In Gaza, the Real Enemy is Iran - Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael B. Oren
Hamas, like Hizbullah in Lebanon, is a proxy for the real enemy Israel is confronting: Iran. Israel's current operation against Hamas represents a unique chance to deal a strategic blow to Iranian expansionism. Iran has co-opted Hamas, a Sunni organization closely linked to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, transforming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a jihad against the Jewish state. The Middle East conflict is no longer just about creating a Palestinian state but about preventing the region's takeover by radical Islam. Indeed, Palestinian statehood is impossible without neutralizing the extremists who oppose any negotiated solution. If Hamas is successful in manipulating world opinion into the imposition of a premature cease-fire, it will proclaim victory and continue to stockpile long-range missiles for the next round of fighting. That would mean another triumph for Iran.
The writers are fellows at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. (Los Angeles Times)
On the Ground in Gaza
Barry Rubin
Israel didn't want to attack the Gaza Strip from the ground or from the air. Hamas, which had long broken the ceasefire, canceled it altogether. Then it began large-scale attacks on Israel. This is a war of defense. And it is being conducted just 30 miles from here, Israel's main city.
According to the just-released Israeli government statement on the offensive:
"The objective of this stage is to destroy the terrorist infrastructure of the Hamas in the area of operation, while taking control of some of rocket launching area used by the Hamas, in order to greatly reduce the quantity of rockets fired at Israel and Israeli civilians.
"The operation will...strike a direct and hard blow against the Hamas while increasing the deterrent strength of the Israel Defense Forces, in order to bring about an improved and more stable security situation for residents of southern Israel over the long term. "
Even as the 2006 war was continuing, the Israel Defense Force was evaluating the mistakes made in Lebanon--helicopters needed better short-range munitions, improved air-ground coordination, care in using tanks unsupported by infantry, and so on.
But contrary to the insistence of armchair strategists now, it would not be easy to seize control of all the Gaza Strip and govern it for an extended period of time. Hamas is not going to go away. International support for Israel is limited. Fatah and the Palestinian Authority will not react strongly to try to take Gaza back for itself. There are about one million people in the Gaza Strip and Hamas will make every attempt to ensure there are civilian casualties--and pretend there are even more.
So "total victory" is not easy, if it is even possible. The irony is that Israeli policy is based on the idea that there is no military solution to these issues. But since there is no diplomatic solution either, force must be used to protect Israel and its citizens.
It should be remembered that Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip, dismantled all settlements, and wished the Palestinians good luck. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was not up to the challenge. It could and would not change its corrupt and incompetent ways. U.S. policy insisted that Hamas be allowed to run in the elections, even though it did not meet the standard of accepting the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement. Hamas won.
But Hamas invoked the radical Islamist policy of "one man, one vote, one time. " It staged a coup and kicked out its PA and Fatah rivals. Rather than focusing on economic development or even maintaining peace to build up its own power, Hamas pursued its strategy of permanent war against Israel. Children's programs taught the kiddies that they should grow up to be suicide bombers and kill Jews. Hamas soldiers, or their junior allies, fired rockets and mortars at Israel. And of course Hamas staged a cross-border raid and kidnapped an Israeli soldier.
Double Standard Watch: Israel's actions are lawful and commendable
Alan M. Dershowitz
Israel's military actions in Gaza are entirely justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its act of self-defense against international terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality. Israel's actions certainly satisfy that principles.
When Barack Obama visited the city of Sderot this summer, he saw the same things that I had seen during my visit on March 20 of this year. Over the last four years, Palestinian terrorists - in particular, Hamas and Islamic Jihad - have fired more than two thousand rockets at this civilian area, which is home to mostly poor and working-class people. The rockets are designed exclusively to maximize civilian deaths, and some have barely missed schoolyards, kindergartens, hospitals, and school buses. But others hit their targets, killing more than a dozen civilians since 2001, including in February 2008 a father of four who had been studying at the local university. These anticivilian rockets have also injured and traumatized countless children.
RELATED
The Warped Mirror: 'We are Hamas' - the newest development
Abe Foxman: Preventing the weapons flow to Hamas
David Harris: Why Israel had no choice
Living with Rockets: Hamas's winning strategy
The residents of Sderot have fifteen seconds from the launch of the rocket to run into a shelter. The rule is that everyone must always bee within fifteen seconds of a shelter, regardless of what they are doing. Shelters are everywhere, but the aged and the physically challenged often have difficulty making it to safety. On the night I was in Sderot, a rocket landed nearby, but there had been no "red alert." The warning system is far from foolproof.
In most parts of the world, the first words learned by toddlers are "mommy" and "daddy." In Sderot, they are "red alert." The police chief of Sderot showed me hundreds of rocket fragments that had been recovered. Many bore the name of the terrorist group that had fired the deadly missiles. Although firing deliberately to kill civilians is a war crime, the terrorists who fired at the civilians of Sderot were proud enough of their crimes to "sign" their murderous weapons. They know that in the real world in which we live, they will never be prosecuted for their murders and attempted murders.
Barack Obama reacted to what he had seen in Sderot by saying that if his two daughters were exposed to rocket attacks in their own homes, he would do everything in his power to stop such attacks. I hope and believe that President Obama will take the same position he did as candidate Obama.
The residents of Sderot were demanding that their nation take action to protect them. Most seem to agree with the Israeli decision to end its occupation of the Gaza Strip, to withdraw its soldiers and settlers despite the reality that during the occupation, rocket attacks increased against the residents of Sderot. But Israel's post-occupation military options were limited, since Hamas deliberately fires its deadly rockets from densely populated urban areas, and the Israeli Army has a strict policy of trying to avoid civilian casualties.
The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians. In one recent incident, Israeli intelligence learned that a particular house was being used to manufacture and store rockets. It was a clear military target since their rockets were being fired at Israeli civilians. But the house was also being lived in by a family. So the Israeli military phoned the house, informed the owner that it was a military target, and gave him thirty minutes to leave with his family before the house was attacked. The owner called Hamas, which immediately sent dozens of mothers carrying babies to stand on the roof of the house. Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if, by some fluke, the Israeli authorities did not learn that there were civilians in the house, and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead civilians to the media. In this case, Israel did learn of the civilians and withheld its fire. The rockets that were spared destruction by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.
This, in a nutshell, is the dilemma faced by democracies with a high level of morality. The Hamas tactic would not have worked against the Russians in Chechnya. When the Russians were fired upon, they fired against civilians without hesitation. Nor would it work in Darfur, where janjaweed militias have killed thousands of civilians and displaced 2.5 million in order to get the rebels who were hiding among them. Certain tactics work only against moral enemies who care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties.
Over the past months, a shaky cease-fire, organized by Egypt was in effect. Hamas agreed to stop the rockets and Israel agreed to stop taking military action against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip. The cease-fire itself was morally dubious and legally asymmetrical.
Israel, in effect, was saying to Hamas: if you stop engaging in the war crime of targeting our innocent civilians, we will stop engaging in the entirely lawful military acts of targeting your terrorists. Under the cease-fire, Israel reserved the right to engage in self-defense actions such as attacking terrorists who were in the course of firing rockets at its civilians.
Just before the hostilities began, Israel offered Hamas both a carrot and a stick. Israel reopened checkpoints to allow humanitarian aid to reenter Gaza. It had closed these point of entry after they had been targeted by Gaza rockets. Israel's prime minister also issued a stern, final warning to Hamas that unless it stopped the rockets, there would be a full scale military response. This is the way Reuters reported it:
Israel reopened border crossings with the Gaza Strip on Friday, a day after Prime Minister warned militants there to stop firing rockets or they would pay a heavy price. Despite the movement of relief supplies, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shafts from Gaza at Israel on Friday. One accidentally struck a house in Gaza, killing two Palestinian sisters, ages 5 and 13...the deliveries could ease the tensions that might have led to a military action to end the rocket attacks. Palestinian workers at the crossings said fuel had arrived for Gaza's main power plant and about a hundred trucks loaded with grain, humanitarian aid and other goods were expected during the day."
The Hamas rockets continued and Israel kept its word, implementing a carefully prepared targeted air attack against Hamas targets.
On Sunday, I spoke to the Air Force General, now retired, who worked on the planning of the attack. He told me of the intelligence and planning that had gone into preparing for the contingency that the military option might become necessary. The Israeli Air Force had pinpointed with precision the exact locations of Hamas structures, in an effort to minimize civilian casualties. Even Hamas sources acknowledged that the vast majority of those killed have been Hamas terrorists though some civilian casualties are inevitable when--as BBC's Rushdi Abou Alouf, who is certainly not pro Israel--reported that "the Hamas security compounds are in the middle of the city." Indeed his home balcony from which he observed the bombing of a compound was 20 meters from that military target.
There have been three types of international response to the Israeli military actions against the Hamas rockets. Not surprisingly, Iran, Hamas, and other knee-jerk Israeli-bashers have argued that the Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians are entirely legitimate, and that the Israeli counterattacks are war crimes. Equally unsurprising is the response of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and others who, at least when it comes to Israel, see a moral and legal equivalence between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that responds by targeting the terrorists.
The most dangerous of the three responses is not the Iranian-Hamas absurdity, which is largely ignored by thinking and moral people, but the United Nations and European Union response, which equate the willful murder of civilians with legitimate self-defense pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This false moral equivalence only encourages terrorists to persist in their unlawful actions against civilians. The United States has it exactly right by placing the blame on Hamas, while urging Israel to do everything possible to minimize civilian casualties.
There are some who claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality by killing so many more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets. That is an absurd misapplication of the concept of proportionality for at least two reasons.
First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.
Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk of civilian death and the intentions of those targeting civilians. Hamas seeks to kill as many civilians as it can. It aims its rockets in the general direction of schools, hospitals, playgrounds and other entirely civilian targets. The fact that it has not killed as many civilians as it would have liked to is a tribute to Israel's enormous devotion of resources to the building of shelters and to the construction of early warning systems.
Hamas, on the other hand, refuses to build shelters, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel's military actions. It knows, from experience, that when it forces Israel to take military actions that result in the deaths of even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians, many in the international community will condemn Israel. Israel understands this sad reality as well, and goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties, even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilian areas. Accordingly, Israel's actions satisfy the principle of proportionality as well as the principle of self-defense against armed attack.
Until and unless the United Nations and the rest of the international community recognize that Hamas is committing three war crimes--targetting Israeli civilians, using their own civilians as human shields and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations--and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue and perhaps escalate. If Israel succeeds in destroying the terrorist organization Hamas, it may well lay the foundation for a real peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. But if Hamas persists in its capacity to target increasing numbers of Israeli citizens, Israel will have no choice but to persist in its self-defense efforts.
No democracy would do otherwise.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Useful Articles/Essays to Combat DisInformation Campaigns Re: Israel's Moral War Against Hamas/Iran
The Utter Irrationality of Anti-Zionism
George Jochnowitz: Essays/Reviews/Compositions
http://www.jochnowitz.net/
In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that Israel would withdraw from almost all of the West Bank. He was offering a gift to the Palestinians: a state of their own.
The Palestinians reacted by directing rocket fire against Israel. Then they voted Hamas into office. They chose a political party committed to the destruction of Israel. Perhaps they understood that Palestinian independence, now as before, could be achieved only with the Israelis, not against them. Accepting independence would be a tacit recognition of Israel’s right to exist alongside a Palestinian state. They could not be bribed with independence. They wanted to do what they felt was virtuous, to die in a jihad while killing Israelis.
Once Israel no longer controlled Gaza, rockets aimed at Israel were launched regularly. The goal, one has to assume, was to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state limited to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. When the rockets produced only minor retaliations, tunnels to Israel were dug, soldiers were killed, and an Israeli hostage, Gilad Shalit, was captured. He is still in captivity.
Israel negotiated a cease-fire agreement with Hamas. Hamas never fully abided by the agreement, but the rocket fire went down. The agreement expired a short time ago. Hamas did not renew it. The rockets began falling in ever greater numbers. They were provoking Israel to respond with force.
Israel responded with more force than Hamas had expected. The level of violence is greater than anything Hamas had anticipated. They were caught off guard despite the fact that it was they who had provoked the violence in the first place.
Time and again, anti-Zionism has prevented the creation of a Palestinian state. The first time was on November 29, 1947. The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, dividing Palestine into six areas, arranged in a checkerboard pattern, three of them having a Jewish majority, the other three with an Arab majority. The partition resolution, had it been accepted by both sides, would have created a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine.
Representatives of the 600,000 Jews then living in Palestine accepted partition. The six Arab states in the UN at that time--Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen--rejected the resolution. Palestinian Arabs weren't asked. Would they have wanted a state in half of Palestine at that time? Their actions must speak in the absence of words. On November 30, the day after the UN vote, a bus in Palestine was fired on and five Jews were killed.
On May 14, 1948, Israel became independent. That night, Tel Aviv was bombed by Egyptian planes. Iraq (which doesn't even share a boundary with Israel), Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan joined the war. Israel, which a day earlier had had no government, no taxes, and no military conscription, won the war. Transjordan and Egypt won too. Transjordan acquired the West Bank, which is why it later changed its name to Jordan; Egypt gained the Gaza Strip. The question of Palestinian sovereignty did not arise. The Palestinian refugees who found themselves in Egypt (Gaza), Syria and Lebanon were neither granted citizenship in the states they had fled to nor recognized as Palestinian nationals.
Why did five Arab states invade Israel on May 15? They did not do it to gain territory, although Egypt and Transjordan did not offer to give up the land that came into their possession during the war. They did not do it for the Palestinians; indeed, the Arab states, including oil-rich Saudi Arabia, did nothing to alleviate the plight of the refugees. Refugee camps have existed for 60 years now, since 1948. The Arab world, with the assistance of the United Nations, acting with unprecedented cynicism, has kept these refugees homeless in order to delegitimize Israel.
The 1948 invasion of Israel ended forever the possibility of an independent Arab state occupying an area as large as half the land of Palestine. Indeed, had there not been a Zionist movement, the question of Palestinian independence would never have arisen. What was true in 1947 is true now. To the extent that the Palestinians can achieve sovereignty, it can only be done with the Israelis, not against them.
A hatred as intense and violent as anti-Zionism is too strong to have a tangible, comprehensible reason. This passion has to take priority over the goal of creating and building a state. Hamas is not only violent, it is gratuitously violent. Its only conceivable victory is the death of Israeli citizens.
Hamas is not alone. A de facto Marxist-Islamic alliance has existed for 40 years, opposed to freedom—which is incompatible with both Marxism and Islam—and to Zionism. Crazies from around the world have chosen Israel as a target. Members of the Japanese Red Army Faction, on May 30, 1972, went to Israel so that they could achieve martyrdom while killing Jews. Seventeen of those killed were Puerto Rican Christian pilgrims, but that is beside the point. The Japanese Red Army was willing to risk killing innocent Christian bystanders so that they could kill innocent Jews.
Israel's Arab citizens, a vulnerable minority if ever there was one, continued to live in peace—in a country at war—and enjoy as far as possible the benefits of democracy. Their position is not an enviable one; nevertheless, there is no other place where a minority ethnically related to an external enemy has experienced comparable security. Anti-Zionism hurts the Arab world as much as it hurts Israel. Jihadists, however, are totally selfless. They are willing to suffer, to pay pay any price, in order to act out their hatred for Israel.
George Jochnowitz
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Israel's Moral War Against Hamas: Op-ed in Seattle Post Intelligencer
Last Wednesday, The Seatle Post Intelligencer published my op-ed, under the title, Israel Engages in Self-Defense. Below, the essay in its entirety, before the paper's edits.
Today, Israel's ground operation into Gaza began. My prayers are with our soldiers and Am Yisrael.
Israel's Moral War Against Hamas
Once again, tens of thousands of Israelis are forced to spend days and nights in bomb shelters, victims of ongoing missile assaults in towns and cities within a 35 km radius from Gaza. While much of the news focuses on Israeli air attacks against Hamas' military outposts and installations, Iranian backed Hamas killed three Israelis in separate rocket attacks on Israeli cities on Monday, December 29th. An Israeli-Arab construction worker was killed in Ashkelon, a woman was killed in Ashdod, and scores of Israelis were wounded.
Tragically, Palestinian civilians have also been killed in the fighting, victims too of Hamas' refusal to renew an already tenuous six-month 'calm,' or tahidya, which ended on December 19th. Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas said that Hamas could have prevented the "massacre" in the Gaza Strip. In Cairo on Sunday, he said, "We spoke to them and told them, 'Please, we ask you not to end the ceasefire."
The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Aboul Gheit, condemned Hamas, saying they prevented those wounded in the Israeli offensive from passing into Egypt to receive medical attention. When asked who was to blame for the dire situation in Gaza, he replied, "ask the party that controls Gaza."
During the past year alone, Iranian backed terror groups in Gaza have launched over 3,000 rockets, missiles and mortars, deliberately targeting Israeli civilians in southern Israel (over 6,300 since Israel relinquished all of Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005). The only Israeli left in Gaza is Gilad Shalit, the soldier abducted by Hamas in June of 2006 in a cross-border raid. To this day, his whereabouts are unknown, and not even the International Red Cross is permitted to see him or report on his condition.
This is the backdrop to Israel's recent air attacks on Hamas military installations, command centers, training facilities, tunnels for weapons smuggling, and bomb factories. Hamas deliberately insinuates itself in civilian areas, holding fellow Palestinians hostage as human shields.
During the current hostilities, criticisms abound concerning Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law. Ironically, the most basic of human rights, the right to life itself, is often ignored when it comes to Israelis who have endured an unceasing barrage of missile attacks from Gaza over the past three years. Instead, Israel is condemned for using 'disproportionate force,' a term referring to very specific wartime rules of engagement, grossly misunderstood and misapplied. In short, proportionality is defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has actually produced. Surely, the loss of any civilian life in war is regrettable and tragic. However, as political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible - and no one else is - for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire."
Currently, the objective of the Israeli military operation is to cripple the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, and prevent Hamas from launching further attacks against Israeli citizens. Since it is the primary responsibility of any sovereign state to protect its citizenry, the Israeli government should be expected to do nothing less. In fact, many irate Israelis, especially those in missile distance from Gaza, believe that the enactment of this fundamental governmental responsibility has been long overdue.
Those of us in the United States need only consider what American demands on our government would be if San Diego were substituted for Sderot, and Tijuana for Gaza. How long would southern Californians put up with rocket attacks from Mexico? And if they extended further and further up the California coast, numbering in the thousands?
President-elect Obama, during a visit to Sderot last summer, unequivocally defended Israel's right to protect its citizens from such attacks: "If somebody was sending rockets into my home where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing."
Rather than assail Israel for overreacting, the world should instead be in awe of its restraint. Israel's uniquely high standard of morality and respect for human life accounts for its remarkable restraint in the face of Hamas' unbridled provocations.
The actions of the Israeli Defense Forces would have been unnecessary had Hamas forsook terror and agreed to renew the tahidye. Israel is engaged in self-defense and it must be reiterated that Israel takes great pains to direct its military actions exclusively against terrorist targets, while Hamas deliberately positions its forces inside the most vulnerable of civilian areas; schools, religious institutions, residential areas and the like. Furthermore, Hamas launches its attacks from crowded civilian areas. Israel is dealing with a foe that sees Israeli deaths as very good, but deems Palestinian deaths as even more valuable. Hard as it is to fathom from our perspective, Hamas callously calculates that if enough Palestinian civilians are inadvertently killed, the international court of opinion will view Israel as the guilty party, regardless of Hamas' cynical manipulation of the media with gruesome pictures of self-inflicted carnage against their own people. And despite protestations to the contrary, Israel has done everything possible to avert any humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Again, it is Hamas that has subverted and sabotaged the entry of supplies and international aid into areas under its jurisdiction.
Those of us who still work and hope for a two-state solution for the two peoples, understand that Hamas stands in the way of progress towards that goal. Hamas is an anti-nationalist party, more interested in destroying Israel than in creating true Palestinian independence. It remains the fervent hope of the vast majority of Israelis that Hamas will be defeated, breathing renewed hope that the Palestinians can reclaim their right to responsible leadership. Only then can an authentic peace process be renewed and the hope rekindled that Palestinians can achieve independence and live in harmony with their Israeli neighbors.
David Brumer
David is on the Executive Committees of StandWithUs/Northwest & The Seattle Chapter of the American Jewish Committee. He is also a geriatric social worker and psychotherapist. David is the recipient of a Certificate of Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Public Diplomacy in Support of Israel on behalf of his work with The Israel Project.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tyranny of the Majority: Israel-Bashing as Spectator Sport at Turtle Bay
This past week, the United Nations commemorated the "Annual International Solidarity Day with the Palestinian People." On Monday, the film, "La Terre Parle Arabe" or "The Land Speaks Arabic" showcased, complemented by a public exhibit mourning the 60 years of Israel's existence. The exhibit, given special prominence in the lobby of the UN, is called "The Palestinians' 60 years of Struggle and Enduring Hope."
Ironically, the date that marks the commemoration is November 29th, 1947. On that day, the U.N. voted to establish both a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine. Had the Arab world supported the vote, the Palestinians could also be celebrating 60 years of independence. Other opportunities for Palestinian independence surfaced over the ensuing years , most notably in 2000-2001. The 'Clinton Parameters' offered at Taba early in 2001 included over 96% of contiguous West Bank land; all of Gaza; a capital in eastern Jerusalem with Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem under Palestinian Authority control; and--unbeknownst to most in the west--$30 billion in reparations for those Palestinians worldwide who chose not to exercise their 'right of return' to the new Palestinian state. The Palestinian counter-offer was the 2nd Intifada, more aptly understood by Israelis as "The Terror War."
Scant mention is made of any of this history at Turtle Bay. Instead, Israel is routinely demonized--regularly compared to the Nazis--and her very existence, sanctioned as few other modern states have been, by the very same United Nations that works so tirelessly to delegitimize her, is under constant question.
Six resolutions have just been adopted condemning only Israel for human rights violations--see below. The total number of resolutions against Israel by the General Assembly is expected to reach 20 this fall. That compares with only 4 resolutions critical of human rights records in any of the remaining 191 UN member nations. Those other member nations include Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Congo, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
And on Tuesday, the President of the GA, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, implored his all-too-willing accomplices to call a spade a spade, and label Israel as a practitioner of Apartheid.
"Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories appear so similar to the apartheid of an earlier era, a continent away, and I believe it is very important we in the United Nations use this term," d'Escoto Brockmann said. "We must not be afraid to call something for what it is."
Not Judenrein Saudi Arabia, where Christian and Jewish bibles are forbidden, where women cannot drive or vote, where petty theft can merit hand amputations, and where alleged adultery can be the cause for 'stoning to death.' Rather, it is Israel, where come February's elections, it is quite possible that women will head all three branches of government, where 10 Arab ministers exercise their parliamentary duties in the Knesset; Israel, with Arabs on the Supreme Court; Israel, where Arab women enjoy freedom of speech, religion & the right to vote; Israel, a champion of gay rights, is the country singled out for excoriation.
The Jerusalem Post's response:
"To state the obvious: The conflict between the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arabs has nothing to do with apartheid.
There is no system of racial segregation in the West Bank. There is a state of de-facto belligerency between West Bank Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Hamas-controlled Gaza seeks Israel's annihilation, not civil rights. Jews are not colonizers in Judea and Samaria. Nevertheless, Israel's government is ready to abandon much of the Jews' ancient heartland for peace with security.
As the padre (Catholic Priest & GA Pres, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann) speaks from the den of iniquity that is the General Assembly, we ask: "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3)
As Yossi Klein Halevi has noted, for Israelis, the Jewish concept of Tikun Olam is about more than just doing good in the world. It is also about resisting evil in its myriad forms. World Jewry must take up that mantle as well and take the lead in confronting Turtle Bay. The consequences of remaining silent could again prove disastrous for our people.
david brumer
seattle
General Assembly adopts six resolutions condemning Israel (Press Release
The UN, Israel and racism
in The Economist on Durban II
Nov. 27, 2008
The whole thing was a “festival of hate and anti-Semitism”, says Hillel Neuer, head of UN Watch. He predicts the Geneva meeting will be just as bad. Its cause is not helped by the fact that it is being organised by the UN’s much-criticised Human Rights Council, with Libya chairing a preparatory panel that includes Iran, Cuba, Russia and Pakistan.
UN General Assembly President Accuses Israel of Apartheid and Calls for a Campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Against Israel The President of the UN General Assembly has launched an unprecedented attack on a UN member state from the Assembly podium. Going beyond even existing UN resolutions, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua accused Israel of apartheid and called for "a campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions" against it. Reminiscent of a classic antisemitic slur, Brockmann (himself a Roman Catholic priest and one-time official of the World Council of Churches) also claimed our Palestinian "brothers and sisters are being crucified" by Israel.His remarks were made on November 24, 2008 during the UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This annual event marks the adoption of the General Assembly's partition resolution which called for the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state on November 29, 1947. (11/25/2008)
more
United Nations: Observance Of International Day Of Solidarity With Palestinian People To Be Held At United Nations Headquarters On 24 November
Top UN official: Israel's policies are like apartheid of bygone era
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service
Israeli ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev in September called Brockmann an "Israel hater" for having hugged Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a vocal enemy of Israel. Meanwhile, other diplomatic attacks against Israel were expected Tuesday on the second day of the annual debate. The event is usually observed on November 29, to coincide with the UN's resolution in 1947 to establish a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine.
Israel Protests Boycott Call by UN General Assembly President - Yitzhak BenhorinIsrael filed a formal complaint with the UN on Tuesday over statements made by General Assembly President Father Miguel Brockmann of Nicaragua, who called for an international boycott of Israel after accusing it of being an apartheid regime. The UN is currently marking its annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, and the General Assembly is hosting a series of anti-Israel venues, including films comparing Israel to the Nazi regime. Israeli Ambassador Gabriella Shalev slammed the UN as being disconnected from reality, and lamented its anti-Israel tone at a time when Israel is engaged in peace talks with the PA. She said if discussions were to focus on the Middle East, they should also touch on Iran's repeated threats to destroy Israel, Syria's armament of terror ists, Hamas' rocket attacks on Israeli towns, and Hizbullah's growing strength. (Ynet News)
Hipocrita
Given its long history of having one set of rules for the Jewish state and another for everyone else, it is all too tempting for decent men and women to block out the UN's Annual Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People which has consecrated November 29 as a day of hate against, and delegitimization of, the Jewish state.
But at this newspaper we are haunted by the words of Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Daniel Pearl, Gilad Shalit, Simchat Torah & the Power of Life, Hope, & Faith
By the Jewish calendar, Daniel Pearl's birthday falls on Simchat Torah this year. Bradley Burston of Ha'aretz has written a beautiful piece commemorating this convergence. He also reminds us to remember Gilad Shalit in our hakafot dedications tonight and tomorrow. As Jews we know how important it is to resist the logical temptation to despair. Through the wisdom of our forefathers, the Jewish calendar incorporates obligatory celebration, joy, and hope in the face of the darkness that also prevails upon us. And so it is this Simchat Torah that we hold our heads--and our Torahs--up high, and commemorate that which is transcendent, and distinguishes us.
david brumer
P.S. Those of you who are in Seattle, don't forget the Daniel Pearl World Music Day Concert this coming Sunday, the 26th at The Kline Galland Home (3-5pm). Rabbi Jim Mirel is leading an all-star Klezmer Band Jam along with performances by many other local musicians, dancers, etc.
Daniel Pearl, Gilad Shalit, and the exercise of power
Bradley Burston
Tonight, take a moment to think of Daniel Pearl. You may remember the name. Perhaps you will remember because of the brutality and horror of his death. Tonight, take a moment to consider in a new light, his life. You will be taking part in an exercise of power. It is the power of co-existence over cruelty, of faith in humankind over fanaticism, of appreciation for differences over xenophobia, of the heart over the heel, of music over killing. It is an exercise in the power of life over death. This month, the world over, in hundreds and hundreds of concert halls, schools, places of worship, parks and private homes, people who never met Danny Pearl will celebrate his birthday, and keep a part of him alive.
He was also a passionate musician, a true believer in bridging diverse cultures with music, and a fervent and far-reaching practitioner of that belief. After nine days in captivity, Danny Pearl died a hideous death in early 2002. The next day, his friend George Pehlivanian, who was guest conductor that night of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, dedicated the performance to Daniel Pearl and "to the triumph of hope over despair." By his birthday, October 10, musicians around the world had begun to take part in World Music Days, dedicating them to Daniel Pearl's faith in shared humanity and the universal power of music.
According to the Jewish calendar, Danny Pearl's birthday coincides this week with the festival of Simhat Torah, which is marked by alternating cycles of biblical readings and hakafot, unbridled rejoicing in circles, dancing and singing while carrying the Torah. In some congregations this week, hakafot will be dedicated to Danny Pearl's ideals. There will be those, as well, like the Birkat Shalom congregation at Kibbutz Gezer, who will include not only Danny Pearl but also Gilad Shalit, captive now nearly 850 days, in dedicating the hakafot.
This is a holiday which forces people to rejoice. It is a holiday which jars people into rethinking despair. It is a holiday which obliges us to consider that the essence of immortality is the juncture of memory and community and acts of hope against hope, of joy against all better judgment. The Torah is taken out at night, unusual in itself. The very last verse of the last book is read and then, the very first verse of the first book.
A new beginning, which incorporates an end, the circles of celebrants suggesting that it is neither end nor beginning, but continuity. A profound signal that life, memory, and good works are more powerful than killing, and, in the end, more permanent. It is tragic, but also inspiring, that it has only been since his death that Danny Pearl's message reached a wide audience. His family and friends, and thousands around the world who learned of him too late to have known him, have seen to it that World Music Days have grown year by year in number and scope.This week, Danny Pearl would have turned 45. This month, there will be as many as one thousand World Music Days events dedicated to bridging cultures and creeds in scores of countries.
By sheer coincidence, here in Tel Aviv, sprayed in paint on one of the seediest walls of a decrepit building, the words "Know Hope" appeared today. It is an exercise of power to celebrate life in a world like this. It is an exercise of bravery to come to know and admire the differences between people, the diversity that only in concert, together, can truly deserve the name humanity.Take a moment to think of Danny Pearl tonight. And of Gilad Shalit.Take heart. Know hope.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Heartfelt Reflections on Daniel Pearl's Legacy & Jewish Identity: Judea Pearl in Seattle at StandWithUs Community Luncheon
Visit "The Daniel Pearl Foundation" at http://www.danielpearl.org/ check out the upcoming annual "World Music Days" festivals around the world. And call your musician friends, rabbis, cantors, and community leaders and make sure they are aware of the inspirational benefits that your synagogue/congregation/school/center, etc. can derive from participating in the upcoming Daniel Pearl World Music Days, October 1-31, 2008. http://www.danielpearlmusicdays.org
Below, a podcast of Judea Pearl's Sept 18th appearance on the Dave Ross radio show
Judea Pearl on the Dave Ross KIRO 710 Radio Show; Sept 18th
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Sharansky: Why Identity Matters
On July 16th, former refusenik and living hero, Natan Sharansky spoke before about a hundred people at Seattle Town Hall, making the case that strong identities are the best bulwark against tyranny and fundamentalism. His new book, "Defending Identity" points the way towards reinvigorating the West in its struggle to maintain its freedoms and democracies in an increasingly intolerant world.
Sharanksy begins with John Lennon's idealistic song "Imagine," where the future utopia will consist of a borderless world "and the world will live as one."
Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
And no religion too.
Imagine all the people,
Living life in peace.
He contrasts this with the declaration by the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda that "we will win because the West loves life and we love death." Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said the same in an interview in 2004, after a prisoner swap (yes, another earlier one) between Israel and his group: "We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death."
It would be a mistake though to assume that these Islamic fundamentalists are crazed martyrs who wish death upon themselves for its own sake. Rather, their identity is a powerful force that gives meaning and purpose to life beyond the physical and material. The jihadists hold beliefs--however horrifying and foreign to us--for which they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. And they see the West as divorced from any distinct sense of identity, unwilling to make sacrifices for any cause larger than the self. In short, they see us as having lost the will to fight, defend or die for our beliefs. And indeed, for many in the West, John Lennon's song has become an anthem of post-modern, post-nationalist universalism.
For Natan Sharanky, the struggle for freedom and human rights, and the struggle to reclaim his Jewish identity evolved almost simultaneously and coalesced into a single expression. Because of a reinvigorated Jewish identity, he gained the courage to publicly speak out against Soviet tyranny and demand his freedom to emigrate to Israel and reconnect with his people and his history. His willingness to risk everything for that right earned him 9 years in the Soviet gulag system. Those years of incarceration taught him the value of strong identities. He discovered that cultural, religious, ethnic and nationalist identities were not in opposition to democracy and freedom, but rather, strengthened them. The prisoners with the strongest identities, whether Siberian Pentecostals, Latvian nationalists, Orthodox Christians or Crimean Tatars were those with whom he could most identify, and more importantly, trust.
Sharansky sees American pluralism fostering strong, discrete identities in the service of a cohesive collective. E pluribus unum: Out of many, one. It is America's great strength that in allowing for the full expression of hyphenated identities, whether they be Greek Orthodox-American, Italian-American or Muslim-American, an ultimately stronger national identity is forged. The European experiment, exemplified by French efforts to make every citizen a Frenchman first, has proven to be an abysmal failure. Banning head scarves has not helped integrate Muslims into French society; instead, the edict has further alienated them from French society.
Sharansky tells the story of how one of his heroes in the Refusenik movement, Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, greeted one of his young staffers on the morning of a Jewish holiday, surprised to see him show up for work. Jackson asked, "Why are you here? Isn't this your holiday?" The young staffer, for many years now a close friend of Sharansky, replied to Jackson, "The work for you is more important." Jackson responded, "Look, my boy, if you really want to be a good American you should be a good Jew."
We live in a world today that claims to celebrate multiculturalism and diversity, yet makes value judgments about which are the 'good' and 'bad' cultures, ethnicities and peoples. Just like in Orwell's "Animal Farm," all ethnicities and national independence movements are equal, but some are more "equal" than others. Europe appears willing to sever itself from much of its past identity in the service of a new post-nationalist, universalist model of co-existence, perhaps in part due to its post-colonial guilt.
Ironically, harsh limits are placed on relatively innocuous expressions of identity in the public sphere (like the head-scarf ban), yet European governments give Muslim minorities a pass when it comes to the abrogation of basic democratic norms. Thus, a blind eye is turned towards underage marriages, wife beatings, genital mutilations and honor killings, to name but a few of the gross transgressions of western civilization's most fundamental democratic precepts of equality, freedom, and human rights.
Sharansky ends his book reminding us that societies with attenuated identities are imperiled. That the free world's shield against tyranny, oppression and intolerance is "its own identity, vigorously asserted and framed by a commitment to democratic life." Only through an alliance of freedom and identity can a real peace be forged and a true multi-cultured world thrive.
david brumer
seattle
An afterthought: Ariel Sharon, Israel's fallen leader, knew a thing or two about the power of identity. And the fiercely secular, sabra-soldier, defined himself first as a Jew. In an interview with Ari Shavit (The General), published in the January 23rd, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, Sharon noted that Israel's raison d'etre "is to be the place where Jews will finally be cured of their mortal illness, their eternal wandering." But he also expressed his doubts about our ability to maintain our sovereignty, to secure a Jewish future in the land and preserve it when young Israelis didn't know their bible (remember, this from a secularist, but one who was steeped in his Jewish identity and the history of his people) and weren't familiar with their history. He lamented their unwillingness to defend the Jewish right to the land. “One generation after another is drifting away from anything Jewish,” he said.
This deteriorating connection with Jewish identity worried Sharon greatly. On the other hand, he spoke of the Arabs with great envy when it came to their powerful identities and convictions. "If there's something that I respect about the Arabs, it's the fact that they never change their position. They know much better how to keep their honor and their land. The Palestinian leadership did not give up any of its demands, not one inch."
Interesting to also remember Jabotinsky's words before the British Parliament in 1937 about the need for Jews to reclaim their ancient homeland. He said, referring to the Arabs in Palestine, “I fully understand that any minority would prefer to be a majority. It is quite understandable that the Arabs of Palestine would also prefer Palestine to be Arab state No. 4, No. 5, or No. 6-that I quite understand. But when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite versus the claims of starvation.”
While we are no longer starving, it may be time to renourish our souls and proudly renew our identities; identities that are eternally connected to Zion.
db
See other reviews below
Praise for DEFENDING IDENTITY:Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
By Natan Sharansky with Shira Wolosky Weiss
Public Affairs, 2008
Defending Identity
by Rob Eshman
The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, July 16, 2008
Sharansky on Tour Promoting Identity, Freedom
by Andy-Levy Ajzenkopf
Canadian Jewish News, July 1, 2008
Center Field: Group Pride Guarantees Individual Freedom
by Gil Troy
Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2008
Natan Sharansky to Speak in Teaneck Former Refusenik to Explore Relationship Between Identity and Democracy
New Jersey Jewish Standard, June 20, 2008
Democracies Can't Compromise on Core Values
by Natan Sharansky
The Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2008
The West Must Embrace Democratic Values in Order to Defeat Terrorism
by Natan Sharansky and Shira Wolosky Weiss
New York Daily News, June 15, 2008
Identity, Freedom, or Both?
by Natan Sharansky
US News and World Report, June 13, 2008
Sharansky's New Tune: Give Identity a Chance
by Bryan Schwartzman
Jewish Exponent, June 12, 2008
Bush Talks With Israeli Author Before Meeting With Olmert
by Michael Abramowitz
The Washington Post, June 5, 2008
The Thorny Question of Who You Are
Review by Michael Skapinker
June 15 2008
McCain and Sharansky
The New York Sun, June 5, 2008
The Foundation of Democracy: Sharansky's 'Defending Identity'
review by Ira Stoll
The New York Sun, May 28, 2008
View from America: Rediscovering the will to win
by Jonathan Tobin
The Jerusalem Post, May 31, 2008
Posts
