Thursday, April 05, 2012
Why does story about Jews moving into house they bought make global headlines?
By David Ha'ivri
Some Jews bought a house and moved in. “So what?” you might ask. If it were anywhere else in the world, little notice would be taken. But in this case, the home is in Hebron, and the last owner was an Arab. In this case, it is something covered by international media - a cause for governmental debate and military intervention. Sounds a little off the wall, doesn't it?
The truth is that even with some background details, this story would be considered outrageous had it occurred anywhere else in the world. What is the story here? Hebron is one of three cities holy to the Jewish people: Shechem, Hebron and Jerusalem. It is the site of the burial place purchased by our father Abraham, founder of our faith, where he laid to rest his wife Sarah, mother of our nation.
Our two other sets of patriarchs and matriarchs - Itzchak and Rivkah, Yaakov and Leah - were also buried in the same family cave when they passed away. Our great King David sat on the throne in Hebron for seven years before he made Jerusalem the united capital of Israel.
Throughout the ages, the Jewish community thrived in Hebron. The pious came from afar to pray at the holy tombs and to study in the city's great houses of Torah learning.
In 1929, in response to incitement by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Arabs of Hebron massacred, raped and mutilated their Jewish neighbors. Seventy-seven innocent Jewish residents of Hebron died that day, at the hands of Arab neighbors with whom they had lived at peace for decades. The British Mandate government instructed the Jewish survivors to relocate to other cities, leaving behind their properties, which they were unable to see again until after the victory of the Israeli army in June 1967.
Less than a year later, on the eve of Passover, Jews returned to live in the holy city. However, to this day, the rebuilding of the Jewish community in the city is a great challenge. Residents are continually pressured by the international community that wishes to facilitate the Palestinian goal of a land free of Jews.
Tornadoes in Hebron
Safety has always been a concern, with armed terrorists targeting even infants in their effort to again rid the city of Jews. But, thank G-d; the resilience of the Jewish community in Hebron can be an inspiration to Jews and friends of Israel everywhere.
Slowly but surely, the community continues to grow and set down strong roots in the city of our fathers. The Cave of Machpelah has again become a site of mass pilgrimage, with a constant flow of visitors who come from around the world to pray at the holy site. Weddings, Brit Milahs and other important events are held at this place of great significance.
Today, for a Jewish person to buy a home or property in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem, from an Arab, is a very complicated procedure. Under the Palestinian Authority, capital punishment is the accepted policy for those who sell property to Jews. That being the case, these types of deals are very complex, and can take years of secret negotiations, during which time monies are transferred and agreements are signed.
Before the deal can become public, the Arab seller needs to relocate to another country, where he will be safe from assassins from his own community. After the deal goes public, the new Jewish owners take possession of the property and move their families in. At this point, in almost every case, some other Arab will publicly make claim to the property and state that no deal was made.
In the above case, there was an emergency meeting of the leaders of Israel's government, where it was decided that the new Jewish owners in Hebron would be given a few days to prove their claim before any action was taken.
However, Defense Minister Ehud Barak took matters into his own hands and acted in defiance of that government stand. Riot police forces were sent in to evict the Jews from their new residence in the city of Hebron, next to the Cave of Machpelah. Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu will have to decide where he stands.
My friend, White House Correspondent William Koenig, brought my attention to a most remarkable piece of information. It seems that at the same time that the Jewish owners of the Hebron house were being evicted, homeowners in another Hebron were also forced out of their homes.
A wave of between six and 13 tornadoes has struck in the region of Texas between Dallas-Fort Worth and Hebron, Texas. Thousands are stranded in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport, over 100 planes are grounded and being inspected for damage, and at least 300 homes have been damaged.
Coincidence? Could be.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Monday, July 18, 2011
History lesson for Europeans and other Israel-bashers
In the video Ayalon answers the use of such terms as "West Bank," "occupied territories," and "1967-lines," and makes Israel's case in clear, factual terms without equivocation.
Ayalon says Judea and Samaria were taken from the occupying Jordanians during a defensive war and therefore the "settlements" are legal.
"The idea behind the creation of the video is distributed in an innovative way and explains the Israeli position in fighting unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state," Ayalon said.
"Israel's argument based on facts get lost in the headlines and pictures. The challenge is to adjust the message to the medium and nature of the online world," he added.
The video is an English-language version of an earlier Hebrew-language video, produced in cooperation with international organization StandWithUs, and is presented with subtitles in several languages, including Arabic, Spanish, French, Russian, German and Hebrew.
Ayalon says Judea and Samaria were taken from the occupying Jordanians during a defensive war and therefore the "settlements" are legal.
"The idea behind the creation of the video is distributed in an innovative way and explains the Israeli position in fighting unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state," Ayalon said.
"Israel's argument based on facts get lost in the headlines and pictures. The challenge is to adjust the message to the medium and nature of the online world," he added.
The video is an English-language version of an earlier Hebrew-language video, produced in cooperation with international organization StandWithUs, and is presented with subtitles in several languages, including Arabic, Spanish, French, Russian, German and Hebrew.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Real pioneers
Where you find the pioneering spirit the most vibrant is in Judea and Samaria. "No one said it better than Rabbi Heschel in his brilliant work, Israel; An Echo of Eternity. "What is holy about the Holy Land? It is not only because its space is filled with frozen echoes of a voice heard in the past. Eretz Israel is a prelude, an anticipation. The Holy Land is regarded as the place where the divine plan of history can unfold its pristine and unique meaning".
"The land of Israel has been sanctified by the words of the prophets, by the suffering of a whole people, by the tears and prayers of thousands of years, by the labor and dedication of pioneers. Such sanctity is precious to God, vital to the people, a light within history. The state of Israel is not only a place of refuge for the survivors of the holocaust, but also a tabernacle for the rebirth of faith and justice, for the renewal of souls, for the cultivation of knowledge of the words of the divine."
A visit to Israel becomes a bridge from the temporal to the eternal. The covenant God made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, which He confirmed to Jacob, is the voice that still echoes in the wind over the mountains of Israel. When I stand on those hills I become immersed in that reality. When I look into the eyes of the residents of these hills I see a reflection of the Almighty. I experience in the most practical of terms the continuation of the enduring covenant.
I have had the privilege to experience, to be an eyewitness to the realities in Judea and Samaria. The truth is most residents from the nations have never visited the area and yet they have formed an opinion about this so-called "West-Bank". An opinion based on gross distortions and outright lies. This year Israel may break tourism records. The early 90's was the last time I saw so many tour buses in Jerusalem. But sadly we never encountered another group while traveling on the Road of the Patriarchs.
I submit to you, that you have not really experienced Israel until you have visited the Heartland. Therefore I issue this challenge to the nations. This is a challenge to all Christians and especially to those who consider themselves Christian Zionists. Be a pioneer yourself. Lead the way for your church or organization. Come with me the next time I return to His Mountains. We call ourselves people of faith yet our faith is so rarely challenged. The people of faith I encounter in Judea and Samaria are challenged every moment of their lives. Their environment and many of their Arab neighbors challenge them daily. Tragically most foreign governments are also challenging their very right to exist.
After a visit to Judea and Samaria you will also be an eyewitnesses to the reality on the ground. You will be better equipped to challenge your national leaders' policies concerning Israel. Then the next time some arrogant world leader talks about 1967 borders, you too can say, "it's not going to happen".
"The land of Israel has been sanctified by the words of the prophets, by the suffering of a whole people, by the tears and prayers of thousands of years, by the labor and dedication of pioneers. Such sanctity is precious to God, vital to the people, a light within history. The state of Israel is not only a place of refuge for the survivors of the holocaust, but also a tabernacle for the rebirth of faith and justice, for the renewal of souls, for the cultivation of knowledge of the words of the divine."
A visit to Israel becomes a bridge from the temporal to the eternal. The covenant God made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, which He confirmed to Jacob, is the voice that still echoes in the wind over the mountains of Israel. When I stand on those hills I become immersed in that reality. When I look into the eyes of the residents of these hills I see a reflection of the Almighty. I experience in the most practical of terms the continuation of the enduring covenant.
I have had the privilege to experience, to be an eyewitness to the realities in Judea and Samaria. The truth is most residents from the nations have never visited the area and yet they have formed an opinion about this so-called "West-Bank". An opinion based on gross distortions and outright lies. This year Israel may break tourism records. The early 90's was the last time I saw so many tour buses in Jerusalem. But sadly we never encountered another group while traveling on the Road of the Patriarchs.
I submit to you, that you have not really experienced Israel until you have visited the Heartland. Therefore I issue this challenge to the nations. This is a challenge to all Christians and especially to those who consider themselves Christian Zionists. Be a pioneer yourself. Lead the way for your church or organization. Come with me the next time I return to His Mountains. We call ourselves people of faith yet our faith is so rarely challenged. The people of faith I encounter in Judea and Samaria are challenged every moment of their lives. Their environment and many of their Arab neighbors challenge them daily. Tragically most foreign governments are also challenging their very right to exist.
After a visit to Judea and Samaria you will also be an eyewitnesses to the reality on the ground. You will be better equipped to challenge your national leaders' policies concerning Israel. Then the next time some arrogant world leader talks about 1967 borders, you too can say, "it's not going to happen".
Friday, December 17, 2010
Hypocrisy by Haaretz
Anyone who knows about Haaretz' political orientation (leftwing and against Jewish residency in Yehuda and Shomron), should not be surprised, that its coverage about an incident in Shomron about Jewish worshippers was the opposite to INN and Ynetnews.
While these reported about the desecretation of the tombs of Joshua and Calev by ARABS, Haaretz reported about complaints from Arabs concerning desecration of an Arab graveyard by those worshippers.
This is hypocrisy, pure and simple!
While these reported about the desecretation of the tombs of Joshua and Calev by ARABS, Haaretz reported about complaints from Arabs concerning desecration of an Arab graveyard by those worshippers.
This is hypocrisy, pure and simple!
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
What about Jewish rights?
Arab Israelis bitterly complained last week that the IDF forbids them from entering the Jewish street in Hebron. Despite the security motive behind the ban (security alone and nothing else,) this is a bothersome phenomenon. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the old South Africa, and it doesn’t only hurt Arabs – many roads in Judea and Samaria are closed off to Jews.
We should note that in Hebron there is one street that is partly closed to Arabs and hundreds of streets that are completely closed off to Jews. If a Jew insists on getting there, he will risk being lynched. Should such Jew be able to get out of there, he will immediately be detained by the police for entering a zone that was closed off via an order signed by a general.
Officially speaking, this order refers to “Israelis,” yet it unequivocally addresses Jews. Arabs possessing an Israeli ID are allowed to enter Ramallah or Nablus as often as they want. Yet Jews are not allowed to do so. Isn’t that apartheid? And what’s the reason for the silence displayed by Breaking the Silence members in the face of ethnic discrimination against Jews?
Up until 10 years ago, Jewish motorists could drive from the community of Dolev to Jerusalem in half an hour. Today, they are forced to drive for an hour and a half, because the High Court of Justice endorsed the IDF’s recommendation to close off a shortcut that passes through the Palestinian village of Ein Arik. Arab motorists are allowed to drive through the village, but Jews are not.
Not too long ago, High Court judges forces the IDF to open Highway 443 to Arab traffic, yet they accepted the military explanation for keeping the Ein Arik road closed off to Jews.
Military rule
Yet beyond the roads, the major harm to Jewish freedom of movement beyond the Green Line is only a tiny part of the overall harm to their basic rights. In fact, the Jews in Judea and Samaria are the only population group in the area still wholly subordinated to a military administration.
Since Oslo, most Palestinians enjoy civilian self-rule, yet 300,000 settlers cannot build a balcony without getting an IDF permit. Only recently, a military court ruled that Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom does not apply to a Yitzhar resident who was slapped with a restraining order from his home. The same is true for the law on freedom of occupation.
In order to complete the grim picture of the situation of Jewish human rights in the territories, we should mention the words of Professor Yedidia Stern, a member of the commission of inquiry into the handling of Gush Katif evacuees. Last week he characterized the injustice caused to the uprooted residents as “the gravest blow to human rights in the State of Israel’s history.”
For some reason, Stern’s words elicited almost no public response. Yet next week, tempers will flare again around here because of an Arab who underwent a humiliating security screening at Ben-Gurion Airport.
We should note that in Hebron there is one street that is partly closed to Arabs and hundreds of streets that are completely closed off to Jews. If a Jew insists on getting there, he will risk being lynched. Should such Jew be able to get out of there, he will immediately be detained by the police for entering a zone that was closed off via an order signed by a general.
Officially speaking, this order refers to “Israelis,” yet it unequivocally addresses Jews. Arabs possessing an Israeli ID are allowed to enter Ramallah or Nablus as often as they want. Yet Jews are not allowed to do so. Isn’t that apartheid? And what’s the reason for the silence displayed by Breaking the Silence members in the face of ethnic discrimination against Jews?
Up until 10 years ago, Jewish motorists could drive from the community of Dolev to Jerusalem in half an hour. Today, they are forced to drive for an hour and a half, because the High Court of Justice endorsed the IDF’s recommendation to close off a shortcut that passes through the Palestinian village of Ein Arik. Arab motorists are allowed to drive through the village, but Jews are not.
Not too long ago, High Court judges forces the IDF to open Highway 443 to Arab traffic, yet they accepted the military explanation for keeping the Ein Arik road closed off to Jews.
Military rule
Yet beyond the roads, the major harm to Jewish freedom of movement beyond the Green Line is only a tiny part of the overall harm to their basic rights. In fact, the Jews in Judea and Samaria are the only population group in the area still wholly subordinated to a military administration.
Since Oslo, most Palestinians enjoy civilian self-rule, yet 300,000 settlers cannot build a balcony without getting an IDF permit. Only recently, a military court ruled that Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom does not apply to a Yitzhar resident who was slapped with a restraining order from his home. The same is true for the law on freedom of occupation.
In order to complete the grim picture of the situation of Jewish human rights in the territories, we should mention the words of Professor Yedidia Stern, a member of the commission of inquiry into the handling of Gush Katif evacuees. Last week he characterized the injustice caused to the uprooted residents as “the gravest blow to human rights in the State of Israel’s history.”
For some reason, Stern’s words elicited almost no public response. Yet next week, tempers will flare again around here because of an Arab who underwent a humiliating security screening at Ben-Gurion Airport.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Our World: Alternatives to surrender
To the roaring cheers of the local media, on Sunday the Schalit family embarked on a cross-country march to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s residence. They set out two days after the fourth anniversary of IDF Sgt. Gilad Schalit’s captivity.
Outside their home on Sunday, Gilad’s father Noam Schalit pledged not to return home without his son. The Schalit family intends to camp out outside of Netanyahu’s home until the government reunites them with Gilad.
For weeks the local media – and especially Ma’ariv and Yediot Aharonot – have portrayed the Schalit family’s trek to Netanyahu as a reenactment of Moses’ journey to Pharaoh.
Like Pharaoh, the media insinuates that Netanyahu is evil because he refuses to free Gilad from bondage.
The only drawback to this dramatic, newspaper- selling story is that it is wrong. Gilad Schalit is not a hostage in Jerusalem. He is a hostage in Gaza. His captor is not Netanyahu. His captor is Hamas.
And because the story is wrong, the media organized cavalcade of ten thousand well-intentioned Israelis is moving in the wrong direction. And not only is it going in the wrong direction, it is doing so at Gilad Schalit’s expense.
The truth that Yediot and Ma’ariv’s marketing departments ignore is that Schalit’s continued captivity is a function of Hamas’s growing strength. To bring him home, Israel shouldn’t release a thousand terrorists from prison.
To bring Gilad Schalit home a free man, Israel must weaken Hamas. And this is an eminently achievable goal. Noam Schalit knows it is an achievable goal. That is why last week he was the most outspoken critic of Netanyahu’s decision to abandon Israel’s economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is why over the past four years, the Schalit family has staged countless protests against Israel’s massive and continuous assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza. If anything positive is to come from this march, then when the Schalit family arrives in Jerusalem they should abandon the newspapers’ demand that Israel surrender to all of Hamas’s demands. They should acknowledge that doing so will only guarantee that more Israelis will be kidnapped and murdered by Hamas and its allies.
If the Schalits wish to criticize the government, they should criticize Netanyahu and his coalition for the steps they have taken to strengthen Hamas. The Schalits should demand that the government reinstate and tighten Israel’s economic sanctions against Gaza. They should demand that Israel end its supply of electricity and gasoline to Gaza and take more effective action to block smuggling through the tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border.
All of these actions will weaken Hamas, and so contribute to the prospect of it being forced by the Gazans themselves to release Schalit to his family.
ONE OF the important truths ignored by Israel’s pathological media is that Hamas and its Iranian sponsor are not all powerful. They are vulnerable to criticism from their own publics. And Israel is capable of fomenting such criticism.
For example, the imprisoned terrorists whose release Hamas demands in exchange for releasing Schalit have consistently responded rationally to Israeli threats. The Knesset is slowly debating a bill that would worsen prison conditions of terrorists. And the terrorists are worried.
Their worry provoked them to demand that Hamas be more forthcoming with Schalit.
By the same token, were Israel to cut off electricity to Gaza – an act that is not merely lawful, but arguably required by international law – we could expect residents of Gaza to express a similarly rational demand to Hamas. That is, were Israel to weaken public support for Hamas, Hamas would be more likely to bow to Israel’s will.
And if Hamas is vulnerable to public criticism, the Iranian regime is downright terrified of public criticism. Take the regime’s behavior in the wake of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla campaign.
In the days that followed Israel’s bungled May 31 takeover of the Mavi Marmara, Iran announced it was sending two of its own ships to Gaza. Israel responded rationally and forthrightly. The government warned that any Iranian ship would be viewed as an enemy ship and Israel would respond in accordance with the rules of war.
As Iran expert Michael Ledeen has argued repeatedly, the Iranian regime is terrified of getting the Iranian people angry over its radical foreign policy. In light of its precarious standing with its own public, Israel’s forthright threat of war brought the regime to its knees.
Last Thursday, Hossein Sheikholdslam, the Iranian regime functionary responsible for the Gaza-bound ships, told the Iranian news service IRNA that plans to send the ships were scrapped because Israel “sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on [Israel] and it will confront it.”
During the war with Iran’s Hizbullah proxy in 2006, thousands of Iranians demonstrated against Hizbullah. They demanded that the regime invest its money in the local economy and not in Hizbullah and the Palestinians.
Were Israel to present Schalit as an Israeli victim of the Iranian regime, it could provoke a similar popular outcry against Iran’s support for Hamas. The media-manipulated Schalits are not the only ones acting precisely against their own interests. The government is acting with similar madness in its relations with the Obama administration. Indeed, Netanyahu ended Israel’s lawful economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza (sanctions that served, among other things as a bargaining chip for freeing Schalit), because the Obama administration placed overwhelming pressure on him to do so.
Not wishing to let the Mavi Marmara crisis go to waste, US President Barack Obama had used it as a means to weaken Israel against Hamas. Obama announced that he was giving Hamas-controlled Gaza $400 million in US aid. He forced Netanyahu to end Israel’s economic sanctions against the illegal Hamas regime.
Moreover, according to remarks by a senior Hamas terrorist to the London-based Al- Quds al-Arabi newspaper on Friday, the Obama administration maintains direct ties to the Hamas leadership in Syria.
WHEN NETANYAHU entered office last spring his desire to appease Obama was understandable. At the time, he was operating under the hope that perhaps Obama could be appeased into ending his onslaught against the Jewish state. But the events of the past year have made clear that Obama is unappeasable. Every concession Israel has made to Obama has merely whetted the US president’s appetite for more.
The policy implications of this state of affairs are clear. First, Israel must strive to weaken Obama. Since Israeli concessions to Obama strengthen him, Israel must first and foremost stop giving him concessions.
Weakening Obama does not involve openly attacking him. It means Israel should act in a way that advances its interests and forces Obama to reconsider the desirability of his current foreign policy.
Regionally, Israel should make common cause with the Kurds of Iran, Iraq and Syria who are now being assaulted by Iran, Turkey and Syria. Doing so is not simply the moral thing to do. It weakens Iran, Syria and Turkey and demonstrates that Obama’s appeasement policies are harming those who love freedom and empowering those who hate it.
By the same token, Israel should do everything it can to strengthen the Iranian Green movement. Every anti-regime action in Iran – regardless of its size – harms the regime and therefore helps Israel. And every anti-regime action in Iran exposes the moral depravity and strategic idiocy of Obama’s policy of appeasing the mullocracy.
AS FOR the US domestic political realm, in Ambassador Michael Oren’s all but schizophrenic recent statements about the Obama administration’s policy towards Israel, we may at last be witnessing an embrace of political sanity on the part of the government.
For the past several months, Oren has acted as the Obama administration’s most energetic cheerleader to the US Jewish community.
He has repeatedly and wrongly reassured US Jewish audiences that Obama is a great friend of Israel, that his Democratic Party remains loyal to the US-Israel alliance and that the Republicans are wrong to claim that there is a difference between the two major US political parties when it comes to supporting Israel.
The pinnacle of Oren’s pro-Obama campaign came with his interview last week with The Jerusalem Post. There he brought all of these false and counter-productive claims into the public realm. Apparently Oren’s decision to make his adulation of the Obama administration public finally forced his bosses in Jerusalem to order him to cease, desist and do an about face.
And so, last week, Oren told a closed audience of Israeli diplomats the truth. Under Obama, Oren whispered, there has been a “tectonic rift” in US relations with Israel. While some of Obama’s advisers are sympathetic to Israel, these advisers have no influence on Obama’s positions on Israel.
No doubt recognizing how silly his about face made him look, Oren tried to deny his statements at the Foreign Ministry. But it is hard to imagine anyone will take him seriously.
During his visit to the White House next week, Netanyahu should follow the path set by Oren’s quickly leaked remarks. Netanyahu should abstain from praising Obama for his friendship and speak instead about the fact that the US-Israel alliance is vital for both countries’ national security.
Netanyahu should insist on the right to call on questioners at his joint appearance with Obama. And he should use those questions and those appearances to discuss why Israel’s actions are not only legal and necessary for Israel, but vital for US national security. During his stay in the US, Netanyahu should discuss the global jihad, Islamic terrorism, the freedom-loving Kurds and the freedom-loving Iranian people every chance he gets.
Indeed, he should create opportunities to discuss them.
Here we see a crucial point of convergence between the Schalit family march to Jerusalem and Netanyahu’s trip to Washington. To increase the effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of Gilad, ahead of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the marchers should split into two groups.
The first group should continue to Jerusalem and demand that Israel take a firmer stand against Hamas. The second group should walk to Tel Aviv and camp out outside the US Embassy. There they should demand that the administration end its contacts with Hamas, end its pressure on the Israeli government to strengthen Hamas, cancel Obama’s plan to give an additional $400 million dollars in aid to Hamas and use the US’s position on the UN Security Council to condemn Turkey for its material support for Hamas.
For too long, by allowing themselves to be led by our deranged media, Israeli citizens and governments alike have ignored the basic fact that the answer to every question is not more Israeli concessions. Contrary to what our tabloids would have us believe, surrender is only one option among many. It is time we try out some alternatives.
caroline@carolineglick.com
Outside their home on Sunday, Gilad’s father Noam Schalit pledged not to return home without his son. The Schalit family intends to camp out outside of Netanyahu’s home until the government reunites them with Gilad.
For weeks the local media – and especially Ma’ariv and Yediot Aharonot – have portrayed the Schalit family’s trek to Netanyahu as a reenactment of Moses’ journey to Pharaoh.
Like Pharaoh, the media insinuates that Netanyahu is evil because he refuses to free Gilad from bondage.
The only drawback to this dramatic, newspaper- selling story is that it is wrong. Gilad Schalit is not a hostage in Jerusalem. He is a hostage in Gaza. His captor is not Netanyahu. His captor is Hamas.
And because the story is wrong, the media organized cavalcade of ten thousand well-intentioned Israelis is moving in the wrong direction. And not only is it going in the wrong direction, it is doing so at Gilad Schalit’s expense.
The truth that Yediot and Ma’ariv’s marketing departments ignore is that Schalit’s continued captivity is a function of Hamas’s growing strength. To bring him home, Israel shouldn’t release a thousand terrorists from prison.
To bring Gilad Schalit home a free man, Israel must weaken Hamas. And this is an eminently achievable goal. Noam Schalit knows it is an achievable goal. That is why last week he was the most outspoken critic of Netanyahu’s decision to abandon Israel’s economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is why over the past four years, the Schalit family has staged countless protests against Israel’s massive and continuous assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza. If anything positive is to come from this march, then when the Schalit family arrives in Jerusalem they should abandon the newspapers’ demand that Israel surrender to all of Hamas’s demands. They should acknowledge that doing so will only guarantee that more Israelis will be kidnapped and murdered by Hamas and its allies.
If the Schalits wish to criticize the government, they should criticize Netanyahu and his coalition for the steps they have taken to strengthen Hamas. The Schalits should demand that the government reinstate and tighten Israel’s economic sanctions against Gaza. They should demand that Israel end its supply of electricity and gasoline to Gaza and take more effective action to block smuggling through the tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border.
All of these actions will weaken Hamas, and so contribute to the prospect of it being forced by the Gazans themselves to release Schalit to his family.
ONE OF the important truths ignored by Israel’s pathological media is that Hamas and its Iranian sponsor are not all powerful. They are vulnerable to criticism from their own publics. And Israel is capable of fomenting such criticism.
For example, the imprisoned terrorists whose release Hamas demands in exchange for releasing Schalit have consistently responded rationally to Israeli threats. The Knesset is slowly debating a bill that would worsen prison conditions of terrorists. And the terrorists are worried.
Their worry provoked them to demand that Hamas be more forthcoming with Schalit.
By the same token, were Israel to cut off electricity to Gaza – an act that is not merely lawful, but arguably required by international law – we could expect residents of Gaza to express a similarly rational demand to Hamas. That is, were Israel to weaken public support for Hamas, Hamas would be more likely to bow to Israel’s will.
And if Hamas is vulnerable to public criticism, the Iranian regime is downright terrified of public criticism. Take the regime’s behavior in the wake of the Turkish-Hamas flotilla campaign.
In the days that followed Israel’s bungled May 31 takeover of the Mavi Marmara, Iran announced it was sending two of its own ships to Gaza. Israel responded rationally and forthrightly. The government warned that any Iranian ship would be viewed as an enemy ship and Israel would respond in accordance with the rules of war.
As Iran expert Michael Ledeen has argued repeatedly, the Iranian regime is terrified of getting the Iranian people angry over its radical foreign policy. In light of its precarious standing with its own public, Israel’s forthright threat of war brought the regime to its knees.
Last Thursday, Hossein Sheikholdslam, the Iranian regime functionary responsible for the Gaza-bound ships, told the Iranian news service IRNA that plans to send the ships were scrapped because Israel “sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on [Israel] and it will confront it.”
During the war with Iran’s Hizbullah proxy in 2006, thousands of Iranians demonstrated against Hizbullah. They demanded that the regime invest its money in the local economy and not in Hizbullah and the Palestinians.
Were Israel to present Schalit as an Israeli victim of the Iranian regime, it could provoke a similar popular outcry against Iran’s support for Hamas. The media-manipulated Schalits are not the only ones acting precisely against their own interests. The government is acting with similar madness in its relations with the Obama administration. Indeed, Netanyahu ended Israel’s lawful economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza (sanctions that served, among other things as a bargaining chip for freeing Schalit), because the Obama administration placed overwhelming pressure on him to do so.
Not wishing to let the Mavi Marmara crisis go to waste, US President Barack Obama had used it as a means to weaken Israel against Hamas. Obama announced that he was giving Hamas-controlled Gaza $400 million in US aid. He forced Netanyahu to end Israel’s economic sanctions against the illegal Hamas regime.
Moreover, according to remarks by a senior Hamas terrorist to the London-based Al- Quds al-Arabi newspaper on Friday, the Obama administration maintains direct ties to the Hamas leadership in Syria.
WHEN NETANYAHU entered office last spring his desire to appease Obama was understandable. At the time, he was operating under the hope that perhaps Obama could be appeased into ending his onslaught against the Jewish state. But the events of the past year have made clear that Obama is unappeasable. Every concession Israel has made to Obama has merely whetted the US president’s appetite for more.
The policy implications of this state of affairs are clear. First, Israel must strive to weaken Obama. Since Israeli concessions to Obama strengthen him, Israel must first and foremost stop giving him concessions.
Weakening Obama does not involve openly attacking him. It means Israel should act in a way that advances its interests and forces Obama to reconsider the desirability of his current foreign policy.
Regionally, Israel should make common cause with the Kurds of Iran, Iraq and Syria who are now being assaulted by Iran, Turkey and Syria. Doing so is not simply the moral thing to do. It weakens Iran, Syria and Turkey and demonstrates that Obama’s appeasement policies are harming those who love freedom and empowering those who hate it.
By the same token, Israel should do everything it can to strengthen the Iranian Green movement. Every anti-regime action in Iran – regardless of its size – harms the regime and therefore helps Israel. And every anti-regime action in Iran exposes the moral depravity and strategic idiocy of Obama’s policy of appeasing the mullocracy.
AS FOR the US domestic political realm, in Ambassador Michael Oren’s all but schizophrenic recent statements about the Obama administration’s policy towards Israel, we may at last be witnessing an embrace of political sanity on the part of the government.
For the past several months, Oren has acted as the Obama administration’s most energetic cheerleader to the US Jewish community.
He has repeatedly and wrongly reassured US Jewish audiences that Obama is a great friend of Israel, that his Democratic Party remains loyal to the US-Israel alliance and that the Republicans are wrong to claim that there is a difference between the two major US political parties when it comes to supporting Israel.
The pinnacle of Oren’s pro-Obama campaign came with his interview last week with The Jerusalem Post. There he brought all of these false and counter-productive claims into the public realm. Apparently Oren’s decision to make his adulation of the Obama administration public finally forced his bosses in Jerusalem to order him to cease, desist and do an about face.
And so, last week, Oren told a closed audience of Israeli diplomats the truth. Under Obama, Oren whispered, there has been a “tectonic rift” in US relations with Israel. While some of Obama’s advisers are sympathetic to Israel, these advisers have no influence on Obama’s positions on Israel.
No doubt recognizing how silly his about face made him look, Oren tried to deny his statements at the Foreign Ministry. But it is hard to imagine anyone will take him seriously.
During his visit to the White House next week, Netanyahu should follow the path set by Oren’s quickly leaked remarks. Netanyahu should abstain from praising Obama for his friendship and speak instead about the fact that the US-Israel alliance is vital for both countries’ national security.
Netanyahu should insist on the right to call on questioners at his joint appearance with Obama. And he should use those questions and those appearances to discuss why Israel’s actions are not only legal and necessary for Israel, but vital for US national security. During his stay in the US, Netanyahu should discuss the global jihad, Islamic terrorism, the freedom-loving Kurds and the freedom-loving Iranian people every chance he gets.
Indeed, he should create opportunities to discuss them.
Here we see a crucial point of convergence between the Schalit family march to Jerusalem and Netanyahu’s trip to Washington. To increase the effectiveness of their efforts on behalf of Gilad, ahead of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the marchers should split into two groups.
The first group should continue to Jerusalem and demand that Israel take a firmer stand against Hamas. The second group should walk to Tel Aviv and camp out outside the US Embassy. There they should demand that the administration end its contacts with Hamas, end its pressure on the Israeli government to strengthen Hamas, cancel Obama’s plan to give an additional $400 million dollars in aid to Hamas and use the US’s position on the UN Security Council to condemn Turkey for its material support for Hamas.
For too long, by allowing themselves to be led by our deranged media, Israeli citizens and governments alike have ignored the basic fact that the answer to every question is not more Israeli concessions. Contrary to what our tabloids would have us believe, surrender is only one option among many. It is time we try out some alternatives.
caroline@carolineglick.com
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
A few things to remember when hearing about the Gaza Blockade and the Flotilla incident in Israel
Dear reader,
Yesterday we were glued to the television and radio all day as we watched the story unfold of the heroic Israeli operation to board and stop the flotilla to Gaza. Of course, the entire world seems to be set against Israel now, even more than before, basing their opinions on lies and distortions of the truth. As you follow the news in your own countries, please keep this in mind:
1. Israel has been blockading Gaza since the seizure of our soldier Gilad Shalit by the Hamas, an act of war, accompanied by ongoing missile and rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza. Shalit is being held against international law, without access to the International Red Cross. Blockade in this situation is legitimate and acceptable under international law.
2. Israel has been providing some 15,000 tons of food and medicines to Gaza throughout, via recognized international aid organizations. There is no hunger or other humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
3. Israel repeatedly offered the flotilla the opportunity to dock in Israel and have the contents of the ships transferred to Gaza after inspection to insure no weapons or other dangerous items were concealed among the cargo. The flotilla organizers refused repeatedly, even minutes before the IDF's operation.
4. The flotilla organizers defined themselves as peace activists. In fact, they were terrorists. As the IDF soldiers were lowered onto the Marmara ship by helicopter, in what they expected to be a riot-quelling and arrest operation, they were met with unexpected violence -- clubs, knives, metal objects, and even guns were used to attack and injure our soldiers. When it became clear that their lives were threatened, they shot live fire.
5. Arab and other hostile media were quick to announce that 15 were killed. In fact, only nine were killed. Six IDF soldiers were injured, two of them seriously. All of the injured have been hospitalized in Israeli hospitals where they are receiving the finest care.
6. Close to 500 were detained and placed in a detention facility in Beersheva, where they are able to make phone calls, receive visitors, and have excellent conditions, all at the expense of the Israeli government.
7. About 50 agreed to voluntarily leave Israel and were escorted to Ben Gurion Airport where they were flown to their countries, at the expense of Israel.
Yesterday we were glued to the television and radio all day as we watched the story unfold of the heroic Israeli operation to board and stop the flotilla to Gaza. Of course, the entire world seems to be set against Israel now, even more than before, basing their opinions on lies and distortions of the truth. As you follow the news in your own countries, please keep this in mind:
1. Israel has been blockading Gaza since the seizure of our soldier Gilad Shalit by the Hamas, an act of war, accompanied by ongoing missile and rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza. Shalit is being held against international law, without access to the International Red Cross. Blockade in this situation is legitimate and acceptable under international law.
2. Israel has been providing some 15,000 tons of food and medicines to Gaza throughout, via recognized international aid organizations. There is no hunger or other humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
3. Israel repeatedly offered the flotilla the opportunity to dock in Israel and have the contents of the ships transferred to Gaza after inspection to insure no weapons or other dangerous items were concealed among the cargo. The flotilla organizers refused repeatedly, even minutes before the IDF's operation.
4. The flotilla organizers defined themselves as peace activists. In fact, they were terrorists. As the IDF soldiers were lowered onto the Marmara ship by helicopter, in what they expected to be a riot-quelling and arrest operation, they were met with unexpected violence -- clubs, knives, metal objects, and even guns were used to attack and injure our soldiers. When it became clear that their lives were threatened, they shot live fire.
5. Arab and other hostile media were quick to announce that 15 were killed. In fact, only nine were killed. Six IDF soldiers were injured, two of them seriously. All of the injured have been hospitalized in Israeli hospitals where they are receiving the finest care.
6. Close to 500 were detained and placed in a detention facility in Beersheva, where they are able to make phone calls, receive visitors, and have excellent conditions, all at the expense of the Israeli government.
7. About 50 agreed to voluntarily leave Israel and were escorted to Ben Gurion Airport where they were flown to their countries, at the expense of Israel.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A word to the nations
by Gary Cristofaro
I've had the privilege to lead many tours to Israel with both Christians and Jews. Naturally everyone has his or her own reasons for going to Israel. When accompanying Christian pilgrims it's common for some to express excitement about walking where Jesus walked. An expression also echoed by the Ministry of Tourism when enticing Christians to visit Israel. I agree this is among the many great reasons for Christians to experience the land. But it is also one more reason Christians should be horrified by the prospect of Israel giving up more land.
As Christians we must bear in mind that the descendants of Jacob were called out of Egypt to be a light to the nations. And it was at Jacob's well that Jesus declared; "salvation is of the Jews."(John 4:22) "He left Judea and departed again to Galilee. But He needed to go through Samaria. So he came to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus, therefore being wearied from His journey, sat by the well." (John 4:3-6)
The location of Jacob's well is not in doubt. It is one of the best-attested sites in Israel. It lies in the plain between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. Jesus and His disciples arrived at Jacob's well in the midst of the little plain just east of the two mountains. They had probably followed the main road from Jerusalem, thirty-five miles to the south. It is known as the Road of the Patriarchs.
These hills have hosted many weary travelers for thousands of years. Long before Jesus and His disciples walked this land, God had chosen it for His divine purposes. In fact, He chose this land even before the calling of Abraham.
But following the call of Abraham, the land takes on renewed purpose. God said to Abraham "Get out of your country, from your father's house, to a land that I will show you." (Gen.12:1) ..."and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:3b) The plan of God was to bless the earth through Abraham and this great drama needed an earthly stage.
Abraham dwelt in the mountains of Israel. As this holy narrative unfolds we read of places like Shechem, Elon Moreh, Bethel and Hebron. One can stand in the mountains of Israel and almost hear the voice of God saying to Abraham; "for all the land which you can see I give to you and your descendants forever." (Gen. 13:15)
My fellow Christians, consider the significance of these sites to your faith. Now consider the possibility of never being able to walk these mountains again. Consider the possibility of never sharing these experiences with your children. Preservation of these sites should not be just a Jewish problem. It should be a priority of every Christian throughout the world.
However, if the Obama administration and most of the nations on earth had their way these sacred sitess would be lost. To justify this fear, one only has to recall the desecration of Joseph's tomb at the hands of fanatic Islamists. The Oslo Accords put this site under Israeli jurisdiction, but on Oct. 7, 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered a unilateral retreat, based on a Palestinian agreement to protect the site.
But within hours, smoke was billowing from the tomb as a crowd burned Jewish prayer books and other articles. Then with pickaxes and hammers they began to tear apart the stone building. Within two days the dome of the tomb had been painted green and bulldozers were clearing the area. Israeli authority had to restore the site during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, but worshippers are only allowed to visit when guarded by the Israeli Defense Forces.
There is no question that the best stewards of these holy sites are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In other words these sites should be kept in the family. Christians should realize the implications if Israel were to give up sovereignty over this region.
Likewise all the land of Judea and Samaria should be kept in the family. This is the land of their inheritance. The families of Judea and Samaria have more to lose than the holy sites. They stand to lose their homes, their livelihood and their very way of life.
Christian Friends of Israeli Communities is comprised of Jews and Christians who understand the shared significance of Judea and Samaria. It is the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and it is the land of Jesus. We also understand that Israel of today remains a living testimony to the faithfulness of the creator.
Our creator is the Holy One of Israel and He will remain faithful to His promises. Yet I also believe He is watching His children. Will we remain faithful to His purposes? Together I believe we have been called to be a light to the nations. The prophet Jeremiah said; "For there shall be a day when the watchmen will cry on Mount Ephraim, arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God." (Jer. 31:6) Be faithful till the end and I believe we will experience together the day that the prophet Jeremiah spoke of.
I've had the privilege to lead many tours to Israel with both Christians and Jews. Naturally everyone has his or her own reasons for going to Israel. When accompanying Christian pilgrims it's common for some to express excitement about walking where Jesus walked. An expression also echoed by the Ministry of Tourism when enticing Christians to visit Israel. I agree this is among the many great reasons for Christians to experience the land. But it is also one more reason Christians should be horrified by the prospect of Israel giving up more land.
As Christians we must bear in mind that the descendants of Jacob were called out of Egypt to be a light to the nations. And it was at Jacob's well that Jesus declared; "salvation is of the Jews."(John 4:22) "He left Judea and departed again to Galilee. But He needed to go through Samaria. So he came to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus, therefore being wearied from His journey, sat by the well." (John 4:3-6)
The location of Jacob's well is not in doubt. It is one of the best-attested sites in Israel. It lies in the plain between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. Jesus and His disciples arrived at Jacob's well in the midst of the little plain just east of the two mountains. They had probably followed the main road from Jerusalem, thirty-five miles to the south. It is known as the Road of the Patriarchs.
These hills have hosted many weary travelers for thousands of years. Long before Jesus and His disciples walked this land, God had chosen it for His divine purposes. In fact, He chose this land even before the calling of Abraham.
But following the call of Abraham, the land takes on renewed purpose. God said to Abraham "Get out of your country, from your father's house, to a land that I will show you." (Gen.12:1) ..."and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:3b) The plan of God was to bless the earth through Abraham and this great drama needed an earthly stage.
Abraham dwelt in the mountains of Israel. As this holy narrative unfolds we read of places like Shechem, Elon Moreh, Bethel and Hebron. One can stand in the mountains of Israel and almost hear the voice of God saying to Abraham; "for all the land which you can see I give to you and your descendants forever." (Gen. 13:15)
My fellow Christians, consider the significance of these sites to your faith. Now consider the possibility of never being able to walk these mountains again. Consider the possibility of never sharing these experiences with your children. Preservation of these sites should not be just a Jewish problem. It should be a priority of every Christian throughout the world.
However, if the Obama administration and most of the nations on earth had their way these sacred sitess would be lost. To justify this fear, one only has to recall the desecration of Joseph's tomb at the hands of fanatic Islamists. The Oslo Accords put this site under Israeli jurisdiction, but on Oct. 7, 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered a unilateral retreat, based on a Palestinian agreement to protect the site.
But within hours, smoke was billowing from the tomb as a crowd burned Jewish prayer books and other articles. Then with pickaxes and hammers they began to tear apart the stone building. Within two days the dome of the tomb had been painted green and bulldozers were clearing the area. Israeli authority had to restore the site during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, but worshippers are only allowed to visit when guarded by the Israeli Defense Forces.
There is no question that the best stewards of these holy sites are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In other words these sites should be kept in the family. Christians should realize the implications if Israel were to give up sovereignty over this region.
Likewise all the land of Judea and Samaria should be kept in the family. This is the land of their inheritance. The families of Judea and Samaria have more to lose than the holy sites. They stand to lose their homes, their livelihood and their very way of life.
Christian Friends of Israeli Communities is comprised of Jews and Christians who understand the shared significance of Judea and Samaria. It is the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and it is the land of Jesus. We also understand that Israel of today remains a living testimony to the faithfulness of the creator.
Our creator is the Holy One of Israel and He will remain faithful to His promises. Yet I also believe He is watching His children. Will we remain faithful to His purposes? Together I believe we have been called to be a light to the nations. The prophet Jeremiah said; "For there shall be a day when the watchmen will cry on Mount Ephraim, arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God." (Jer. 31:6) Be faithful till the end and I believe we will experience together the day that the prophet Jeremiah spoke of.
Friday, March 26, 2010
There's no such thing as a 'Palestinian people'!
A provocative headline? It's more than that. It's the truth.
Truth does not change. Truth is truth. If something was true 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, it is still true today.
And the truth is that only 30 years ago, there was very little confusion on this issue of Palestine.
You might remember the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir making the bold political statement: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people."
The statement has been a source of ridicule and derision by Arab propagandists ever since. They love to talk about Golda Meir's "racism." They love to suggest she was in historical denial. They love to say her statement is patently false – an intentional lie, a strategic deception.
What they don't like to talk about, however, are the very similar statements made by Yasser Arafat and his inner circle of political leadership years after Meir had told the truth – that there is no distinct Palestinian cultural or national identity.
So, despite the fact that conventional wisdom has now proclaimed that there is such a thing as the Palestinian people, I'm going to raise those uncomfortable quotations made by Arafat and his henchmen when their public-relations guard was down.
Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
That's pretty clear, isn't it? It's even more specific than Golda Meir's statement. It reaffirms what I have written on this subject. And it is hardly the only such statement of its kind. Arafat himself made a very definitive and unequivocal statement along these lines as late as 1993. It demonstrates conclusively that the Palestinian nationhood argument is the real strategic deception – one geared to set up the destruction of Israel.
In fact, on the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here's what he said: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
No matter how many people convince themselves that the aspirations for Palestinian statehood are genuine and the key to peace in the Middle East, they are still deceiving themselves.
I've said it before and I will say it again, in the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.
Why now has it become such a critical priority?
The answer is because of a massive deception campaign and relentless terrorism over 40 years.
Golda Meir was right. Her statement is validated by the truth of history and by the candid, but not widely circulated, pronouncements of Arafat and his lieutenants.
Israel and the West must not surrender to terrorism by granting the killers just what they want – a public relations triumph and a strategic victory. It's not too late to say no to terrorism. It's not too late to say no to another Arab terror state. It's not too late to tell the truth about Palestine.
Truth does not change. Truth is truth. If something was true 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, it is still true today.
And the truth is that only 30 years ago, there was very little confusion on this issue of Palestine.
You might remember the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir making the bold political statement: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people."
The statement has been a source of ridicule and derision by Arab propagandists ever since. They love to talk about Golda Meir's "racism." They love to suggest she was in historical denial. They love to say her statement is patently false – an intentional lie, a strategic deception.
What they don't like to talk about, however, are the very similar statements made by Yasser Arafat and his inner circle of political leadership years after Meir had told the truth – that there is no distinct Palestinian cultural or national identity.
So, despite the fact that conventional wisdom has now proclaimed that there is such a thing as the Palestinian people, I'm going to raise those uncomfortable quotations made by Arafat and his henchmen when their public-relations guard was down.
Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
That's pretty clear, isn't it? It's even more specific than Golda Meir's statement. It reaffirms what I have written on this subject. And it is hardly the only such statement of its kind. Arafat himself made a very definitive and unequivocal statement along these lines as late as 1993. It demonstrates conclusively that the Palestinian nationhood argument is the real strategic deception – one geared to set up the destruction of Israel.
In fact, on the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here's what he said: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
No matter how many people convince themselves that the aspirations for Palestinian statehood are genuine and the key to peace in the Middle East, they are still deceiving themselves.
I've said it before and I will say it again, in the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their ancestral homeland. It was never ruled by Arabs as a separate nation.
Why now has it become such a critical priority?
The answer is because of a massive deception campaign and relentless terrorism over 40 years.
Golda Meir was right. Her statement is validated by the truth of history and by the candid, but not widely circulated, pronouncements of Arafat and his lieutenants.
Israel and the West must not surrender to terrorism by granting the killers just what they want – a public relations triumph and a strategic victory. It's not too late to say no to terrorism. It's not too late to say no to another Arab terror state. It's not too late to tell the truth about Palestine.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Where are our roots?
By Moshe Dann
Bowing to pressure from Prime Minister Netanyahu, US State Department and the international community, Nir Barkat, Mayor of Jerusalem, has cut back on plans to remove 88 illegal Arab buildings from a rich archeological park in the Kidron Valley adjacent to the City of David, the ancient city of Jerusalem.
According to plans announced Tuesday, Barkat proposed relocating only about 20 families in the disputed area, while giving legal status retroactively to the rest. The entire area would be renovated and restored as a garden and world-class tourist site, with an Arab residential neighborhood, shops and restaurants, including sports and healthcare centers. Arabs claim that these plans threaten their property and their way of life.
The city claims it will improve the quality of life; Arabs are opposed, saying it is "Judaizing" the area.
The city contends that Arabs have built on public land in an archeological area and they are enforcing "the rule of law;" Arabs decry the lack of building permits.
There are an estimated 10,000-20,000 illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem alone.
Arabs claim they own the land, but are unable to provide any proof. Assisted by a number of Israeli NGOs, like Peace Now, Ir Amim and Bimkom - recipients of funds from the New Israel Fund, European governments and the EU - they have protested archeological work in the area, insisting that the entire area is "Palestinian."
City Attorney, Yossi Havillo, and State Prosecutor Moshe Lador oppose the destruction of Arab homes; they insist that a nearby Jewish-owned home built without permits be demolished.
According to aerial photographs, the area was uninhabited until the early 1990s, when archeological excavations in the City of David began to attract millions of tourists, and artifacts could be found scattered throughout the area. Under Mayor Barkat's predecessors, Ehud Olmert and Uri Lupolianski, Arabs built extensively throughout the area.
Bedrock of Zionist ethos
The King's Garden, or al-Bustan (The Garden in Arabic), a reference to Biblical times when it was a source of spices used in perfumes and incense, is located just below the City of David, where the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys meet. Water flowed to this area from the Gihon Spring, the ancient city's sole water source, mentioned in Kings I, 1:39, where King Solomon was anointed.
The prophet Isaiah called this "…the waters of Shiloah that flow softly" (VIII,6), which were channeled into a pool, then into the King's Garden, and from there down the Kidron Valley into the Judean Desert.
During King Hezekiah's reign (727-698 B.C.E.), a tunnel was cut from the Gihon Spring, through the mountain, beneath the city, to bring water into the city. (II Kings XX, 20).
The King's Garden is mentioned as the escape route for King Zedekiah (Jeremiah XXXIX,4); in Nehemiah (II,14); in Song of Songs (IV, 15); in Ecclesiastes (II,5) and many other Biblical and Talmudic sources.
The modern Arab village of Silwan (an Arabized version of the Hebrew, Shiloah) is located in and around what was the ancient Jewish cemetery of Mt of Olives, on the eastern side of the Kidron Valley, opposite the City of David.
Across from the Gihon Spring is the tomb of Rabbi Ovadiah Ben Avraham, from the Italian city of Bartinoro, known as "The Bartenura," who died in Jerusalem in about 1500. He traveled extensively in the Land of Israel, wrote letters about Jewish communities in Bethlehem, Hebron, and Gaza, wrote a famous commentary on the Mishna, and was the spiritual and communal leader of Jews in Jerusalem, many of whom had escaped the expulsion from Spain in 1492.
A few hundred meters north in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mount of Olives cemetery, are monumental tombs from the Second Temple Period. This is called the Valley of Jehoshaphat (God has judged) where, according to Joel IV,2,12, Jewish and Christian tradition, the nations of the world will be judged.
Arab riots and international condemnations of Israel, led by the US administration, over the designation of Jewish heritage sites, archeological excavations and environmental restoration bring basic question into sharp focus: Where are our roots?
The struggle over who can build in the King's Garden is not only about physical location, and civil rights, but the protection of archeological sites, the meaning of sovereignty and Jewish historical claims to the Land of Israel. That is, after all, the bedrock of Zionist ethos and purpose, and our collective consciousness.
The author, a licensed tour guide and former assistant professor of History, is a writer and journalist
Bowing to pressure from Prime Minister Netanyahu, US State Department and the international community, Nir Barkat, Mayor of Jerusalem, has cut back on plans to remove 88 illegal Arab buildings from a rich archeological park in the Kidron Valley adjacent to the City of David, the ancient city of Jerusalem.
According to plans announced Tuesday, Barkat proposed relocating only about 20 families in the disputed area, while giving legal status retroactively to the rest. The entire area would be renovated and restored as a garden and world-class tourist site, with an Arab residential neighborhood, shops and restaurants, including sports and healthcare centers. Arabs claim that these plans threaten their property and their way of life.
The city claims it will improve the quality of life; Arabs are opposed, saying it is "Judaizing" the area.
The city contends that Arabs have built on public land in an archeological area and they are enforcing "the rule of law;" Arabs decry the lack of building permits.
There are an estimated 10,000-20,000 illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem alone.
Arabs claim they own the land, but are unable to provide any proof. Assisted by a number of Israeli NGOs, like Peace Now, Ir Amim and Bimkom - recipients of funds from the New Israel Fund, European governments and the EU - they have protested archeological work in the area, insisting that the entire area is "Palestinian."
City Attorney, Yossi Havillo, and State Prosecutor Moshe Lador oppose the destruction of Arab homes; they insist that a nearby Jewish-owned home built without permits be demolished.
According to aerial photographs, the area was uninhabited until the early 1990s, when archeological excavations in the City of David began to attract millions of tourists, and artifacts could be found scattered throughout the area. Under Mayor Barkat's predecessors, Ehud Olmert and Uri Lupolianski, Arabs built extensively throughout the area.
Bedrock of Zionist ethos
The King's Garden, or al-Bustan (The Garden in Arabic), a reference to Biblical times when it was a source of spices used in perfumes and incense, is located just below the City of David, where the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys meet. Water flowed to this area from the Gihon Spring, the ancient city's sole water source, mentioned in Kings I, 1:39, where King Solomon was anointed.
The prophet Isaiah called this "…the waters of Shiloah that flow softly" (VIII,6), which were channeled into a pool, then into the King's Garden, and from there down the Kidron Valley into the Judean Desert.
During King Hezekiah's reign (727-698 B.C.E.), a tunnel was cut from the Gihon Spring, through the mountain, beneath the city, to bring water into the city. (II Kings XX, 20).
The King's Garden is mentioned as the escape route for King Zedekiah (Jeremiah XXXIX,4); in Nehemiah (II,14); in Song of Songs (IV, 15); in Ecclesiastes (II,5) and many other Biblical and Talmudic sources.
The modern Arab village of Silwan (an Arabized version of the Hebrew, Shiloah) is located in and around what was the ancient Jewish cemetery of Mt of Olives, on the eastern side of the Kidron Valley, opposite the City of David.
Across from the Gihon Spring is the tomb of Rabbi Ovadiah Ben Avraham, from the Italian city of Bartinoro, known as "The Bartenura," who died in Jerusalem in about 1500. He traveled extensively in the Land of Israel, wrote letters about Jewish communities in Bethlehem, Hebron, and Gaza, wrote a famous commentary on the Mishna, and was the spiritual and communal leader of Jews in Jerusalem, many of whom had escaped the expulsion from Spain in 1492.
A few hundred meters north in the Kidron Valley, at the foot of the Mount of Olives cemetery, are monumental tombs from the Second Temple Period. This is called the Valley of Jehoshaphat (God has judged) where, according to Joel IV,2,12, Jewish and Christian tradition, the nations of the world will be judged.
Arab riots and international condemnations of Israel, led by the US administration, over the designation of Jewish heritage sites, archeological excavations and environmental restoration bring basic question into sharp focus: Where are our roots?
The struggle over who can build in the King's Garden is not only about physical location, and civil rights, but the protection of archeological sites, the meaning of sovereignty and Jewish historical claims to the Land of Israel. That is, after all, the bedrock of Zionist ethos and purpose, and our collective consciousness.
The author, a licensed tour guide and former assistant professor of History, is a writer and journalist
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Outposts and the law
How does denying right of Jews to build reinforce the rule of law?
by Moshe Dann
Conventional wisdom says that "Israel promised (the US) to destroy all 'unauthorized outposts,' and, therefore, must fulfill its obligations." If the government is looking for an excuse, this is a poor one.
The "promise" is based on a letter in April, 2004 from Dov Weissglass, Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Although submitted "on behalf of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," the letter was not signed by Sharon, nor was it affirmed by the cabinet. It was, simply, "diplomatic correspondence."
Moreover, the letter contains conditions. "The Israeli government believes that further steps by it, even if consistent with the Roadmap, cannot be taken absent the emergence of a Palestinian partner committed to peace, democratic reform, and the fight against terror."
Using this letter to justify destruction of Jewish "unauthorized outposts" raises serious questions:
Does Weissglass' letter obligate Israel to carry out its provisions now while ignoring its conditions? Does this letter obligate future governments? Was the letter approved by the full cabinet (since it mentions only the PM)? Why didn't Prime Minister Sharon sign it? Other than Weissglass' letter is there any other binding agreement to destroy Jewish "unauthorized outposts"?
Asked to respond, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office avoided direct specific answers. "This government is committed to the rule of law, and abiding by the law is paramount to maintaining a civil society." They refused to elaborate.
This begs the questions and shifts the argument to Israeli law and, vaguely, "rule of law."
What, in fact, is Israeli law? If Arabs are entitled to acquire property rights by settlement, why can't Jews? Why do Israeli authorities refuse to give permission to develop new neighborhoods, hilltops and outposts? If the application of law discriminates against Jews, what's the meaning of "rule of law"?
What about the real issues?
The Supreme Court has demanded that "unauthorized outposts" built by Jews be destroyed immediately, but has given over 100,000 illegal Arab homes a pass. And what about the vast "unrecognized" illegal Bedouin villages throughout the Galilee and Negev?
"Rule of law" means impartiality above all; it also must make reasonable common sense. Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" built on unoccupied, unclaimed land are examples of Zionist enterprise and idealism.
They offer inexpensive places to live. Most received tacit approval from government ministries, including the prime and defense ministers, which provided infrastructure and utilities. They tried to fulfill the necessary requirements. They are citizens and members of Israeli society. How does destroying them demonstrate the "rule of law" instead of offering legal recognition?
If providing legal status to Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" provides more taxes and fees and serves the interests of the State, why not allow it? How is denying the right of Jews to build assert the "rule of law?"
If the Israeli government is afraid of American opposition, then what does that say about "rule of law?" And, if the "rule of law" is important, why should it be sacrificed on the altar of American opposition?
Focusing on outposts and Jewish building in new neighborhoods of Jerusalem diverts attention from the real issues: the threat of a nuclear Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan's disintegration, the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah - to name only a few. Where Jews can or can't live in their homeland hardly seems to be of such importance, unless, of course, the question is if they should have one at all.
But then, there are other, more ancient and sacred promises to keep.
by Moshe Dann
Conventional wisdom says that "Israel promised (the US) to destroy all 'unauthorized outposts,' and, therefore, must fulfill its obligations." If the government is looking for an excuse, this is a poor one.
The "promise" is based on a letter in April, 2004 from Dov Weissglass, Chief of the Prime Minister's Bureau to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Although submitted "on behalf of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," the letter was not signed by Sharon, nor was it affirmed by the cabinet. It was, simply, "diplomatic correspondence."
Moreover, the letter contains conditions. "The Israeli government believes that further steps by it, even if consistent with the Roadmap, cannot be taken absent the emergence of a Palestinian partner committed to peace, democratic reform, and the fight against terror."
Using this letter to justify destruction of Jewish "unauthorized outposts" raises serious questions:
Does Weissglass' letter obligate Israel to carry out its provisions now while ignoring its conditions? Does this letter obligate future governments? Was the letter approved by the full cabinet (since it mentions only the PM)? Why didn't Prime Minister Sharon sign it? Other than Weissglass' letter is there any other binding agreement to destroy Jewish "unauthorized outposts"?
Asked to respond, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office avoided direct specific answers. "This government is committed to the rule of law, and abiding by the law is paramount to maintaining a civil society." They refused to elaborate.
This begs the questions and shifts the argument to Israeli law and, vaguely, "rule of law."
What, in fact, is Israeli law? If Arabs are entitled to acquire property rights by settlement, why can't Jews? Why do Israeli authorities refuse to give permission to develop new neighborhoods, hilltops and outposts? If the application of law discriminates against Jews, what's the meaning of "rule of law"?
What about the real issues?
The Supreme Court has demanded that "unauthorized outposts" built by Jews be destroyed immediately, but has given over 100,000 illegal Arab homes a pass. And what about the vast "unrecognized" illegal Bedouin villages throughout the Galilee and Negev?
"Rule of law" means impartiality above all; it also must make reasonable common sense. Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" built on unoccupied, unclaimed land are examples of Zionist enterprise and idealism.
They offer inexpensive places to live. Most received tacit approval from government ministries, including the prime and defense ministers, which provided infrastructure and utilities. They tried to fulfill the necessary requirements. They are citizens and members of Israeli society. How does destroying them demonstrate the "rule of law" instead of offering legal recognition?
If providing legal status to Jewish homes in "unauthorized outposts" provides more taxes and fees and serves the interests of the State, why not allow it? How is denying the right of Jews to build assert the "rule of law?"
If the Israeli government is afraid of American opposition, then what does that say about "rule of law?" And, if the "rule of law" is important, why should it be sacrificed on the altar of American opposition?
Focusing on outposts and Jewish building in new neighborhoods of Jerusalem diverts attention from the real issues: the threat of a nuclear Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan's disintegration, the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah - to name only a few. Where Jews can or can't live in their homeland hardly seems to be of such importance, unless, of course, the question is if they should have one at all.
But then, there are other, more ancient and sacred promises to keep.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Jewish, Not Arab, Roots in Judea and Samaria
US Pres. Obama’s demand that Israel not settle Jews in the Biblical areas of Judea and Samaria ignores thoroughly-documented Jewish roots in the Land of Israel, and in Judea/Samaria in particular.
Yoram Ettinger, a former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy, lists in the latest of his periodic position papers some of the evidence showing that Judea and Samaria has Jewish, not Arab, roots.
Area Always Known as "Judea and Samaria"
Ettinger negates Obama's claim – enunciated during his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University – that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in" the Holocaust. For one thing, Ettinger notes, many world-renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries refer to "Judea and Samaria," while the term "West Bank" was coined only 60 years ago. Jordan gave the region this name when it occupied it after Israel’s War of Independence. No nation on earth other than Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s claim to Judea and Samaria.
Among the travelers, historians and archeologists who referred to Judea and Samaria are H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ("Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly"); A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887); E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841); C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861); and Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as official British and Ottoman records until 1950, used the term Judea and Samaria, and not the West Bank.
Land Was Named "Palestine" in Order to Erase Jewish Presence
Ettinger goes even further back, and says that the name "Palestine" was given to the Holy Land for the sole purpose of erasing the previous name of the country – Judea – from human memory. The Romans, whose plan this was, similarly sought to extinguish Jewish presence in Jerusalem by renaming it Aelia Capitolina.
Arabs Came in the Last 150 Years
When speaking of “Palestinian national rights,” it must be similarly kept in mind, Ettinger notes, that most Arabs residing today in Israel – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries.
Town Names Betray Their True History
Finally, Ettinger says that almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following: Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah. Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was suppressed in 135CE. Beit-Hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians. Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Beit El, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court. Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David. Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, in southern Jerusalem, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem. El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground known for his command to stop the sun and moon (Joshua 10:12). Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary) Geva, site of King Saul’s son Jonathan’s victory over the Philistines. Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar. Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress. Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth. Tequa is biblical (and contemporary) Tekoa, hometown of the Prophet Amos.
Arabs Never Wanted Palestinian State
In another of his posts, Ettinger has negated the US government position that a Palestinian state is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that its formation would resolve the situation. He cites proofs from recent history showing that Arab antipathy to Israel not only predates Palestinian concerns, but often sidesteps such interests.
Israel's war for its independence in 1948-9, for instance, was conducted by the Arab countries at the expense of Palestinian aspirations. Though Egypt conquered Gaza, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, and Syria claimed the Golan, in none of these areas was a Palestinian government allowed.
When Egypt conquered the Gaza Strip, it proceeded to prohibit Palestinian national activities and expel Palestinian leadership. Not only did Jordan not grant Palestinian independence to Judea and Samaria, it actually annexed these areas to its own country. When Syria occupied and annexed the Hama area in the Golan Heights, the Arab League outlawed a provisional Palestinian government there.
In short, it can be concluded that Arab "rights" to a state in Judea and Samaria are historically weak and were long ignored by other Arab countries.
Yoram Ettinger, a former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy, lists in the latest of his periodic position papers some of the evidence showing that Judea and Samaria has Jewish, not Arab, roots.
Area Always Known as "Judea and Samaria"
Ettinger negates Obama's claim – enunciated during his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University – that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in" the Holocaust. For one thing, Ettinger notes, many world-renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries refer to "Judea and Samaria," while the term "West Bank" was coined only 60 years ago. Jordan gave the region this name when it occupied it after Israel’s War of Independence. No nation on earth other than Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s claim to Judea and Samaria.
Among the travelers, historians and archeologists who referred to Judea and Samaria are H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ("Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly"); A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887); E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841); C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861); and Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as official British and Ottoman records until 1950, used the term Judea and Samaria, and not the West Bank.
Land Was Named "Palestine" in Order to Erase Jewish Presence
Ettinger goes even further back, and says that the name "Palestine" was given to the Holy Land for the sole purpose of erasing the previous name of the country – Judea – from human memory. The Romans, whose plan this was, similarly sought to extinguish Jewish presence in Jerusalem by renaming it Aelia Capitolina.
Arabs Came in the Last 150 Years
When speaking of “Palestinian national rights,” it must be similarly kept in mind, Ettinger notes, that most Arabs residing today in Israel – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries.
Town Names Betray Their True History
Finally, Ettinger says that almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following: Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah. Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was suppressed in 135CE. Beit-Hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians. Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Beit El, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court. Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David. Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, in southern Jerusalem, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem. El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground known for his command to stop the sun and moon (Joshua 10:12). Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary) Geva, site of King Saul’s son Jonathan’s victory over the Philistines. Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar. Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress. Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth. Tequa is biblical (and contemporary) Tekoa, hometown of the Prophet Amos.
Arabs Never Wanted Palestinian State
In another of his posts, Ettinger has negated the US government position that a Palestinian state is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and that its formation would resolve the situation. He cites proofs from recent history showing that Arab antipathy to Israel not only predates Palestinian concerns, but often sidesteps such interests.
Israel's war for its independence in 1948-9, for instance, was conducted by the Arab countries at the expense of Palestinian aspirations. Though Egypt conquered Gaza, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, and Syria claimed the Golan, in none of these areas was a Palestinian government allowed.
When Egypt conquered the Gaza Strip, it proceeded to prohibit Palestinian national activities and expel Palestinian leadership. Not only did Jordan not grant Palestinian independence to Judea and Samaria, it actually annexed these areas to its own country. When Syria occupied and annexed the Hama area in the Golan Heights, the Arab League outlawed a provisional Palestinian government there.
In short, it can be concluded that Arab "rights" to a state in Judea and Samaria are historically weak and were long ignored by other Arab countries.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
We Dare Not Be Silent
For the past 12 years, I have dedicated myself to raising awareness and support for the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. While most of the world refers to these places as settlements, I learned early on that the term “settlements” was a pejorative one. It was a term used purposely by the settlement movement’s detractors to create an impression that these are temporary sites, easy to dismantle and uproot. In this way, they were able to de-legitimize the historical, Biblical right of the Jewish people to live in Judea and Samaria. After all, the places so ready recognizable to us because of their Biblical associations, Hebron, Shiloh, Elon Moreh, Tekoa, Jerusalem, are the very places that are being called “illegal settlements” by so many all over the world.
Most Christians look at the issues taking place in the Middle East from a Biblical perspective; we tend to see the issues in black and white terms. If God said it, then it must be so. He said ALL the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people; therefore, we take it literally that it should belong to the Jewish people. No questions. Unfortunately, however, there are some Christians who don’t understand the connection between the Biblical truths and current Middle East events. And, perhaps even more painfully, so many Jews, including the majority of the American Jewish leadership, do not support the communities in Judea and Samaria. They have a different perspective about how the Bible is applied to the events taking place in modern day Israel. In fact, that is one of the reasons that we have found such a warm welcome to CFOIC Heartland from the Jews living there.
Of course, the situation in the Middle East is not a simple one and the issues are complex and varied. However, as Christians who firmly support Israel’s right to ALL the land of Israel, we have an opportunity, indeed an obligation, to stand strong on behalf of Judea and Samaria. Our voice is needed now more than ever before.
In the past few years, I have seen a growing trend among Christians to still their voice of support and weaken their stand on behalf of Biblical Israel because they have gotten involved with their local Jewish Federation which, in turn, will not support the communities. Now is not the time to be silent. We have an obligation to stand for what we believe in, and not cave in to the pressures or beliefs of those around us. In talking about this issue with a friend recently, she made a statement that spoke volumes. Referring to her own disagreement with the local Jewish community, she said, “I am here to support Israel, and the American Jewish community is not Israel. If they don’t support the communities of Judea and Samaria, then it is even more important that we should.” Of course, she remains well connected to her local Jewish community and supports their work for Israel. But they have agreed to disagree and she continues to support the communities, even when they don’t.
The lesson here is a valuable one indeed. It is so important for us to speak up and let our voice be heard. We can do it in a respectful manner, but more importantly, we can let our actions speak louder than words. As we follow our hearts and our convictions, we will lead by example and who knows how that will change the future?
Some years back one of our supporters became friendly with a Jew from her area who was very active with the local Jewish community. They had lively discussions about the “settlement” issue on a regular basis. They agreed to disagree and maintained a very friendly relationship. In the course of time, one of our community representatives was in town for a CFOIC event, and she invited her friend to come and hear him speak about the settlement issue. For the first time, this Jewish man was given the opportunity to meet a Jew from the communities and to hear a different perspective on the issue. What he heard shook him profoundly. He completely changed the way he felt about the settlement issue and even joined Sondra Baras for a full-day tour in Judea and Samaria, an experience he truly treasured. And this turnabout could only have happened because a Christian was not afraid to speak up, kindly, gently and respectfully, but resolutely all the same.
There are churches and ministries which are more concerned with being accepted in their communities than in standing for the truth, and they stay away from so-called controversial issues. For that reason, they refuse to get involved with the settlement issue. We have been inundated with the “politically correct” or PC concept. In essence, however, PC is all about making everyone happy. Being PC means not choosing a side, not taking a stand. It is about walking the middle ground just because it is in the middle and trying to appease both sides regardless of what each side stands for. I believe God spoke to this issue when he sent the warning to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:15-16: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
We need to take a stand. We need to decide whether we are hot or cold. As Christians, we have a responsibility to speak out. If we do not raise our voices in support of the communities of Judea and Samaria, then who will? If we are so worried that our local Jewish community will disagree or that a local church will find us too political with regard to our stand for Judea and Samaria that we compromise our beliefs and back down just to please them, who will challenge them? Perhaps, God has put us in these positions and relationships to cause them to re-think long held policies that are in need of re-visiting.
As we speak out on behalf of the people of Judea and Samaria in our local communities, churches, and circles of influence, we can help dispel the misinformation that abounds regarding the temporary nature of a “settlement” and the “fanatics” who live there. We can stand up for what we believe in and maintain a strong voice of support on their behalf. With the current pressure that is being exerted on Israel to abandon the 300,000 people who have made their homes in the Biblical Heartland, we have to stand up and let our voice be heard. We must not let our fear of man or our desire to make friends stop us from shouting from the rooftops what we know to be true. We must continually speak to our pastors, our political representatives, our government leaders, at all levels, regarding Israel’s right to live in the land that God promised and gave to them. We cannot afford to fall silent or let ourselves be muzzled to please others.
“For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)
Most Christians look at the issues taking place in the Middle East from a Biblical perspective; we tend to see the issues in black and white terms. If God said it, then it must be so. He said ALL the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people; therefore, we take it literally that it should belong to the Jewish people. No questions. Unfortunately, however, there are some Christians who don’t understand the connection between the Biblical truths and current Middle East events. And, perhaps even more painfully, so many Jews, including the majority of the American Jewish leadership, do not support the communities in Judea and Samaria. They have a different perspective about how the Bible is applied to the events taking place in modern day Israel. In fact, that is one of the reasons that we have found such a warm welcome to CFOIC Heartland from the Jews living there.
Of course, the situation in the Middle East is not a simple one and the issues are complex and varied. However, as Christians who firmly support Israel’s right to ALL the land of Israel, we have an opportunity, indeed an obligation, to stand strong on behalf of Judea and Samaria. Our voice is needed now more than ever before.
In the past few years, I have seen a growing trend among Christians to still their voice of support and weaken their stand on behalf of Biblical Israel because they have gotten involved with their local Jewish Federation which, in turn, will not support the communities. Now is not the time to be silent. We have an obligation to stand for what we believe in, and not cave in to the pressures or beliefs of those around us. In talking about this issue with a friend recently, she made a statement that spoke volumes. Referring to her own disagreement with the local Jewish community, she said, “I am here to support Israel, and the American Jewish community is not Israel. If they don’t support the communities of Judea and Samaria, then it is even more important that we should.” Of course, she remains well connected to her local Jewish community and supports their work for Israel. But they have agreed to disagree and she continues to support the communities, even when they don’t.
The lesson here is a valuable one indeed. It is so important for us to speak up and let our voice be heard. We can do it in a respectful manner, but more importantly, we can let our actions speak louder than words. As we follow our hearts and our convictions, we will lead by example and who knows how that will change the future?
Some years back one of our supporters became friendly with a Jew from her area who was very active with the local Jewish community. They had lively discussions about the “settlement” issue on a regular basis. They agreed to disagree and maintained a very friendly relationship. In the course of time, one of our community representatives was in town for a CFOIC event, and she invited her friend to come and hear him speak about the settlement issue. For the first time, this Jewish man was given the opportunity to meet a Jew from the communities and to hear a different perspective on the issue. What he heard shook him profoundly. He completely changed the way he felt about the settlement issue and even joined Sondra Baras for a full-day tour in Judea and Samaria, an experience he truly treasured. And this turnabout could only have happened because a Christian was not afraid to speak up, kindly, gently and respectfully, but resolutely all the same.
There are churches and ministries which are more concerned with being accepted in their communities than in standing for the truth, and they stay away from so-called controversial issues. For that reason, they refuse to get involved with the settlement issue. We have been inundated with the “politically correct” or PC concept. In essence, however, PC is all about making everyone happy. Being PC means not choosing a side, not taking a stand. It is about walking the middle ground just because it is in the middle and trying to appease both sides regardless of what each side stands for. I believe God spoke to this issue when he sent the warning to the Laodiceans in Revelation 3:15-16: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
We need to take a stand. We need to decide whether we are hot or cold. As Christians, we have a responsibility to speak out. If we do not raise our voices in support of the communities of Judea and Samaria, then who will? If we are so worried that our local Jewish community will disagree or that a local church will find us too political with regard to our stand for Judea and Samaria that we compromise our beliefs and back down just to please them, who will challenge them? Perhaps, God has put us in these positions and relationships to cause them to re-think long held policies that are in need of re-visiting.
As we speak out on behalf of the people of Judea and Samaria in our local communities, churches, and circles of influence, we can help dispel the misinformation that abounds regarding the temporary nature of a “settlement” and the “fanatics” who live there. We can stand up for what we believe in and maintain a strong voice of support on their behalf. With the current pressure that is being exerted on Israel to abandon the 300,000 people who have made their homes in the Biblical Heartland, we have to stand up and let our voice be heard. We must not let our fear of man or our desire to make friends stop us from shouting from the rooftops what we know to be true. We must continually speak to our pastors, our political representatives, our government leaders, at all levels, regarding Israel’s right to live in the land that God promised and gave to them. We cannot afford to fall silent or let ourselves be muzzled to please others.
“For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Good Zionists, bad Zionists
One of the unwritten laws of war is that the winning side is allowed to do as it pleases after the cessation of hostilities. This law is even more relevant when the victor turns out to be the side that didn’t initiate the war, or didn’t want the war to occur in the first place.
Thus we find Israel, after its victory in a war that it initially tried to avoid in 1948, utilizing its victory to expand its territory. For several years after this war, new communities started to appear on the map, such as Ashdod in 1956, Karmiel in 1964, Dimona in 1955 and Arad in 1962 (to name just a few).
Then, nearly 20 years later and faced with the prospect of an Arab onslaught, Israel was forced to fight another war in 1967, which, like the war in 1948, resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Then, once again, as it had done after its 1948 victory, Israel utilized this victory to embark on a campaign of expanding its territory. New communities started to dot the map, such as Kiryat Arba in 1972, Kedumim in 1975, Karnei Shomron in 1977 and Efrat in 1983 (to name just a few).
However, this is where the similarities stop. For some reason, the communities that were founded after 1948 have always been considered legitimate by the Israeli public, while the communities that were established after 1967 never quite managed to gain the same degree of legitimacy in the eyes of some sections of the Israeli public and are in fact considered illegitimate by some here in Israel.
Arabs make no distinctions
The argument that the latter communities were established in the midst of, or near, large Arab population centers, or on “Arab lands”, doesn’t hold much sway, especially since the same can be said of many “legitimate” communities established after 1948 and even of some communities started before 1948. If this is the case, then what is the reason for this different treatment of post-1967 communities to those of their pre-1967 counterparts?
It seems that the only logical answer is that the earlier communities were founded by the “Good Zionists” (Ben Gurion and friends), while many of the latter post-1967 communities were founded by a different type of Zionist, namely the type that believes settling Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah and draws the inspiration and motivation for such ideals straight from Judaism. This is the only plausible answer as to why this second group of Zionists and the communities they have built have become stigmatized and deemed illegitimate by so many here in Israel.
Unfortunately, what many here in Israel that deem such post-1967 communities as illegitimate fail, or perhaps refuse, to understand is that in the eyes of the Arabs, all of the communities (pre-1948, post-1948, post-1967) are illegitimate. They don’t make such trivial distinctions. Only we, the silly Jews, make such distinctions.
Thus we find Israel, after its victory in a war that it initially tried to avoid in 1948, utilizing its victory to expand its territory. For several years after this war, new communities started to appear on the map, such as Ashdod in 1956, Karmiel in 1964, Dimona in 1955 and Arad in 1962 (to name just a few).
Then, nearly 20 years later and faced with the prospect of an Arab onslaught, Israel was forced to fight another war in 1967, which, like the war in 1948, resulted in a decisive victory for Israel. Then, once again, as it had done after its 1948 victory, Israel utilized this victory to embark on a campaign of expanding its territory. New communities started to dot the map, such as Kiryat Arba in 1972, Kedumim in 1975, Karnei Shomron in 1977 and Efrat in 1983 (to name just a few).
However, this is where the similarities stop. For some reason, the communities that were founded after 1948 have always been considered legitimate by the Israeli public, while the communities that were established after 1967 never quite managed to gain the same degree of legitimacy in the eyes of some sections of the Israeli public and are in fact considered illegitimate by some here in Israel.
Arabs make no distinctions
The argument that the latter communities were established in the midst of, or near, large Arab population centers, or on “Arab lands”, doesn’t hold much sway, especially since the same can be said of many “legitimate” communities established after 1948 and even of some communities started before 1948. If this is the case, then what is the reason for this different treatment of post-1967 communities to those of their pre-1967 counterparts?
It seems that the only logical answer is that the earlier communities were founded by the “Good Zionists” (Ben Gurion and friends), while many of the latter post-1967 communities were founded by a different type of Zionist, namely the type that believes settling Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah and draws the inspiration and motivation for such ideals straight from Judaism. This is the only plausible answer as to why this second group of Zionists and the communities they have built have become stigmatized and deemed illegitimate by so many here in Israel.
Unfortunately, what many here in Israel that deem such post-1967 communities as illegitimate fail, or perhaps refuse, to understand is that in the eyes of the Arabs, all of the communities (pre-1948, post-1948, post-1967) are illegitimate. They don’t make such trivial distinctions. Only we, the silly Jews, make such distinctions.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Judenrein Palestine
by Moshe Arens
What makes the removal of the outposts in Judea and Samaria seem like a mission impossible for Israel's defense minister? Most will agree that they were put up illegally, and like all illegal structures in a country in which the rule of law is supposed to prevail, they should never have been put up in the first place, and they should be removed. But behind the government's intention to remove them lurks a ghost. It is the ghost of the uprooting of the settlers in Gush Katif. The Gush Katif settlers were there for many years and their settlements were perfectly legal - no one will contest that. And yet they were forcibly removed from their homes by orders of the Israeli government.
The removal of the settlers from their homes in Gaza was part of a policy, or if you like an ideology, that cannot be called by any other name but Judenrein Palestine. In other words, certain parts of western Palestine, or using the generally accepted terminology in Israel, certain parts of the Land of Israel, need to be cleared of all Jews. This is the declared policy of the Olmert government, and it presumably is part of Tzipi Livni's negotiating position in her talks with her Palestinian counterparts.
Can you blame many Israelis, including many who do not countenance the erection of illegal outposts, for feeling less than enthusiastic about the removal of the outposts, when their removal is seen as no more than a prelude to the forcible removal of the settlements in Judea and Samaria that were established legally, just as were the settlements in Gush Katif?
The concept of removing all Jews from a certain region is surely repugnant to any person not prepared to deny somebody's rights on the grounds of his ethnic or religious origin. It brings back the worst memories of the tragedy that befell the Jewish people in World War II. When it is applied to a part of the Land of Israel it is also contrary to the very foundations of Zionism, a movement based on the right of Jews to settle and live in their land, a right that has received international recognition.
And yet, not only the Olmert government's ministers, but many Israeli citizens who insist they are confirmed Zionists, and of course those who claim no such affiliation, all of liberal views, subscribe to this concept. Presumably this is because they consider this view to be part and parcel of making peace with the Palestinians. What kind of a peace can this be when nobody Jewish will be allowed to live within the borders of Israel's neighboring state?
The settlement policy condoned by successive Israeli governments and promoted by the settlers' movement over the years created a patchwork of Jewish settlements dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria, and not concentrated in settlement blocs. As a matter of fact, Gush Katif and Gush Etzion were the only large settlement blocs beyond the Green Line, and the former exists no more. The architect of this settlement strategy was none other than Ariel Sharon, who for years urged the settlers to occupy each "hilltop."
And it was he who, as prime minister, so graciously received Talia Sasson in his office when she presented him her report proving that many of the outposts he had encouraged and authorized were illegal, something he must have been well aware of. Both of them must have been smiling to themselves at this meeting.
It is generally agreed that Israel should not incorporate all of Judea and Samaria, with its large Arab population, within its borders. But does it necessarily follow that all areas not incorporated within Israel's borders need to be cleared of all Jews? The Palestinian negotiators currently engaged in the phantom negotiations with Israel's foreign minister are in any case not capable of making and carrying out any commitments.
But when and if serious Palestinian negotiators appear, it will have to be made clear to them that the continued presence of Jews on territory over which they will have sovereignty in the future, and the assurance of their safety, must be part of a durable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. An agreement that does not include such a provision will not be an agreement worthy of being called a peace agreement.
What makes the removal of the outposts in Judea and Samaria seem like a mission impossible for Israel's defense minister? Most will agree that they were put up illegally, and like all illegal structures in a country in which the rule of law is supposed to prevail, they should never have been put up in the first place, and they should be removed. But behind the government's intention to remove them lurks a ghost. It is the ghost of the uprooting of the settlers in Gush Katif. The Gush Katif settlers were there for many years and their settlements were perfectly legal - no one will contest that. And yet they were forcibly removed from their homes by orders of the Israeli government.
The removal of the settlers from their homes in Gaza was part of a policy, or if you like an ideology, that cannot be called by any other name but Judenrein Palestine. In other words, certain parts of western Palestine, or using the generally accepted terminology in Israel, certain parts of the Land of Israel, need to be cleared of all Jews. This is the declared policy of the Olmert government, and it presumably is part of Tzipi Livni's negotiating position in her talks with her Palestinian counterparts.
Can you blame many Israelis, including many who do not countenance the erection of illegal outposts, for feeling less than enthusiastic about the removal of the outposts, when their removal is seen as no more than a prelude to the forcible removal of the settlements in Judea and Samaria that were established legally, just as were the settlements in Gush Katif?
The concept of removing all Jews from a certain region is surely repugnant to any person not prepared to deny somebody's rights on the grounds of his ethnic or religious origin. It brings back the worst memories of the tragedy that befell the Jewish people in World War II. When it is applied to a part of the Land of Israel it is also contrary to the very foundations of Zionism, a movement based on the right of Jews to settle and live in their land, a right that has received international recognition.
And yet, not only the Olmert government's ministers, but many Israeli citizens who insist they are confirmed Zionists, and of course those who claim no such affiliation, all of liberal views, subscribe to this concept. Presumably this is because they consider this view to be part and parcel of making peace with the Palestinians. What kind of a peace can this be when nobody Jewish will be allowed to live within the borders of Israel's neighboring state?
The settlement policy condoned by successive Israeli governments and promoted by the settlers' movement over the years created a patchwork of Jewish settlements dispersed throughout Judea and Samaria, and not concentrated in settlement blocs. As a matter of fact, Gush Katif and Gush Etzion were the only large settlement blocs beyond the Green Line, and the former exists no more. The architect of this settlement strategy was none other than Ariel Sharon, who for years urged the settlers to occupy each "hilltop."
And it was he who, as prime minister, so graciously received Talia Sasson in his office when she presented him her report proving that many of the outposts he had encouraged and authorized were illegal, something he must have been well aware of. Both of them must have been smiling to themselves at this meeting.
It is generally agreed that Israel should not incorporate all of Judea and Samaria, with its large Arab population, within its borders. But does it necessarily follow that all areas not incorporated within Israel's borders need to be cleared of all Jews? The Palestinian negotiators currently engaged in the phantom negotiations with Israel's foreign minister are in any case not capable of making and carrying out any commitments.
But when and if serious Palestinian negotiators appear, it will have to be made clear to them that the continued presence of Jews on territory over which they will have sovereignty in the future, and the assurance of their safety, must be part of a durable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. An agreement that does not include such a provision will not be an agreement worthy of being called a peace agreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)