Israel
has every legal and moral right to stage a pre-emptive strike on Iran,
renowned legal expert Prof. Alan Dershowitz said in Tel Aviv on Monday.
He also wants to hear U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speak out
more strongly against Iran.
Speaking at the annual business conference sponsored by Globes,
Dershowitz stated that regardless of whether or not it would be wise
for Israel to attack, “Israel has the right morally and legally to
strike Iran just as it did on [the nuclear facility] in Iraq in 1981.
Having the right to attack does not mean that it should do so, but I
would defend Israel’s right.”
Despite the “deep and positive”
security relationship between the United States and Israel, he fears
that there may be a “disconnect” over Iran’s race to produce a nuclear
weapon and reach the capability to stage a nuclear attack on Israel.
“Israel
doesn’t have the military capacity that America has to destroy Iran’s
underground nuclear facilities,” Dershowitz explained, adding that that
“United States can wait a longer time and has more of a willingness to
tolerate a nuclear Iran.”
He praised Obama for stating he will not
tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons, but added, “I would like to hear
that from the Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton]."
Turning to
Turkey, Dershowitz lividly criticized Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan for demanding an apology from Israel over the flotilla
clash between terror activists and the IDF on the high seas in May
2010. “Turkey has never apologized for the genocide in Armenia. Talk
about chutzpah? Talking about Turkey demanding an apology from anybody?"
Dershowitz
also advised Israel to be more aggressive against countries’ threats to
arrest visiting IDF officers and political leaders for alleged war
crimes.
Israeli officials should not "duck back into their
planes,” admonished Dershowitz. “That is not the way great nations
behave,” he continued. He advised officers and politicians to "hold
their heads high" and challenge countries’ authority to put them on
trial.
Dershowitz vowed if they are arrested, he would ”put together the greatest legal team ever assembled.”
He
added that Israel’s record is better than that of Turkey and NATO and
others when it comes to the ratio of civilians to terrorists who are
killed in warfare. Deshowitz declared that "the double standard against
Israel." whereby countries are far more guilty of the same charges made
against Israel, represents "the depths of international law and the
hijacking by the left."
One State for one People. Thou shalt not be a victim, or perpetrator, but above all, thou shalt not be a bystander. Yasher Koach!
December 30, 2011
December 29, 2011
The Real Coercion in Israel: By Moshe Feiglin
No coercion is
good – religious or secular. Today, Israel suffers more from secular
coercion than from religious coercion. Unlike the situation in the past,
religious soldiers today are forced into combat with women soldiers.
Unlike the situation in the past, Israel's citizens today are coerced
into witnessing "gay pride" parades and other decadent behavior in their
public space. Unlike the situation in the past, the settlers today are
forcibly expelled form their homes against the will of the majority of
the Nation. Unlike the situation in the past, non-Jewish immigration
from Russia is being forced down our throats, with Sudanese immigration
thrown in for good measure. The entire Israeli reality has become a
platform for the multi-faceted tyranny of the secular minority
(approximately 19% of the public) over the
traditional/religious/ultra- Orthodox majority.
Just like the unhappy events in Ramat Gilad, the story of Tanya from Ashdod (who was harassed on an ultra-Orthodox bus) was a provocation. It began with coercion, continued with the igniting of an intentional spark, led to stupid behavior by extremists, followed by a mad, false and bigoted media campaign and who knows where it will end? Israel's bus company, Egged, did not want to lose its ultra-Orthodox passengers and offered them their own bus lines in exchange for their agreement not to open their own bus company. That's the whole story. Tanya could have gotten on the two general bus lines from Ashdod to Tel Aviv. But she insisted on traveling on the ultra-Orthodox bus.
Do these provocations justify throwing a rock at an IDF officer? Certainly not. Do they justify an imbecilic ultra-Orthodox man spitting on a small girl whose level of modesty does not conform to his standards? Of course not. Most of the ultra-Orthodox have renounced his behavior.
But the problem here is coercion of all types. And the most significant coercion today in Israeli society is the continuing offensive against anything that smacks of Jewish identity – be it the settling of the Land of Israel, family values (today it is financially worthwhile to divorce and declare oneself a single parent, and many people do this!) or if it is a smear campaign accusing the ultra-Orthodox of discrimination against women.
We would all be well-advised to filter out the media's wailing. The journalists, most of whom represent the junk-culture that takes the prize for humiliating women, have nothing to teach us about respect for women.
Problems in society must be dealt with in a factual manner. Those who discriminate against women or harass them must be punished according to law. But none of that has anything to do with the murky wave of incitement that has been washing over our heads as of late.
Just like the unhappy events in Ramat Gilad, the story of Tanya from Ashdod (who was harassed on an ultra-Orthodox bus) was a provocation. It began with coercion, continued with the igniting of an intentional spark, led to stupid behavior by extremists, followed by a mad, false and bigoted media campaign and who knows where it will end? Israel's bus company, Egged, did not want to lose its ultra-Orthodox passengers and offered them their own bus lines in exchange for their agreement not to open their own bus company. That's the whole story. Tanya could have gotten on the two general bus lines from Ashdod to Tel Aviv. But she insisted on traveling on the ultra-Orthodox bus.
Do these provocations justify throwing a rock at an IDF officer? Certainly not. Do they justify an imbecilic ultra-Orthodox man spitting on a small girl whose level of modesty does not conform to his standards? Of course not. Most of the ultra-Orthodox have renounced his behavior.
But the problem here is coercion of all types. And the most significant coercion today in Israeli society is the continuing offensive against anything that smacks of Jewish identity – be it the settling of the Land of Israel, family values (today it is financially worthwhile to divorce and declare oneself a single parent, and many people do this!) or if it is a smear campaign accusing the ultra-Orthodox of discrimination against women.
We would all be well-advised to filter out the media's wailing. The journalists, most of whom represent the junk-culture that takes the prize for humiliating women, have nothing to teach us about respect for women.
Problems in society must be dealt with in a factual manner. Those who discriminate against women or harass them must be punished according to law. But none of that has anything to do with the murky wave of incitement that has been washing over our heads as of late.
The Likud Referendum Before the Expulsion: By Moshe Feiglin
The results of the upcoming election for chairmanship of the Likud (to take place on 7 Shvat, 5772 / Jan. 31, '12) will be analyzed by the Likud ministers and MKs with a fine-toothed comb. The reason? These are the same voters who will vote in the Likud primaries before the general elections in Israel.
The intensity of the struggle for Israel's settlements will be determined in large part by the results of the upcoming elections. In other words, these elections are actually the new Likud referendum; just that this time the Land of Israel loyalists will have the opportunity to vote before the withdrawal program is put on the table, not after. A clear result in the upcoming elections will ensure that the entire Likud faction in the Knesset will stand firmly against attempts to destroy the settlements in the future.
This is not the reason why I am running for chairmanship of the Likud. I even ran when the Likud was in the Opposition and had negligible influence over the government. My decision to run is based on the same principles that have guided us since the very beginnings of the Manhigut Yehudit faction in the Likud. Nevertheless, the fact that we have established a faith-based alternative now directly dovetails with our tactical goal to defend the settlements in Judea and Samaria. We see the settlements as the platform for the ideology that must lead and save the entire State of Israel.
The revolution created by Manhigut Yehudit, leading the faith-based public to the national helm - is the beginning of the changing of the guard in the process of the Return to Zion. Many of the Land of Israel loyalists who have recently joined the Likud see their move as strictly tactical; a statement that is meant to increase the pressure on the people making the decisions. It is difficult for them to understand why I insist on running for chairmanship of the Likud.
This race is part of the rung-by-rung climb to the helm of the State of Israel. Each time I run, I win a significantly larger percentage of the votes. Nobody can promise that this will always be the case, but if I hadn't run in 5763 (2003) and won only 3.5% of the vote, I would not have progressed to 13% of the vote in 5766 (2006) and to 23.5% of the vote in 5757 (2007). Every race is another rung in the ladder that leads to leadership of the Likud and the entire State of Israel. With G-d's help, the upcoming race for chairmanship of the Likud will be the last rung on the ladder to leadership of the National Camp. From there, it is only a short way to leadership of the State of Israel.
But even if I will need to climb an additional rung before reaching the goal, every faith-based vote in these elections draws us nearer to leadership. This time it is completely clear that a vote for faith-based leadership strengthens the settlements in a new type of voter referendum – the voter referendum that precedes the catastrophe and with G-d's help, will head it off.
So instead of packing your sleeping bags to go to yet another anti-expulsion demonstration, come to our opening campaign rally on Tuesday, 8 Tevet, (Jan. 3). Bring your friends and family and do all that you can to elect genuine Jewish leadership for Israel.
The intensity of the struggle for Israel's settlements will be determined in large part by the results of the upcoming elections. In other words, these elections are actually the new Likud referendum; just that this time the Land of Israel loyalists will have the opportunity to vote before the withdrawal program is put on the table, not after. A clear result in the upcoming elections will ensure that the entire Likud faction in the Knesset will stand firmly against attempts to destroy the settlements in the future.
This is not the reason why I am running for chairmanship of the Likud. I even ran when the Likud was in the Opposition and had negligible influence over the government. My decision to run is based on the same principles that have guided us since the very beginnings of the Manhigut Yehudit faction in the Likud. Nevertheless, the fact that we have established a faith-based alternative now directly dovetails with our tactical goal to defend the settlements in Judea and Samaria. We see the settlements as the platform for the ideology that must lead and save the entire State of Israel.
The revolution created by Manhigut Yehudit, leading the faith-based public to the national helm - is the beginning of the changing of the guard in the process of the Return to Zion. Many of the Land of Israel loyalists who have recently joined the Likud see their move as strictly tactical; a statement that is meant to increase the pressure on the people making the decisions. It is difficult for them to understand why I insist on running for chairmanship of the Likud.
This race is part of the rung-by-rung climb to the helm of the State of Israel. Each time I run, I win a significantly larger percentage of the votes. Nobody can promise that this will always be the case, but if I hadn't run in 5763 (2003) and won only 3.5% of the vote, I would not have progressed to 13% of the vote in 5766 (2006) and to 23.5% of the vote in 5757 (2007). Every race is another rung in the ladder that leads to leadership of the Likud and the entire State of Israel. With G-d's help, the upcoming race for chairmanship of the Likud will be the last rung on the ladder to leadership of the National Camp. From there, it is only a short way to leadership of the State of Israel.
But even if I will need to climb an additional rung before reaching the goal, every faith-based vote in these elections draws us nearer to leadership. This time it is completely clear that a vote for faith-based leadership strengthens the settlements in a new type of voter referendum – the voter referendum that precedes the catastrophe and with G-d's help, will head it off.
So instead of packing your sleeping bags to go to yet another anti-expulsion demonstration, come to our opening campaign rally on Tuesday, 8 Tevet, (Jan. 3). Bring your friends and family and do all that you can to elect genuine Jewish leadership for Israel.
December 26, 2011
Judea and Samaria Museums Bill Passes First Reading
The Road to Annexing Judea & Samaria
"National Union Knesset member Uri Ariel, sponsor of the bill, explained the measure is intended to be the springboard from which Israel will be able to eventually annex the two regions.
"It's an additional step," Ariel said, "an important one that is necessary to strengthen our hold on the Land of Israel and stop discrimination against those who live in Judea and Samaria."
"National Union Knesset member Uri Ariel, sponsor of the bill, explained the measure is intended to be the springboard from which Israel will be able to eventually annex the two regions.
"It's an additional step," Ariel said, "an important one that is necessary to strengthen our hold on the Land of Israel and stop discrimination against those who live in Judea and Samaria."
December 23, 2011
Why I am Running for Head of Likud - Moshe Feiglin
Why I am Running
for Head of Likud
By Moshe Feiglin
13 Kislev, 5772 (Dec. 9, '11)
13 Kislev, 5772 (Dec. 9, '11)
There
we sat, Manhigut Yehudit's Strategy Team, for our first strategy
meeting ahead of the primaries. "According to Likud law, primaries
for chairmanship of the Likud will be held in about a year," I said,
"and we have to prepare now." We spent hours discussing different
ideas and assigning tasks and projects. As people began heading for
the door, somebody read aloud a headline that had just come through
on the internet: Netanyahu Calls for Primaries on Jan. 31. "Very
funny," someone laughed. But it wasn't a joke. Our entire meeting
had just been rendered irrelevant. We have seven weeks until the
primaries. My phone began to ring. Reporters asking my reaction to
Bibi's bombshell. "I will run for the head of the Likud no matter
when primaries will be held," I declared.
Why run? And why run on such short notice, when Netanyahu obviously has a clear advantage?
The greatest threat hanging over Israel's head – greater than a nuclear Iran – is the loss of our legitimacy to exist as a Jewish state. From our long and difficult history we know that the delegitimization of our right to exist ultimately leads to annihilation.
We have rightfully "earned" the existential question mark hovering over our heads, after years of evasion and blurring of Israel's Jewish identity. Faith-based Jewish leadership that will rally Israeli society around its Jewish identity is nothing less than an existential imperative.
"But you don't have a chance," people say to me. My answer to that is that no revolutionary vision has a chance at the start. But when pursued with determination, the vision always turns out to prove itself well-connected to reality. This means that as long as I do not give up, I am always winning. The Wright Brothers' first successful flight turned all the crashes that preceded it into part of the success story. The principle was right and with their perseverance, they ultimately succeeded. In the previous primaries, I received 25% of the votes. In the primaries before those, I gained more votes than all the other candidates – who were senior government ministers at the time. That would not have happened if I had not dared to run the first time – and receive only 3% of the vote.
Ultimately, the most realistic thing in the world is the fulfillment of G-d's will. The Creator has not guarded the Nation of Israel for the past 3000 years, restoring us to our Land after 2000 years of exile, just to establish another Western, democratic, liberal province on the very piece of land that the "oppressed" "Palestinians" claim as their own.
The Nation of Israel has a national destiny and a universal message to bring to the world from Zion. That is the reality. To continue to exist and flourish, the State of Israel needs Jewish leadership. It needs leadership that understands the Nation's destiny and strives to fulfill it. The question is not if we will win the primaries for leadership of the Likud. The question is when we will win and lead our Nation. We will win, because we are the only candidates on the national leadership arena that are connected to reality!
Why run? And why run on such short notice, when Netanyahu obviously has a clear advantage?
The greatest threat hanging over Israel's head – greater than a nuclear Iran – is the loss of our legitimacy to exist as a Jewish state. From our long and difficult history we know that the delegitimization of our right to exist ultimately leads to annihilation.
We have rightfully "earned" the existential question mark hovering over our heads, after years of evasion and blurring of Israel's Jewish identity. Faith-based Jewish leadership that will rally Israeli society around its Jewish identity is nothing less than an existential imperative.
"But you don't have a chance," people say to me. My answer to that is that no revolutionary vision has a chance at the start. But when pursued with determination, the vision always turns out to prove itself well-connected to reality. This means that as long as I do not give up, I am always winning. The Wright Brothers' first successful flight turned all the crashes that preceded it into part of the success story. The principle was right and with their perseverance, they ultimately succeeded. In the previous primaries, I received 25% of the votes. In the primaries before those, I gained more votes than all the other candidates – who were senior government ministers at the time. That would not have happened if I had not dared to run the first time – and receive only 3% of the vote.
Ultimately, the most realistic thing in the world is the fulfillment of G-d's will. The Creator has not guarded the Nation of Israel for the past 3000 years, restoring us to our Land after 2000 years of exile, just to establish another Western, democratic, liberal province on the very piece of land that the "oppressed" "Palestinians" claim as their own.
The Nation of Israel has a national destiny and a universal message to bring to the world from Zion. That is the reality. To continue to exist and flourish, the State of Israel needs Jewish leadership. It needs leadership that understands the Nation's destiny and strives to fulfill it. The question is not if we will win the primaries for leadership of the Likud. The question is when we will win and lead our Nation. We will win, because we are the only candidates on the national leadership arena that are connected to reality!
December 14, 2011
Nachshonim Project
Nachshonim Project
- The advocates of the base insist that it is a gift from the US for signing the Wye Agreements. Far from being a multi-billion dollar project, the whole thing only costs $125,000,OOO. And all that are going up are some harmless warehouses.
- I will lead the chorus who insist that this is the cover story and it's a flimsy one at that. $125,000,000 may cover the cost of the warehouses but there is much, much more to this base than them. (Barry Chamish)
- http://www.barangroup.com/project_page.asp?project_id=64
December 12, 2011
Dershowitz: Israel Has Legal Right to Attack Iran
Israel has every legal and moral right to stage a pre-emptive strike on Iran, says renowned legal expert Prof. Alan Dershowitz.
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
November 29, 2011
The Fence Nobody Wanted by Naomi Ragen on November 20th, 2011
Who really built the fence?
The recent stabbing of a teenager in the northern Jerusalem suburb of Ramot, apparently by a resident of Beit Iksa, hit me hard. I lived in Ramot for 23 years, 16 of them directly across the wadi from Beit Iksa. All during the intifada when buses were blowing up all over the country, the men of Beit Iksa walked across the wadi and up the steps next to my house to work as laborers, without incident. Often, they passed me by in groups, watching as I tended my fruit trees and grape vines. Sometimes I even offered them fruit, which they smilingly declined or accepted. The sound of their muezzin and darbuka (drums) filled my home. I accepted it as part of the experience of living in this beautiful spot with its rolling hills and apple orchards. In fact, during the euphoria of the Oslo Accords, I even sometimes imagined walking across the wadi to visit and inviting some of them to my home.
I was rudely awakened by the Palestinian Authority election results in Beit Iksa, where Hamas won a resounding victory. Tangible changes soon followed: powerful new loudspeakers aimed at Ramot brutally blasted the singsong call to prayer like a weapon. Home robberies, always a nuisance, steadily grew worse. One night, robbers invaded my home as my son and his wife were sleeping downstairs. The next morning, among other losses, we found two large kitchen knives missing. On another occasion, I watched in disbelief as in the middle of the night a dozen or so men leaped out of the house next door and down into the wadi before police could arrive. My neighbor, who had been away, arrived to find they’d not only stolen everything not nailed down, but also urinated on her bed for spite.
While the police dutifully came and investigated, they admitted helplessness. Under the Oslo Accords, Beit Iksa was governed by the Palestinian Authority. Only the IDF could go in there. And for that to happen, someone would have to do more than steal a computer.
Nevertheless, most of us with homes adjacent to the wadi were adamantly opposed to a security wall between Ramot and Beit Iksa, reluctant to turn our lovely, rural backyard and heavenly view into an ugly border. So instead we put in alarm systems, which regularly went off.
All that changed on October 22, a sleepy Sabbath afternoon, when Zaid Abd al-Rahman, a 20-year-old enrolled in Al Quds University, allegedly took the 10-minute walk through the wadi, entering Ramot with a sixinch knife and attacking the first person he saw, 17-year-old Yehuda Ne’emad, son of the local grocery owner. Viciously, al-Rahman stabbed Yehuda twice in the back and twice in the stomach, doing his best to kill him. As his victim lay in a pool of blood, al-Rahman turned his attention to a twelve-year old girl and her six year-old brother. “I was sure I was going to die,” she later said. “I took my brother’s hand and I ran.”
As a crowd gathered, Rahman, who apparently wasn’t interested at that moment in martyrdom, ran back down the wadi.
Echoing a popular sentiment, Meir Indor of the Almagor Terror Victims Association connected the crime to the ransom paid four days previously to free Gilad Schalit: “The publicity surrounding the deal turned murderers into culture heroes on the Arab and Palestinian street… All this encourages Arab youths to try impersonating the released prisoners, because they know, just as we know, that if they are caught they will be released sooner or later.”
Ah, if it were only that simple! If one could go to sleep a peaceful student and wake up a blood-thirsty killer because of a single act of government policy! The truth is far more disturbing.
Beit Iksa, six kilometers northwest of Jerusalem, has 1,600 inhabitants and two primary schools. Both are operated by the Palestinian Authority. A 2009-10 report by Arnon Groiss of Impact-Se, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Curriculum describes the school books Rahman would have been exposed to as delegitimizing Jews and Israel, denying their historical and religious presence and ascribing to them dubious and nefarious characteristics, as well as assigning full blame to them for the Middle East conflict and stressing the ideal of violent struggle for liberation over peaceful negotiation.
After school, Rahman would have been exposed to Al Aqsa Television children’s programs, like this one: “What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?” says the cuddly bear.
“I want to kill them,” a child’s voice pipes up.
“We don’t want to do anything to them,” a little girl shakes her head at the bear. “Just to expel them from our land.”
“But if we slaughter them, they’ll be expelled,” the bear cheerfully corrects her.
“Yes, that’s right,” she agrees.
I suggest you watch this on Youtube, courtesy of Itamar Marcus and Palestinian Media Watch.
Graduating from this kind of education, Rahman enrolled in Al Quds University, with its Abu Jihad Museum, honoring the master terrorist who engineered the Coastal Road Massacre. In 2007, Al Quds held a week-long celebration honoring Yahya Ayyash, the notorious Hamas “engineer credited for numerous deadly attacks and for inventing the suicide belt.”
On March 11, 2011, Al Quds (which has joint programs with Brandeis, by the way) held a celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the death of Dalal Mughrabi, a despicable Lebanese woman who landed on Israel’s coast in a dinghy with a dozen other terrorists, killing nature photographer Gail Rubin and then hijacking a passenger bus which she blew up with a grenade, killing 38 Israelis – thirteen of them children.
“Now we go to a glorious chapter in Palestinian history… ” the Palestinian television announcer says, introducing Mughrabi’s sister, who says: “This is a day of glory and pride for the Palestinian people and a blow to the Zionists. She [Mughrabi] left a note to our father saying to point all rifles at Zionists, so if you haven’t yet…”
The release of terrorist murderers was a bad idea for many reasons. But while it might have emboldened him, it didn’t put the idea of killing Jews into Zaid Abd al-Rahman’s head. For that, it took a village. If the West is ever really sincere about tackling the problem of peace in our area, the first sign will be the halting of all funding and cultural exchanges with the likes of Al Quds “University.” It will be the attention paid to reversing the damage done by years of toxic PA and Hamas brainwashing, the kind that turn young people into monsters.
When the security fence goes up between Ramot and Beit Iksa, as it inevitably will now, we are sure Palestinian apologists, and Al Quds University and its television broadcasting system in particular, will vent its fury at further evidences of Israeli “apartheid.”
But we should all know better who really built this fence.
This article was first published in the Jerusalem Post on 18 November, 2011.
The recent stabbing of a teenager in the northern Jerusalem suburb of Ramot, apparently by a resident of Beit Iksa, hit me hard. I lived in Ramot for 23 years, 16 of them directly across the wadi from Beit Iksa. All during the intifada when buses were blowing up all over the country, the men of Beit Iksa walked across the wadi and up the steps next to my house to work as laborers, without incident. Often, they passed me by in groups, watching as I tended my fruit trees and grape vines. Sometimes I even offered them fruit, which they smilingly declined or accepted. The sound of their muezzin and darbuka (drums) filled my home. I accepted it as part of the experience of living in this beautiful spot with its rolling hills and apple orchards. In fact, during the euphoria of the Oslo Accords, I even sometimes imagined walking across the wadi to visit and inviting some of them to my home.
I was rudely awakened by the Palestinian Authority election results in Beit Iksa, where Hamas won a resounding victory. Tangible changes soon followed: powerful new loudspeakers aimed at Ramot brutally blasted the singsong call to prayer like a weapon. Home robberies, always a nuisance, steadily grew worse. One night, robbers invaded my home as my son and his wife were sleeping downstairs. The next morning, among other losses, we found two large kitchen knives missing. On another occasion, I watched in disbelief as in the middle of the night a dozen or so men leaped out of the house next door and down into the wadi before police could arrive. My neighbor, who had been away, arrived to find they’d not only stolen everything not nailed down, but also urinated on her bed for spite.
While the police dutifully came and investigated, they admitted helplessness. Under the Oslo Accords, Beit Iksa was governed by the Palestinian Authority. Only the IDF could go in there. And for that to happen, someone would have to do more than steal a computer.
Nevertheless, most of us with homes adjacent to the wadi were adamantly opposed to a security wall between Ramot and Beit Iksa, reluctant to turn our lovely, rural backyard and heavenly view into an ugly border. So instead we put in alarm systems, which regularly went off.
All that changed on October 22, a sleepy Sabbath afternoon, when Zaid Abd al-Rahman, a 20-year-old enrolled in Al Quds University, allegedly took the 10-minute walk through the wadi, entering Ramot with a sixinch knife and attacking the first person he saw, 17-year-old Yehuda Ne’emad, son of the local grocery owner. Viciously, al-Rahman stabbed Yehuda twice in the back and twice in the stomach, doing his best to kill him. As his victim lay in a pool of blood, al-Rahman turned his attention to a twelve-year old girl and her six year-old brother. “I was sure I was going to die,” she later said. “I took my brother’s hand and I ran.”
As a crowd gathered, Rahman, who apparently wasn’t interested at that moment in martyrdom, ran back down the wadi.
Echoing a popular sentiment, Meir Indor of the Almagor Terror Victims Association connected the crime to the ransom paid four days previously to free Gilad Schalit: “The publicity surrounding the deal turned murderers into culture heroes on the Arab and Palestinian street… All this encourages Arab youths to try impersonating the released prisoners, because they know, just as we know, that if they are caught they will be released sooner or later.”
Ah, if it were only that simple! If one could go to sleep a peaceful student and wake up a blood-thirsty killer because of a single act of government policy! The truth is far more disturbing.
Beit Iksa, six kilometers northwest of Jerusalem, has 1,600 inhabitants and two primary schools. Both are operated by the Palestinian Authority. A 2009-10 report by Arnon Groiss of Impact-Se, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Curriculum describes the school books Rahman would have been exposed to as delegitimizing Jews and Israel, denying their historical and religious presence and ascribing to them dubious and nefarious characteristics, as well as assigning full blame to them for the Middle East conflict and stressing the ideal of violent struggle for liberation over peaceful negotiation.
After school, Rahman would have been exposed to Al Aqsa Television children’s programs, like this one: “What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?” says the cuddly bear.
“I want to kill them,” a child’s voice pipes up.
“We don’t want to do anything to them,” a little girl shakes her head at the bear. “Just to expel them from our land.”
“But if we slaughter them, they’ll be expelled,” the bear cheerfully corrects her.
“Yes, that’s right,” she agrees.
I suggest you watch this on Youtube, courtesy of Itamar Marcus and Palestinian Media Watch.
Graduating from this kind of education, Rahman enrolled in Al Quds University, with its Abu Jihad Museum, honoring the master terrorist who engineered the Coastal Road Massacre. In 2007, Al Quds held a week-long celebration honoring Yahya Ayyash, the notorious Hamas “engineer credited for numerous deadly attacks and for inventing the suicide belt.”
On March 11, 2011, Al Quds (which has joint programs with Brandeis, by the way) held a celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the death of Dalal Mughrabi, a despicable Lebanese woman who landed on Israel’s coast in a dinghy with a dozen other terrorists, killing nature photographer Gail Rubin and then hijacking a passenger bus which she blew up with a grenade, killing 38 Israelis – thirteen of them children.
“Now we go to a glorious chapter in Palestinian history… ” the Palestinian television announcer says, introducing Mughrabi’s sister, who says: “This is a day of glory and pride for the Palestinian people and a blow to the Zionists. She [Mughrabi] left a note to our father saying to point all rifles at Zionists, so if you haven’t yet…”
The release of terrorist murderers was a bad idea for many reasons. But while it might have emboldened him, it didn’t put the idea of killing Jews into Zaid Abd al-Rahman’s head. For that, it took a village. If the West is ever really sincere about tackling the problem of peace in our area, the first sign will be the halting of all funding and cultural exchanges with the likes of Al Quds “University.” It will be the attention paid to reversing the damage done by years of toxic PA and Hamas brainwashing, the kind that turn young people into monsters.
When the security fence goes up between Ramot and Beit Iksa, as it inevitably will now, we are sure Palestinian apologists, and Al Quds University and its television broadcasting system in particular, will vent its fury at further evidences of Israeli “apartheid.”
But we should all know better who really built this fence.
This article was first published in the Jerusalem Post on 18 November, 2011.
November 22, 2011
Israel is the Only Option
"And if the woman will not desire to follow you, and you
will be absolved of my oath - just do not return my son
to there." (From Chayei
Sarah, Genesis 24:8)
Abraham is already old and has lived out most of his days. Yitzchak is the only link in the chain that will forge ahead with his world-wide faith revolution. Under the circumstances, it would seem that for a good wife from a distinguished family - it would be worthwhile to leave Israel for a few years.
But Abraham says an emphatic "no". "Just do not return my son to there."
Abraham understands something that we have forgotten. A sizeable portion of Israel's citizens hold foreign citizenship in addition to their Israeli ID cards. Former Speaker of the Knesset and Chairman of the Jewish Agency Avrum Burg proudly waves his French citizenship for all to see, explaining why he publicly did what other Israeli leaders have done quietly: For them, the Land of Israel is an option - not a final destination. If things are not working out here as planned, thank you very much and goodbye. Look for us in Europe or the US.
But the Land of Israel is not merely a privilege. It is not optional. There is simply no other place for a Jew. The Exile is finished and we are rapidly progressing to a time when the majority of Jews will live in Israel.
Lamentably, many Jews still retain their exile mentality. The wandering Jew is alive and well in the worldview of Israel's leaders and the stratum of Israeli society that believes that it can arrange itself a more comfortable option, if need be.
If Israel's leaders would assert that for the Jews, Israel is the only option, nobody in the UN would dare question the necessity of a Jewish State in the world and the Iranian tyrant would not dare threaten our existence. He would understand that when a country with nuclear capabilities faces an existential threat and has its back to the wall, it will make use of its weapons. But "existential threat" is not in the lexicon of Israel's leadership and part of its citizenry. Worse comes to worse, they can always hop the first plane to Europe, Canada or the USA.
The world clearly senses that we have not internalized the fact that the Land of Israel is our final destination; the last, blessed stop on our 2000 year journey. But the moment when every Jew will have to make the fateful choice is rapidly approaching.
Abraham is already old and has lived out most of his days. Yitzchak is the only link in the chain that will forge ahead with his world-wide faith revolution. Under the circumstances, it would seem that for a good wife from a distinguished family - it would be worthwhile to leave Israel for a few years.
But Abraham says an emphatic "no". "Just do not return my son to there."
Abraham understands something that we have forgotten. A sizeable portion of Israel's citizens hold foreign citizenship in addition to their Israeli ID cards. Former Speaker of the Knesset and Chairman of the Jewish Agency Avrum Burg proudly waves his French citizenship for all to see, explaining why he publicly did what other Israeli leaders have done quietly: For them, the Land of Israel is an option - not a final destination. If things are not working out here as planned, thank you very much and goodbye. Look for us in Europe or the US.
But the Land of Israel is not merely a privilege. It is not optional. There is simply no other place for a Jew. The Exile is finished and we are rapidly progressing to a time when the majority of Jews will live in Israel.
Lamentably, many Jews still retain their exile mentality. The wandering Jew is alive and well in the worldview of Israel's leaders and the stratum of Israeli society that believes that it can arrange itself a more comfortable option, if need be.
If Israel's leaders would assert that for the Jews, Israel is the only option, nobody in the UN would dare question the necessity of a Jewish State in the world and the Iranian tyrant would not dare threaten our existence. He would understand that when a country with nuclear capabilities faces an existential threat and has its back to the wall, it will make use of its weapons. But "existential threat" is not in the lexicon of Israel's leadership and part of its citizenry. Worse comes to worse, they can always hop the first plane to Europe, Canada or the USA.
The world clearly senses that we have not internalized the fact that the Land of Israel is our final destination; the last, blessed stop on our 2000 year journey. But the moment when every Jew will have to make the fateful choice is rapidly approaching.
November 18, 2011
This is our Land!: By Moshe Feiglin
The destruction of Jewish homes in the Land of Israel continues, as if there is no way to prevent the State of Israel from self-destructing; no way to prevent it from sending the riot police to carry out the goals of Peace Now.
But to judge by the amount of people who showed up at last week's prayer gathering at Giv'at Asaf, another settlement slated for demolition, it looks like the faith- based public has despaired of its ability to stop the destruction. The common excuse is that people are tired of demonstrations or that they have lost faith in their effectiveness, but that is not correct. The public is willing to rally around ideals and vision. It is simply tired of a rearguard war.
The process of collapse and destruction that we have witnessed over the years is not the trademark of any particular government. Actually, every government that has been in power in Israel in the last generation, from both Right and Left, has been dragged in one way or another into the same modus operandi. The disintegration stems from the fact that Israelis today feel morally inferior to the Arabs.
The era in which the legitimacy for our presence in this Land could be drawn from an ideology that denies the existence of the Creator is finished. The elites that fashion the Israeli mindset no longer believe that this is our Land. They feel like uninvited guests here; they worship the "deep bond" between the Arab and the Land and are painfully careful not to "desecrate" it. Whether an Arab home is legal or illegal, its destruction is unthinkable. Even the Arab olive harvest has become a sanctified ritual and guarding it the supreme mission of the IDF. It makes no difference that the olive trees are in the settlement of Itamar, right under the home of the Fogel orphans. It also makes no difference that the harvesters are part of the murderers' family, whose smiles mock the Jewish residents of the town still reeling from the horrific massacre.
All of Israel's leaders of the past generation represent the mentality that prefers to buy temporary legitimacy in Tel Aviv by dividing the Land of Israel. That is why the terrorists are jailed in such comfortable conditions. After all, they are actually freedom fighters, recognized by the Israeli mindset as the just side in the struggle over the Land. That is why it is simply a matter of time until they are released.
So now what do we do?
Lately, a lot of people have been invoking the memory of 'Zo Artzeinu,' the successful protest movement from the Oslo era that eventually evolved into Manhigut Yehudit.
What was Zo Artzeinu's secret? How is it that under the direction of a small and largely unknown movement, tens of thousands of Israelis went out to protest in the streets and were willing to be arrested?
A lot of factors came together to bring the people out in the streets. There was leadership, independence of the 'establishment' and more. But the real, underlying reason that everybody remembers Zo Artzeinu is very simple: Its name means "This is our Land."
Sixteen years ago, the Israeli mindset was already sick with the moral inferiority flu. The audacity to declare that "This is our Land" was engraved on its intimidated consciousness and has remained there ever since.
The Land of Israel is ours. Not because a particular settlement was built on public land and not private land. Simply because G-d gave it to us. Whoever tries to live side-by-side with the Israeli mindset that sees this country as Arab land will always find himself on the wrong side of the law. But if our actions are guided by the conviction that this is our Land, we will always be right.
More danerous than a nuclear bomb - Moshe Feiglin
Is Israel preparing to attack Iran? According to media reports,
Netanyahu is trying to convince his ministers to go on the
offensive. If that is true, Netanyahu will go down in history as the
prime minister who saved the State of Israel from destruction – not
necessarily nuclear.
There is no doubt that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will bring swift retaliation on Israel, the results of which are unforeseeable. On the surface, as long as there is a chance to neutralize Iran's nuclear capabilities via other methods; diplomatic, electronic, economic and the like, it is not logical to prefer the military option. Presumably, the ministers who oppose the attack are considering the question through this very keyhole: Can we stop Iran in some other way or is the military option the only route available?
Clearly, the non-military options are like a finger in the dike. As long as the Moslem motivation continues to rise on the other side of the wall, it is just a matter of time until the dike breaks. Further, as time goes by, the mission becomes more difficult and complex. The reactor in Bushehr is already "hot." Until about two years ago, it could have been destroyed without much environmental damage. That is no longer the case.
The difference between now and two years ago is that Netanyahu's public approval rating is better now than it was then. And when it comes to a prime minister from the Right, a political window of opportunity is just as necessary as an operational window of opportunity. If the social protest movement had managed to curtail Netanyahu's popularity, there may not have been any government deliberations about attacking Iran. If we are in a political and operational window of opportunity right now, we must give the Prime Minister all the support that he needs on this existential issue.
Considering the attack strictly through the keyhole of cost and gain does not portray a true picture of the dismal reality. Nuclear weapons are not the greatest danger to the existence of the State of Israel. One third of our Nation was destroyed in Europe without them. The Germans' main weapon was the de-legitimization of our right to exist. Strategically, de-legitimization is much more dangerous than any nuclear weapon, for its practical application is only a matter of time – with or without nuclear capabilities.
When the Iranian leader declared his intent to destroy us, the world stood collectively held its breath in anticipation of Israel's retaliation. When that did not happen, the historical question mark that hangs over the right of the Jews to breathe the air on this planet reappeared.
Whether the Jews have a right to a state or whether they have a right to exist at all was not asked in important Western universities until the world realized that we are willing to live with Iran's intention to destroy us. The Iranian Amalek and the German Amalek work the same way as the Biblical Amalek. They declare an existential war against us, are willing to pay a price and negate our legitimacy in the eyes of the nations. The Holocaust did not begin with the outbreak of war but rather, in Hitler's hate-filled speeches and in the Der Sturmer propaganda.
The ministers who oppose an attack do not understand that the results of the attack are not what matters. Israel must attack Iran in order to restore the legitimacy for its very existence. Israel must restore the equation that says that whoever plans to destroy us automatically becomes a legitimate target for destruction- personally. Bushehr is not the only target, but every plane, car and building in which the heads of Iran's regime are to be found.
There is no doubt that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will bring swift retaliation on Israel, the results of which are unforeseeable. On the surface, as long as there is a chance to neutralize Iran's nuclear capabilities via other methods; diplomatic, electronic, economic and the like, it is not logical to prefer the military option. Presumably, the ministers who oppose the attack are considering the question through this very keyhole: Can we stop Iran in some other way or is the military option the only route available?
Clearly, the non-military options are like a finger in the dike. As long as the Moslem motivation continues to rise on the other side of the wall, it is just a matter of time until the dike breaks. Further, as time goes by, the mission becomes more difficult and complex. The reactor in Bushehr is already "hot." Until about two years ago, it could have been destroyed without much environmental damage. That is no longer the case.
The difference between now and two years ago is that Netanyahu's public approval rating is better now than it was then. And when it comes to a prime minister from the Right, a political window of opportunity is just as necessary as an operational window of opportunity. If the social protest movement had managed to curtail Netanyahu's popularity, there may not have been any government deliberations about attacking Iran. If we are in a political and operational window of opportunity right now, we must give the Prime Minister all the support that he needs on this existential issue.
Considering the attack strictly through the keyhole of cost and gain does not portray a true picture of the dismal reality. Nuclear weapons are not the greatest danger to the existence of the State of Israel. One third of our Nation was destroyed in Europe without them. The Germans' main weapon was the de-legitimization of our right to exist. Strategically, de-legitimization is much more dangerous than any nuclear weapon, for its practical application is only a matter of time – with or without nuclear capabilities.
When the Iranian leader declared his intent to destroy us, the world stood collectively held its breath in anticipation of Israel's retaliation. When that did not happen, the historical question mark that hangs over the right of the Jews to breathe the air on this planet reappeared.
Whether the Jews have a right to a state or whether they have a right to exist at all was not asked in important Western universities until the world realized that we are willing to live with Iran's intention to destroy us. The Iranian Amalek and the German Amalek work the same way as the Biblical Amalek. They declare an existential war against us, are willing to pay a price and negate our legitimacy in the eyes of the nations. The Holocaust did not begin with the outbreak of war but rather, in Hitler's hate-filled speeches and in the Der Sturmer propaganda.
The ministers who oppose an attack do not understand that the results of the attack are not what matters. Israel must attack Iran in order to restore the legitimacy for its very existence. Israel must restore the equation that says that whoever plans to destroy us automatically becomes a legitimate target for destruction- personally. Bushehr is not the only target, but every plane, car and building in which the heads of Iran's regime are to be found.
November 8, 2011
Sarkozy Tells Obama, 'Netanyahu is a Liar’
French president Sarkozy is in a diplomatic knot after telling Obama in
what he thought was a private talk, “Netanyahu is a liar.”
Sarkozy Tells Obama, 'Netanyahu is a Liar’
Sarkozy Tells Obama, 'Netanyahu is a Liar’
November 6, 2011
Delegitimizing the delegitimizers - By C.B. Glick
They decided to abandon the peace process and seek international recognition of the “State of Palestine” – a state in a de facto state of war with Israel. And they are pursuing their goal relentlessly.
This week their efforts bore their first fruit with the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) vote to accept “Palestine” as a full state member.
It is not a coincidence that the PLO/PA decided to apply for membership for “Palestine” at UNESCO first. Since 1974, UNESCO has been an enthusiastic partner in the Palestinians’ bid to erase Jewish history, heritage and culture in the Land of Israel from the historical record.
In 1974, UNESCO voted to boycott Israel and to “withhold assistance from Israel in the fields of education, science and culture because of Israel’s persistent alteration of historic features in Jerusalem.”
UNESCO’s moves to deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem and the rest of historic Israel have continued unabated ever since. For instance, in 1989, UNESCO condemned “Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem,” claiming it was destroying the city through “acts of interference, destruction and transformation.”
In 1996, UNESCO held a symposium on Jerusalem at its Paris headquarters. No Jewish or Israeli groups were invited to participate.
Beginning in 1996, the Arab Wakf on the Temple Mount began systematically destroying artifacts of the Second Temple. The destruction was undertaken during illegal excavations under the Temple Mount carried out to construct an illegal, unlicensed mosque at Solomon’s Stables.
UNESCO never bothered to condemn this act. It was silent despite the fact that the Wakf’s actions constituted a grave breach of the very international laws related to antiquities and sacred sites that UNESCO is charter bound to protect. Similarly, UNESCO never condemned Palestinian desecration of Rachel’s Tomb, of Joesph’s Tomb or of any of the ancient synagogues in Gaza and Jericho which they razed to the ground.
The reason for UNESCO’s miscarriage of its responsibilities is clear. Far from fulfilling its mission of protecting world heritage sites, since 1974 UNESCO has been a partner in one of the greatest cultural crimes in human history – the Palestinian and pan- Arab attempt to wipe Jewish history in the Land of Israel off the historical record. And UNESCO’s crimes in this area are unending. In 2009 it designated Jerusalem a “capital of Arab culture.”
In 2010, it designated Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron as “Muslim mosques.” UNESCO’s campaign against Jewish history is not limited to Israel. In 1995, it passed a resolution marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Despite requests from Israel, the resolution made no mention of the Holocaust.
In December 2010, UNESCO published a report on the history of science in the Arab world. Its report listed the great Jewish doctor and rabbinic scholar Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon – Maimonides – as a Muslim renamed “Moussa ben Maimoun.”
In light of UNESCO’s virulently anti-Jewish policies and actions, it is not surprising that it cooperated with the PLO/PA’s bid to achieve recognition of a state that is in a state of war with Israel.
MORE SURPRISING than UNESCO’s behavior was the behavior of all but five EU member states.
Aside from the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden, all EU member states either voted in favor of the Palestinian membership application or abstained.
The reason it is surprising is because the EU has made strengthening UN institutions and speeding up the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians to facilitate Palestinian independence the central aims of its foreign policy. And by supporting or failing to oppose the Palestinian membership bid, the Europeans undercut both aims.
UNESCO was weakened by the vote for two reasons. First, since US law bars the government from funding UN agencies that accept “Palestine” as a member nation outside the framework of a negotiated peace with Israel, in accepting “Palestine” UNESCO reduced its budget by the 22 percent covered by US contributions.
Second, by accepting the Palestinians as a member state, UNESCO undermined its legitimacy and organizational viability. Accepting “Palestine” represents a breach of the organization’s charter. The charter stipulates that only states can be accepted as members.
Moreover, it represents a repudiation of the goals of UNESCO as laid out in its charter. Those goals involve among other things promoting cooperation in education and advancing the rule of law. As a recent report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) showed, PA textbooks remain imbued with Jew-hatred at all education levels.
By enabling this breach of the UNESCO charter, the Europeans made a mockery of UN rules and so weakened not just UNESCO but the UN system as a whole.
The Europeans’ claim to support the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians was rendered hollow by their behavior at UNESCO. The peace process between Israel and the PLO/PA is predicated on the latter’s commitment that a Palestinian state can arise only as a consequence of a peace treaty with Israel. By supporting the Palestinians’ breach of this fundamental commitment at UNESCO, the Europeans diminished the possibility of achieving a negotiated peace that will lead to Palestinian statehood.
What the Europeans’ behavior at UNESCO indicates is that just as UNESCO is willing to undermine its mission to harm Israel, so the Europeans are willing to undermine the declared goals of their foreign policy if doing so will harm Israel.
This state of affairs has important consequences for Israel. To date, Israel has placed fostering good relations with EU member states high on its list of priorities. In light of the Europeans’ behavior at UNESCO, this ranking should be revised. The Europeans do not merit such high consideration by Israel.
Finally, the UNESCO vote exposed disturbing truths about US President Barack Obama’s position on Israel. Obama has been widely praised by American Jewish leaders as well as by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his announced commitment to veto the draft Security Council resolution recommending that the PLO/PA be granted full state membership at the UN. Obama’s pledge – forced out of him by massive congressional pressure – is touted as proof of his commitment to the US alliance with Israel.
But Obama’s response to the PLO/PA’s bid for UNESCO membership tells a different story. In the lead up to the vote, the Obama administration went out of its way not to threaten UNESCO. It did not threaten to withdraw the US from the organization. Instead, just days before the vote, US Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter addressed the body and praised the “great things [that] have happened at UNESCO,” over the past year. Kanter then announced the US’s bid for reelection to UNESCO’s executive board.
The administration did not attack the move as one that undermines chances of peace. It did not note that by endorsing the PA/PLO’s decision to act unilaterally, UNESCO was making it all the more difficult for Israel and the Palestinians to achieve a negotiated peace deal. Rather, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sufficed with claiming that the move was “regrettable,” and “premature.”
Administration officials did not make clear that in accordance with US law, all US funding to UNESCO would end if the Palestinian membership bid was approved. Rather administration officials joined forces with UN officials to lobby Congress to change the law.
As Claudia Rosett reported in Forbes on Tuesday, David Killion, the US ambassador to UNESCO, made what bordered on an apology for the US funding cut-off when he said, “We sincerely regret that the strenuous and well-intentioned efforts of many delegations to avoid this result fell short.”
Killion added, “We pledge to continue our efforts to find ways to support and strengthen the important work of this vital organization.”
So after UNESCO thumbed its nose at the US, undermined its mission, breached its own charter and seriously diminished chances of Palestinian peace with Israel by accepting “Palestine” as a member state, the Obama administration reacted with near groveling apologetics.
TO UNDERSTAND the full significance of the administration’s behavior, it is important to contrast it with the administration’s response to the Israeli government’s decision in the aftermath of the UNESCO vote to approve the construction of housing for Jews in Jerusalem, Ma’aleh Adumim and Efrat. All of the housing units will be built in areas that will remain part of Israel even after a peace deal. And the administration knows this.
But speaking of the government’s decision, a US official told Reuters that the administration is “deeply disappointed by the announcement.
“We continue to make clear to the [Israeli] government [that] unilateral actions such as these work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and do not advance the goal of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties.”
So on the one hand, the Palestinians’ move to abandon the peace process and UNESCO’s support for their move is merely “regrettable” and “premature.” But on the other hand, Israel’s decision not to discriminate against Jewish property rights undermines efforts to resume peace talks and harm prospects for an agreement.
Since entering office, Netanyahu has repeatedly characterized Arab and leftist efforts to delegitimize Israel as “a strategic threat” to the state. In truth, he overstates the danger. Delegitimization is a political threat, not a strategic threat. Israel will not be destroyed by the UN or by professors at Oxford and Columbia or by trade unions in Norway.
But still it is a threat that Israel cannot ignore.
Since September 2009, citing the need to demonstrate the dishonesty of the delegitimizers’ accusations against Israel, Netanyahu abandoned his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state. He believed that Israel had to embrace the PLO/PA as a legitimate partner for peace in order to prove to the likes of Obama and his supporters that Israel has a right to exist. In the meantime, and in the face of Netanyahu’s staggering concession, the PLO/PA abandoned the peace talks and escalated its political war to criminalize Israel and delegitimate it.
UNESCO’s acceptance of “Palestine” demonstrates that Netanyahu’s chosen policy is misguided.
By accepting the legitimacy of the Palestinian demand for statehood, Netanyahu indirectly conceded Israel’s rights to Judea and Samaria and at a minimum placed its right to sole sovereignty over Jerusalem in question. In so doing, Israel gave the Palestinians’ supporters at the UN, in Europe and at the White House no reason to reconsider their anti-Israel bias.
With the Palestinians relentlessly asserting their rights, and Israel conceding its rights, why should anyone side with Israel?
In the end, the only way to defeat those who delegitimize Israel and deny our rights to our land, our nationhood and our history is to expose their corruption, and their malevolent, dishonest and hateful intentions towards the Jewish people and the Jewish state. That is, the only way to defeat the delegitimizers is to delegitimize them by proudly and consistently asserting Israel’s historic and legal rights and the justice of our cause.
caroline@carolineglick.com
November 4, 2011
Sacrifice of our enemies
The Orthodox criticism of Reform Judaism
is misplaced.
Honestly, the Reform “rabbis” can be accused of a single thing, atheism.
They mold Judaism in their own image to suit their preconceived political and social views—and they don’t believe that there is God above to punish them for the perversion. The God of punishment and revenge, they don’t believe in him. Perhaps they believe in a Santa Claus who forgives them for the lack of faith.
But Orthodox rabbis are in no position to criticize the reforms. The pharisaic rabbis instituted major changes in Judaism, compared to which the Reform’s reforms pale.
Let us not argue here about the Oral Law, which is apparently unknown to the Temple priests. Even if Mishna is of divine origin, transmitted orally through centuries, the Gemara is unquestionably a product of learned discourse, and the subsequent halacha is a heap of man-made restrictions. Maybe one in a thousand of the Orthodox halachic rules is directly traceable to the Oral Law.
Orthodox Judaism abrogated the central pillar of our religion, sacrifices.
The rabbis deliberately viewed them as insignificant because the Pharisees lacked access to the Temple where the Zadducean priests officiated. Unable to officiate the sacrifice, the rabbis denigrated them. Contrary to the facts, they also denigrated the priests, proclaiming them Hashmoneans, the descendants of Maccabees rather than the priestly family of Zadok. Never mind that the Maccabees were of Zadokite descent. If the high priests’ descent could be questionable, the clergy was doubtlessly kohanim.
The rabbinical skepticism won incidentally when the Temple was destroyed. Before then, they were popular as any anti-establishment clergy, but far from dominant. The Temple’s destruction left the Zadducean priests without business and income, and the Pharisaic rabbis triumphed. In subsequent centuries, they shaped a Temple-less Judaism. On one hand, they preserved Judaism in some form. On the other hand, they quenched Jewish demands for rebuilding the Temple. As Emperor Julian’s example demonstrates, the Jews could have rebuilt the Temple if they were persistent enough.
Given good relations with our Muslim occupiers, we could plausibly have built a Temple long ago. That, however, would have spelled the end of rabbinism. When the Temple stands, synagogues—the extraneous houses of worship—will unquestionably be banned, and scores of rabbis will be unemployed. Jewish donations would flow to the Temple rather than to the yeshivas. The priests would take the rabbis’ halachic jurisdiction. Most rabbis, therefore, oppose the Temple construction much more forcefully than any Arab.
But look, we can strike a middle ground between the Torah and the rabbis. For a long time, Jews brought sacrifices without a Temple. Even when the Tabernacle stood, Jews sacrificed in the open, as Samson’s father did habitually at a stranger’s suggestion. The rabbis’ appeal to Hosea’s statement, “I desired zealousness and not an offering,” is mistaken: the “offering” refers to unauthorized sacrifices on mountaintop altars (Hosea 4:13) rather than proper sacrifices. A prophetic pronouncement cannot justify abrogation of the clear law on sacrifices; note that the Temple priests rejected the prophecies altogether, regarding them as folk tales. The rabbinical position was never wholehearted, as they symbolically interpret the Shabbat table as an altar of offerings. If God does not desire sacrifices, certainly much less he desires gefilte fish.
What’s the big deal about sacrifices? They stop leftism like nothing else. Sacrifices run against the basis of leftist ideology—reforming societies, ostensibly for the better. Returning to the ancient practice of sacrifices, unquestioning and savage, is the best barrier to liberal views. And the liberals are not so liberal: they resent sacrifices but love steaks. They kill animals for food; we would kill for a better reason—and eat the cake, too. Sacrifices develop a different kind of person: the priest who smears his fingers and ears with sacrificial blood is not your typical leader, but a cruel and relatively fearless Jew.
It is a small step from sacrificing the animals to killing our enemies, which is a commandment, too.
Honestly, the Reform “rabbis” can be accused of a single thing, atheism.
They mold Judaism in their own image to suit their preconceived political and social views—and they don’t believe that there is God above to punish them for the perversion. The God of punishment and revenge, they don’t believe in him. Perhaps they believe in a Santa Claus who forgives them for the lack of faith.
But Orthodox rabbis are in no position to criticize the reforms. The pharisaic rabbis instituted major changes in Judaism, compared to which the Reform’s reforms pale.
Let us not argue here about the Oral Law, which is apparently unknown to the Temple priests. Even if Mishna is of divine origin, transmitted orally through centuries, the Gemara is unquestionably a product of learned discourse, and the subsequent halacha is a heap of man-made restrictions. Maybe one in a thousand of the Orthodox halachic rules is directly traceable to the Oral Law.
Orthodox Judaism abrogated the central pillar of our religion, sacrifices.
The rabbis deliberately viewed them as insignificant because the Pharisees lacked access to the Temple where the Zadducean priests officiated. Unable to officiate the sacrifice, the rabbis denigrated them. Contrary to the facts, they also denigrated the priests, proclaiming them Hashmoneans, the descendants of Maccabees rather than the priestly family of Zadok. Never mind that the Maccabees were of Zadokite descent. If the high priests’ descent could be questionable, the clergy was doubtlessly kohanim.
The rabbinical skepticism won incidentally when the Temple was destroyed. Before then, they were popular as any anti-establishment clergy, but far from dominant. The Temple’s destruction left the Zadducean priests without business and income, and the Pharisaic rabbis triumphed. In subsequent centuries, they shaped a Temple-less Judaism. On one hand, they preserved Judaism in some form. On the other hand, they quenched Jewish demands for rebuilding the Temple. As Emperor Julian’s example demonstrates, the Jews could have rebuilt the Temple if they were persistent enough.
Given good relations with our Muslim occupiers, we could plausibly have built a Temple long ago. That, however, would have spelled the end of rabbinism. When the Temple stands, synagogues—the extraneous houses of worship—will unquestionably be banned, and scores of rabbis will be unemployed. Jewish donations would flow to the Temple rather than to the yeshivas. The priests would take the rabbis’ halachic jurisdiction. Most rabbis, therefore, oppose the Temple construction much more forcefully than any Arab.
But look, we can strike a middle ground between the Torah and the rabbis. For a long time, Jews brought sacrifices without a Temple. Even when the Tabernacle stood, Jews sacrificed in the open, as Samson’s father did habitually at a stranger’s suggestion. The rabbis’ appeal to Hosea’s statement, “I desired zealousness and not an offering,” is mistaken: the “offering” refers to unauthorized sacrifices on mountaintop altars (Hosea 4:13) rather than proper sacrifices. A prophetic pronouncement cannot justify abrogation of the clear law on sacrifices; note that the Temple priests rejected the prophecies altogether, regarding them as folk tales. The rabbinical position was never wholehearted, as they symbolically interpret the Shabbat table as an altar of offerings. If God does not desire sacrifices, certainly much less he desires gefilte fish.
What’s the big deal about sacrifices? They stop leftism like nothing else. Sacrifices run against the basis of leftist ideology—reforming societies, ostensibly for the better. Returning to the ancient practice of sacrifices, unquestioning and savage, is the best barrier to liberal views. And the liberals are not so liberal: they resent sacrifices but love steaks. They kill animals for food; we would kill for a better reason—and eat the cake, too. Sacrifices develop a different kind of person: the priest who smears his fingers and ears with sacrificial blood is not your typical leader, but a cruel and relatively fearless Jew.
It is a small step from sacrificing the animals to killing our enemies, which is a commandment, too.
October 31, 2011
Schalit Deal Makes Mockery of International Law
Schalit Deal Makes Mockery of International Law
Yet it appears that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will exchange Palestinian terrorists for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit. Any such exchange, however humane to Schalit and his family, would imperil thousands of other Israelis........
Yet it appears that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will exchange Palestinian terrorists for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit. Any such exchange, however humane to Schalit and his family, would imperil thousands of other Israelis........
Rabbi Kahane speaks about terrorist release such as Shalit situation
This is unbelievable.
It was taped during the years that Rabbi Kahane was a Knesset Member . Years 1984-1987.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
October 24, 2011
Jewish Rights to Palestine Are Guaranteed by International Law
Jewish Rights to Palestine Are Guaranteed by International Law
What is the purpose of International Organizations that make laws and then just ignore them?
Remove the United Arab (UN) Nations from the US and withdraw...They are meaningless..
What is the purpose of International Organizations that make laws and then just ignore them?
Remove the United Arab (UN) Nations from the US and withdraw...They are meaningless..
October 21, 2011
The Wall Is Tumbling - 1987 - Meir Kahane
The Wall Is Tumbling
November 1987
The
massive tumble of the great financial Wall Street on the week of Sukkot
was such a clear clarion call and such a glaring object of warning,
that only the people of whom the Prophet (Isaiah 42:19) said, “Who is blind but My servant, or deaf my messenger,” could neither hear, nor see, nor understand it. As
the Wall Street came tumbling down, sending all the investors –
including the newly rich in Flatbush, Staten Island, Monsey and Teaneck –
fleeing from the tax shelter; and as three Texas banks collapsed in one
week, and as the dollar continued its spectacular plunge; and as
the United States trade deficit continued its stupendous gallop; and as
more and more U.S. jobs were permanently lost to the Third and Fourth
and twelfth Worlds; and as personal debt in the U.S. climbed over the
five trillion mark and tens of millions sand deeper into a quicksand of debt that they can never escape – the Jew saw nothing.
He neither saw nor understood; he did not wish
to see or understand that the American Exile he so confidently claimed
“different” and the American fleshpot (Chinese? Glatt?) he knew would never lose its succulence and the new Jerusalem which he had made into a gigantic “Mikdash m’at” was collapsing. As it must. As the All Mighty decrees. The
same All Mighty who too many of His dutiful worshippers really take to
be a jolly sort of relic to whom one prays three times daily as to keep
Him satisfied so that He gives us a good Galut. A solid Wall Street.
The Exile can never be anything but a punishment and a curse for us, and for those who “despised the beloved land” (Psalms 106:24), the wall will come tumbling down, taking all the Jewish humpty dumpties with it.
And that is the ironic truth. The
Exile of America that is so symbolized by a Wall Street is, indeed
looked upon as a wall of permanent strength and tranquility by the Jew –
including, G-d help us, the practitioner of Jewish ritual, that
irreligious Jew who goes under the title “Orthodox.” And Israel, on the other hand, is seen as the Sukkah it really is: In Judah is G-d known . . . in Shalem [Jerusalem] is set His Sukkah, and His dwelling place is in Zion” (Psalms 76:2-3). But it is seen as a Sukkah in the worst sense - a weak, temporary, shaky structure, threatened by evil winds that can topple it. And so they choose the Wall – the gentilized wall of Galut. Foolish Jews. Faithless Jews. No wall of Exile can ever survive for the Jew. For him there are, in the end, only ghetto walls, walls of Warsaws. The Galut was made as a punishment, not a place of comfort and stocks and bonds and shares and futures. There are no Jewish futures in the Exile.
It is walls of Galut that come tumbling down. It is the Sukkah of Zion that can never be destroyed. For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape” (Joel 3:5). Jew, come home. That is the ultimate lesion of the Wall Street.
[Today Rabbi Kahane’s warnings about the economic collapse are seen. In addition, the protestors that are occupying Wall Street are blaming the problems on the Jews. Too many are loudly calling for the Jews to get out of America. The Jews still hear, see and understand nothing. BG]
Israel, US and the Stinking Fish Rabbi Meir Kahane (1976)
Israel, US and the Stinking Fish Rabbi Meir Kahane
September 1976
Many times I have spoken of the Talmudic parable of the king, his servant, and the fish. Never was it more apt. [Events of today between Bibi and Obama.]
Once there was a king who sent his servant to buy a fish. The servant returned with a fish that stank. In fury the king gave the servant a choice of three punishments: “Eat the fish, get whipped for the fish, or pay for the fish.” In
common with most people, the servant chose not to reach into his pocket
and he decided to eat the stinking fish but after two bites the stench
made him give up and he decided to get whipped for it. The pain of the lashes, however, made him stop that, too, and he cried out, “I will pay for the fish!”
And so the fool ate the fish, got whipped for the fish and, in the end, had to pay for it, anyhow. Those
in Israel and without, who refuse to understand that nothing will deter
America from demanding that Israel make the maximum concessions, play
the same fool. Those who do not understand that there is
nothing that Israel can possible do, that there are no compromises it
can make, that there is nothing short of full retreat to the 1967
borders that will satisfy the United States-are the same fools as the
servant who ate, got whipped and in the end had to pay anyhow,
Their refusal to make the difficult choice of telling the Americans “no”, now,
at this moment, will see them making the retreats they hope will avert
American anger; it will see this effort fail even as the frontier moves
from its present lines within the Arab heartland to new ones close to
the Jewish cities; and most important, the Americans will make the same
demands they always have envisioned since the days of the Roger
Plan-total Israeli withdrawal. And since this is a thing that not even the most dovish of Israelis will agree to, the result will be an ultimate Israeli firm “no”,
an ultimate American anger of the kind all men of “new initiative”
propose to avert today by compromise, and exactly the same conditions of
confrontation that would come anyhow if the Israelis said their “no” today. There would be one great difference, however, a “no” today will bring the crisis while Israel stands poised near the Arab capitols. A “no”
tomorrow, after all the hapless and confused compromises and
“initiatives,” will bring the same crisis near Tel Aviv, Beersheva and
Netanya.
This is what happens when foolish and confused Israelis, by refusing to pay the price of saying “no”
to the stinking fish of pressure, attempt to eat it, submit to getting
beaten over it and then learn to their dismay that there is no escape
from the difficult decision that they should have made in the first
place.
Let the Israeli government, its men of “new initiative” and the Jewish leaders in America understand several basic axioms:
1) America
is committed to the Roger Plan
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Plan)and the world’s interpretation
of Security Council Resolution 242, i.e. Israeli withdrawal from all
(but insignificant) parts of the lands of 1967. This
includes the Golan Heights, Gaza, the entire West bank and the entire
Sinai as well as changing Jerusalem’s present Jewish sovereignty status.
2) American interests lie, in the minds of most officials in Washington, with
Arab oil, the huge potential Arab market and with supplanting Soviet influence with American. This means, at best, an “even-handed” policy rather than a pro-Israeli one.
3) America is moving steadily to recognition of the “Palestinians” as a people
and
of whomever they decide to have as their leaders. Those leaders are
clearly the PLO and already the move to “moderate” the PLO,
“public-relations-wise” is underway so that Washington can more easily
pressure Israel into recognizing them.
4) The Ford-Kissinger administration is determined to prevent stagnation and
will pressure Israel into concession after concession.
5) No administration will go to war for Israel and no administration will continue the
present aid level no matter what Israel does or concedes. The frantic
search for human allies will end as unsuccessfully as those Jews in the
past who forgot what faith in the Jewish G-d was and who turned to Egypt
or Assyria or other “allies” for help, only to learn to their dismay
that the allies betrayed them.
Stinking fish are not made to be eaten or to get whipped or. One must have the courage to look at the truth and pay the bitter price of honesty. America is tired of the Israeli nuisance and wishes it would ea t the fish already. The time to loudly proclaim “no” is now.
October 14, 2011
THE 20th ANNIVERSARY OF THE OLSO CATASTROPHE by Barry Chamish
As
I stood at the Yom Kippur service, it hit me. This upcoming year is the
20th anniversary of the Oslo negotiations. Twenty years ago I and my
neighbor in Bet Shemesh, Joel Bainerman both signed book contracts and
began intense research which led in the spring of '92 to my book, The
Fall Of Israel (Canongate Publishers) and to Joel's, Crimes Of The
President (SPI Books). The highlight of Joel's research was Iran-Contra
and with his permission, his findings found their way prominently into
my book. Neither of us initially realized that we had exposed the ugly
criminality that led to the Oslo sellout of Israel.
Summarizing Joel's findings; In 1984-5 navy clerk Jonathan Pollard sent reams of stolen documents to Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. One especially caught his eye. He discovered an arms ship on the way from Greece to Lebanon to buy the release of American hostages. Peres quickly assembled his version of a dream team; Al Schwimmer, David Kimche and Ofir Nimrodi and in September of '85 sent them to Washington to blackmail the Reagan/Bush administration into expanding the one-time arms for hostages operation in Lebanon to a full blown scam to free the 52 American hostages held by Iran. Peres would get his cut by supplying the weapons from Israel.
Soon into the illegal operation, Peres' men were exposed and they resigned from their posts. Undaunted, Peres hired one Amiram Nir to replace all three and he worked with Oliver North to exploit the Iranians. When North was subpoenaed to testify in what became a congressional trial, Nir was similarly called to Washington. Nir was preparing to spill the beans, which should have seen the careers of George Bush and Peres end in long prison terms. However, luckily for both of them, just prior to his planned departure to testify, Nir was the sole casualty of a Cessna crash in Mexico.
Joel's research proved that Nir met Bush at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and warned him that the operation would have no peaceful consequences. "We are dealing with the most radical elements," he said. Bush lied to the congressional committee, claiming he "didn't recall a thing," about his meeting with Nir. And Nir never survived to remind him about what he claimed to have forgotten. Joel was such a powerful investigator that he uncovered the names of the 6 passengers on NIr's fatal crash and even tracked one, the femme fatale it appears, to her home in Ontario.
Nir's murder saved Bush, but he got his revenge. On September 17, 1992, at Kennebunkport, Maine, President Bush ordered the new Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin to begin negotiating with PLO. The Oslo negotiations began in secret that November. And with them, the beginning of the end of Israel was initiated.
Now look at the timing: In September, 1992, Joel and I agreed to pool our talents into a monthly newsletter called Inside Israel. Our first issue was released in November, '92. We were investigating the real Oslo hoax "peace" from the get go. How did we get our sources? Do the names Shishi, Monitin, Vreyma, Haolam Hazeh, Hadashot or Davar mean anything anymore? These were real investigatory newspapers and magazines and we read them all, isolated the most significant articles and called the journalists. Post-Oslo, these publications were closed on various pretexts. Israel's press is no longer free.
Without Haolam Hazeh, we would never have discovered that Israel kidnapped thousands of, mostly Yemenite, babies during the 50s. We gave the story its sadistic twist by disproving the establishment myth that the babies were adopted by childless Jewish couples and were better off for it. Our interviews led us to conclude that most of the babies died in
agony as part of radiation experiments in America.
Without Shishi, we would have never suspected that Shimon Peres offered the Vatican to take over Jerusalem as its new governors as part of the secret clauses of Oslo.
Without Chadashot's Arab Affairs reporter Yehoshua Meiri, we would never have known that the elections that brought in Rabin and Labor were rigged with the Labor Party cutting a deal with Arafat to order Israeli Arabs to vote for Labor or its left-wing ally Meretz. In return, the new government would reward Arafat with a state of his own. The number of Arab Knesset members dropped from 17 to 4. The number of seats for Labor and Meretz rose proportionally.
I admit, I had a personal beef with the government over Oslo. Ten years before, my brigade fought in Lebanon to rid the place of the PLO. Three of my brigade died, including my friend Tzvi Wolfe. The PLO were removed from Lebanon, and terror was now under control. WHY would any Jew reverse the sacrifices and bring the terrorists back? The answer was provided by Joel's and my friend, Rabbi Marvin Antelman. He provided me with his book, To Eliminate The Opiate whose thesis is the founding fathers of Israel believe in the anti-Jewish teachings of Shabtai Tzvi and Jacob Frank. Marvin called me weekly for years and we exchanged perspectives. And it took years for me to understand, that no matter how unbelievable it sounds, Marvin's answer was the only one that could make sense.
Inside Israel had its last hurrah in March, '97 when The National Review published a long piece by Joel and me called The Peres Gambit. Then came the internet and monthly newsletters like ours saw their usefulness disappear.
Just twenty years ago I sat in shul in a proud Israel, confident its army would never let it down. The PLO were as good as dead and bankrupt and we were kings in our castle. The new post-Oslo generation bears no resemblance to the Israelis of my time. They think they did something wrong, while they are surrounded by ugly, grey walls to keep their Oslo partners from murdering them.
Happy twentieth anniversary, Israel!
Summarizing Joel's findings; In 1984-5 navy clerk Jonathan Pollard sent reams of stolen documents to Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. One especially caught his eye. He discovered an arms ship on the way from Greece to Lebanon to buy the release of American hostages. Peres quickly assembled his version of a dream team; Al Schwimmer, David Kimche and Ofir Nimrodi and in September of '85 sent them to Washington to blackmail the Reagan/Bush administration into expanding the one-time arms for hostages operation in Lebanon to a full blown scam to free the 52 American hostages held by Iran. Peres would get his cut by supplying the weapons from Israel.
Soon into the illegal operation, Peres' men were exposed and they resigned from their posts. Undaunted, Peres hired one Amiram Nir to replace all three and he worked with Oliver North to exploit the Iranians. When North was subpoenaed to testify in what became a congressional trial, Nir was similarly called to Washington. Nir was preparing to spill the beans, which should have seen the careers of George Bush and Peres end in long prison terms. However, luckily for both of them, just prior to his planned departure to testify, Nir was the sole casualty of a Cessna crash in Mexico.
Joel's research proved that Nir met Bush at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and warned him that the operation would have no peaceful consequences. "We are dealing with the most radical elements," he said. Bush lied to the congressional committee, claiming he "didn't recall a thing," about his meeting with Nir. And Nir never survived to remind him about what he claimed to have forgotten. Joel was such a powerful investigator that he uncovered the names of the 6 passengers on NIr's fatal crash and even tracked one, the femme fatale it appears, to her home in Ontario.
Nir's murder saved Bush, but he got his revenge. On September 17, 1992, at Kennebunkport, Maine, President Bush ordered the new Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin to begin negotiating with PLO. The Oslo negotiations began in secret that November. And with them, the beginning of the end of Israel was initiated.
Now look at the timing: In September, 1992, Joel and I agreed to pool our talents into a monthly newsletter called Inside Israel. Our first issue was released in November, '92. We were investigating the real Oslo hoax "peace" from the get go. How did we get our sources? Do the names Shishi, Monitin, Vreyma, Haolam Hazeh, Hadashot or Davar mean anything anymore? These were real investigatory newspapers and magazines and we read them all, isolated the most significant articles and called the journalists. Post-Oslo, these publications were closed on various pretexts. Israel's press is no longer free.
Without Haolam Hazeh, we would never have discovered that Israel kidnapped thousands of, mostly Yemenite, babies during the 50s. We gave the story its sadistic twist by disproving the establishment myth that the babies were adopted by childless Jewish couples and were better off for it. Our interviews led us to conclude that most of the babies died in
agony as part of radiation experiments in America.
Without Shishi, we would have never suspected that Shimon Peres offered the Vatican to take over Jerusalem as its new governors as part of the secret clauses of Oslo.
Without Chadashot's Arab Affairs reporter Yehoshua Meiri, we would never have known that the elections that brought in Rabin and Labor were rigged with the Labor Party cutting a deal with Arafat to order Israeli Arabs to vote for Labor or its left-wing ally Meretz. In return, the new government would reward Arafat with a state of his own. The number of Arab Knesset members dropped from 17 to 4. The number of seats for Labor and Meretz rose proportionally.
I admit, I had a personal beef with the government over Oslo. Ten years before, my brigade fought in Lebanon to rid the place of the PLO. Three of my brigade died, including my friend Tzvi Wolfe. The PLO were removed from Lebanon, and terror was now under control. WHY would any Jew reverse the sacrifices and bring the terrorists back? The answer was provided by Joel's and my friend, Rabbi Marvin Antelman. He provided me with his book, To Eliminate The Opiate whose thesis is the founding fathers of Israel believe in the anti-Jewish teachings of Shabtai Tzvi and Jacob Frank. Marvin called me weekly for years and we exchanged perspectives. And it took years for me to understand, that no matter how unbelievable it sounds, Marvin's answer was the only one that could make sense.
Inside Israel had its last hurrah in March, '97 when The National Review published a long piece by Joel and me called The Peres Gambit. Then came the internet and monthly newsletters like ours saw their usefulness disappear.
Just twenty years ago I sat in shul in a proud Israel, confident its army would never let it down. The PLO were as good as dead and bankrupt and we were kings in our castle. The new post-Oslo generation bears no resemblance to the Israelis of my time. They think they did something wrong, while they are surrounded by ugly, grey walls to keep their Oslo partners from murdering them.
Happy twentieth anniversary, Israel!
Why Did Israel Betray Its Victims? Remember the body bags, remains of a stroller, a notebook, Nazi numbers tattoed on burned arms, bits of jewelry, military berets...
The
writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a weekly column
for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that
researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by
Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall
Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.
Everything has been written about the Israeli commitment not to leave its soldiers behind in the field (be they alive or dead), about the fact that no other country in the world would trade one soldier for a thousand of terrorists, about the excruciating torture that Gilad Shalit’s parents have endured over five years and about the need of relief of the Israeli society.
The Shalit affair is the psycological drama of the Jewish tiny nation under siege.
It’s true that once Shalit comes home the Hamas in Gaza will have lost their most valuable human shield of all, but no security reason could have really justified such a deal.
Simply said, Israeli leaders weren’t able to sustain the hard stare of Noam and Aviva Shalit, that is the mirror image of the youthful face of Ron Arad, the love and the nightmare of the Jewish State with his emaciated and dying body.
Shalit's mode is not political, it is a moral one.
Israel will make the impossible exchange and it is understandable that a country, so little and abandoned to itself, is deeply united around the value of life.
But since this is a psycological drama, let’s be honest: Israel is betraying the families who lost relatives under terrorism. Shalit's family won, the state and the thousands of families destroyed by hatred lost.
The joy of the murderers and their well advertised victory signs certainly renew the pain and agony. As Ross Douthat recently wrote in the New York Times, “most Americans support the death penalty because they want to believe that our justice system is just, and not merely a mechanism for quarantining the dangerous in order to keep the law-abiding safe. The case for executing murderers is a case for proportionality in punishment: for sentences that fit the crime, and penalties that close the circle”.
Now Israel is crossing all the red lines.
Next week the Israeli bereaved families will see the butchers of their own relatives walking out from prison after spending few years in jail.
I dedicated five years to tracking down and interviewing Israeli witnesses to terrorist atrocities — including people who survived attacks and family members of those who did not.
I am probably the only person in the world who spent more time on the biographies of the Israeli victims as on the horrible details of their end and the desperation of their families.
Many bereaved parents I know are supporting the deal and many others are radically against it. I know that no one is more familiar with the pain the Shalit family is experiencing than families whose child’s life was destroyed by a suicide bomber.
The bereaved parents know what it is to awake every morning and face another day without that precious child and they share with the Shalits the same yearning to touch and speak to him again.
The only concession to families of the victims will be the publication – a mere 48 hours prior to the release – of the names of the prisoners being set free. That’s all. It’s the end of the deal for them.
The Israeli government is saying to these families: “We are sorry, the social pressure was too high, the Arab spring gave us a chance for a deal, this is a political game”.
Next week, when most of the Israelis will share Shalits’ joy and concern about the mental health of their son, let’s hope that many others will remember the aftermath of the suicide attacks: the victims arranged near the carcass of the bus, the bodies placed in black bags, the Polaroid photos, the remains of a stroller, the scattered gray matter on the windows nearby, the Nazi number tattooed on the burned arms, the acrid odor of burned flesh and hair, the teeth and the DNA by which the victims were identified, the little pieces of jewelry that were everything a mother found at the morgue, the school notebooks, the military berets, the tennis shoes, the kippot of every color and the officers’ insignia.
Next week someone should lay a flower near the thousands of plaques bearing the names of innocent Jews displayed along streets, schools, synagogues, cafes, restaurants, markets, parks and gardens.
Despite the war for survival, Israel’s economy is booming, democracy is solid, immigration is growing and demography is thriving.
But the State of Israel betrayed its victims. It's a process that began when Yitzhak Rabin called Ofra Felix, a wonderful Israeli girl killed by the terrorists in 1995, "a victim of the peace process".
The Talmud says that in Israel, the dead protect the living. Today it's less true.
The question everybody has to answer is: why?
Everything has been written about the Israeli commitment not to leave its soldiers behind in the field (be they alive or dead), about the fact that no other country in the world would trade one soldier for a thousand of terrorists, about the excruciating torture that Gilad Shalit’s parents have endured over five years and about the need of relief of the Israeli society.
The Shalit affair is the psycological drama of the Jewish tiny nation under siege.
It’s true that once Shalit comes home the Hamas in Gaza will have lost their most valuable human shield of all, but no security reason could have really justified such a deal.
Simply said, Israeli leaders weren’t able to sustain the hard stare of Noam and Aviva Shalit, that is the mirror image of the youthful face of Ron Arad, the love and the nightmare of the Jewish State with his emaciated and dying body.
Shalit's mode is not political, it is a moral one.
Israel will make the impossible exchange and it is understandable that a country, so little and abandoned to itself, is deeply united around the value of life.
But since this is a psycological drama, let’s be honest: Israel is betraying the families who lost relatives under terrorism. Shalit's family won, the state and the thousands of families destroyed by hatred lost.
The joy of the murderers and their well advertised victory signs certainly renew the pain and agony. As Ross Douthat recently wrote in the New York Times, “most Americans support the death penalty because they want to believe that our justice system is just, and not merely a mechanism for quarantining the dangerous in order to keep the law-abiding safe. The case for executing murderers is a case for proportionality in punishment: for sentences that fit the crime, and penalties that close the circle”.
Now Israel is crossing all the red lines.
Next week the Israeli bereaved families will see the butchers of their own relatives walking out from prison after spending few years in jail.
I dedicated five years to tracking down and interviewing Israeli witnesses to terrorist atrocities — including people who survived attacks and family members of those who did not.
I am probably the only person in the world who spent more time on the biographies of the Israeli victims as on the horrible details of their end and the desperation of their families.
Many bereaved parents I know are supporting the deal and many others are radically against it. I know that no one is more familiar with the pain the Shalit family is experiencing than families whose child’s life was destroyed by a suicide bomber.
The bereaved parents know what it is to awake every morning and face another day without that precious child and they share with the Shalits the same yearning to touch and speak to him again.
The only concession to families of the victims will be the publication – a mere 48 hours prior to the release – of the names of the prisoners being set free. That’s all. It’s the end of the deal for them.
The Israeli government is saying to these families: “We are sorry, the social pressure was too high, the Arab spring gave us a chance for a deal, this is a political game”.
Next week, when most of the Israelis will share Shalits’ joy and concern about the mental health of their son, let’s hope that many others will remember the aftermath of the suicide attacks: the victims arranged near the carcass of the bus, the bodies placed in black bags, the Polaroid photos, the remains of a stroller, the scattered gray matter on the windows nearby, the Nazi number tattooed on the burned arms, the acrid odor of burned flesh and hair, the teeth and the DNA by which the victims were identified, the little pieces of jewelry that were everything a mother found at the morgue, the school notebooks, the military berets, the tennis shoes, the kippot of every color and the officers’ insignia.
Next week someone should lay a flower near the thousands of plaques bearing the names of innocent Jews displayed along streets, schools, synagogues, cafes, restaurants, markets, parks and gardens.
Despite the war for survival, Israel’s economy is booming, democracy is solid, immigration is growing and demography is thriving.
But the State of Israel betrayed its victims. It's a process that began when Yitzhak Rabin called Ofra Felix, a wonderful Israeli girl killed by the terrorists in 1995, "a victim of the peace process".
The Talmud says that in Israel, the dead protect the living. Today it's less true.
The question everybody has to answer is: why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)