levy with her murderer leaves out the hero of the story: Chaim Smadar.
For whatever your view on the vexed subject of martyrdom or murder, the supermarket bombing was not a one-for-one deal. There was a second victim, security guard Haim Smadar. The Israeli press has given him his due, as does Etgar Lefkovits's story in today's Jerusalem Post magazine. But in the West, he doesn't count: his presence interrupts the happy fictive symmetries of its political imagination. So a word about Haim Smadar.
He was a father of five. Two of his children are deaf. He had been married for more than 30 years. He made a security guard's salary. He prided himself on his alertness. He received a commendation last year from Mayor Ehud Olmert for his diligence. His knowledge of Arabic - he was born in Tunisia - may have alerted him to the danger posed by Akhras. Witnesses attest that his last words, as he struggled to stop Akhras from entering the supermarket were, "You are not coming in here. You and I will blow up here." He may have saved 12 or 20 or 30 lives, or more.
Soccer Dad 10:12 PM
|
