FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

A group of rabbis is organizing a ‘fast for Gaza’, which they call Ta’anit Tzedek (one translation is ‘fast for justice’). Here is how they describe it:

The Jewish Fast for Gaza is an ad hoc group of rabbis, Jews, and people of conscience who have committed to undertake a monthly daytime fast in support of the following goals:

1. To call for a lifting of the blockade that prevents the entry of civilian goods and services into Gaza;

2. To provide humanitarian and developmental aid to the people of Gaza;

3. To call upon Israel, the US, and the international community to engage in negotiations without pre-conditions with all relevant Palestinian parties – including Hamas – in order to end the blockade;

4. To encourage the American government to vigorously engage both Israelis and Palestinians toward a just and peaceful settlement of the conflict.

Where to start? With my annoyance that people who would undoubtedly call themselves “pro-Israel” and maybe even “Zionists” would lend themselves to this? My surprise that so many rabbis would be ill-informed enough to sign on to it? My sorrow that I know some of the signatories?

Some questions for the rabbis:

1. Israel says that the blockade exists to prevent the transfer of strategic materials to Hamas, that food and medical supplies are not affected, that Hamas hijacks aid shipments and uses it for its own purposes or sells it, and that there is no ‘humanitarian crisis’ in Gaza.   Hamas and compromised agencies like UNRWA — whose personnel are 99% Palestinian and the rest biased — and NGOs like Amnesty International — which consistently puts its stamp of approval on Hamas lies and exaggerations — say otherwise. The rabbis choose to believe Hamas and friends. Why?
2. Gaza receives international help via UNRWA, which pumps millions into the strip in direct aid to refugees and payment of salaries for its more than 9,000 employees in the Strip. In addition, the Palestinian Authority — funded mostly by the US and the EU — pays the salaries of its thousands of employees in Gaza, even though they are either doing nothing or working for Hamas since its 2007 coup. Finally, President Obama has earmarked $900 million to rebuild Gaza after the recent war (incidentally, the damage is much less serious than the usual suspects claim). A great deal of this aid ends up in the hands of Hamas. Isn’t this enough?
3. Israel has already communicated with Hamas via Egypt about the captive Gilad Schalit. Hamas demands were so outrageous and unreasonable that even the Israel that freed the monster Samir Kuntar in return for some bones could not reach a deal. Now these rabbis want “negotiations without pre-conditions” with Hamas? Would they have negotiated without pre-conditions with Adolf Hitler? What is the difference?
4. Finally, the US is already ‘vigorously engaging’ Israel and the Palestinians. It is insisting that Israelis living in East Jerusalem may not build spare bedrooms, but has not insisted that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. What more do they want?

The rabbis quote the Torah: “Do not stand idly by when your neighbor’s blood is being spilled (Leviticus 19:16).” But blood is not being spilled in Gaza today. Have they forgotten that Israel’s government stood by for six years — in the interest of peace — while the blood of their neighbors in Sderot, Kfar Aza and other Israeli towns was spilled by Hamas? And that Israel finally acted to kill the rodef [pursuer] that was trying to murder its people?

They also quote the Talmud: “On three things the world stands: on justice, on truth, and on peace (Mishnah Avot 1:18).” The contrast between this and the group’s position couldn’t be more stark:

• Instead of truth, they accept the lies of Hamas.
• Instead of justice, they ask for more ‘American engagement’ (which so far has meant pressure on Israel).
• And instead of peace, they propose actions which will lead to the strengthening and legitimization of the murderous, antisemitic Hamas.

B’ta’avon [hearty appetite]!

Technorati Tags: Israel, Gaza, useful idiots

Is it just me, or does the Obama Administration really make deliberately meaningless statements?

For example — something I’ve found particularly annoying — Obama, Clinton and others continue to say things like “it is time for these settlements to stop.”

Stop what? Stop being built? Stop expanding? Stop existing? We don’t know.

Or how about the vacuous statement recently made by Mr. Biden when asked about PM Netanyahu’s position that he will give the US until the end of the year to make progress on stopping the Iranian nuclear program:

Israel can determine for itself – it’s a sovereign nation – what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

Yes, Israel is a sovereign nation. But what does this tell us about the actions the US administration might take or not take if Israel asked for a green light (or attacked without one)? The answer is ‘nothing’, and other administration spokespersons were quick to make this clear.

On the other hand, here are some statements which are more meaningful. For example,

Israel has to remain a Jewish state and what I believe that means is that any negotiated peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past.

Did Barak Obama say that? Yes, he did, in Cleveland in February 2008. Could we get him to say it again, today?

And of course, there was this, at AIPAC in June 2008:

The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

It’s clear that the pre-1967 borders are not ‘defensible’. So did he mean that they would be expanded to include major settlement blocs? His handlers rushed to defuse the ‘undivided Jerusalem’ remark the day after, but he said it. Today, of course, he is saying that Israelis living in the eastern part of undivided Jerusalem can’t add spare bedrooms.

Finally, here is what he said about Iran at AIPAC:

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon…

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

Sounded tough, didn’t he?

Technorati Tags: Obama, Israel

I’ve talked about the ‘information war‘ being waged against Israel, and how her enemies and their supporters are constantly trying to delegitimize her historically, legally and morally — in order to weaken Western support and clear the path for the physical destruction of the Jewish state that is their ultimate goal:

• Historically, they attempt to revise history to show that today’s Jews have no roots in the Land of Israel

• Legally, they try to prove that Israel’s creation was not justified and that her actions violate international law

• Morally, they accuse Israel as acting for the basest of motives and in the most despicable ways, to show that Israel does not deserve to exist as a nation

While reading the very biased Amnesty International report on alleged war crimes during the recent Gaza war, I started thinking about how they do these things. I’ve discussed the historical revisionism on several occasions (see here and here for example). Today I want to write about how they try to distort perceptions of current events.

They use four basic tools:

1. Lies
2. Exaggerations
3. Facts without context
4. False imputation of motives

Lies are sometimes just stories about things that never happened. For example, it’s said that such-and-such a woman was denied permission to leave Gaza for medical treatment, but upon investigation it turns out that she doesn’t exist.

Or they can be elaborate hoaxes, such as the videotaped drama of the shooting of the boy Mohammed al-Dura. This was particularly notable because of the far-reaching consequences of the story — “al-Dura” became a rallying cry of the intifada — and the involvement of the well-known France II TV bureau chief Charles Enderlin and even the President of France at the time, Jacques Chirac.

The faked ‘death’ of al-Dura

Exaggerations take advantage of the normal tendency to say “the truth lies somewhere in between” when two sides make opposing claims. Start with an outrageous exaggeration when the other side tells the truth, and you have automatically gained ground. An obvious example is the inflated Palestinian figure for civilian casualties in the Gaza war.

Sometimes an exaggeration changes not just the degree, but the nature of  something. Consider the accusation that Israel fired white phosphorus  munitions directly at civilians, a war crime. Israel did use white phosphorus, for smoke and illumination. There undoubtedly were some people injured by the residue which fell from air bursts of such shells.  But the number and severity of these incidents were multiplied beyond measure in Palestinian reports.

White phosphorous over Gaza

Facts without context: Pro-Arab NGOs say that the Israeli navy interferes with Gazan fishing boats. But they don’t tell you the context — that the boats have been used to smuggle explosives, weapons and terrorists.

Half-ton of TNT taken from fishing boat off Gaza

False imputation of motives: Palestinians say that Israel’s actions are always designed to punish and humiliate them, not for legitimate security purposes. Israel is accused of deliberately targeting civilians in the Gaza war. But reports of civilian casualties caused international pressure which ultimately forced Israel to withdraw without achieving its military goals. The IDF was aware of this possibility from the beginning; is it logical that it would behave this way?

Note that the first three techniques make the fourth possible. A noncombatant is hurt — was it an accident or was it done on purpose? If such incidents are rare, you can infer that it is probably accidental. But if it seems to be part of a pattern, then maybe it was deliberate — and the lies, exaggerations and facts presented without context are intended precisely to establish such a pattern.

For example, the Amnesty International report mentioned above includes a number of unverifiable second-hand atrocity stories, which it follows by accusing the IDF of remarkably evil intent.  Here is a quotation from the report with the implications of motive highlighted:

Much of the destruction was wanton and deliberate, and was carried out in a manner and circumstances which indicated that it could not be justified on grounds of military necessity. Rather, it was often the result of reckless and indiscriminate attacks, which were seemingly tolerated or even directly sanctioned up the chain of command, and which at times appeared intended to collectively punish local residents for the actions of armed groups. [my emphasis]

All of these techniques are designed to work together to produce an image of Israel as an outlaw nation. And they are effective, especially when they fall on the fertile ground of those who are disposed to believe — either for ideological reasons, or because they’ve already been conditioned to do so by the massive flow of propaganda that appears in most media today, or from a predisposition to antisemitism.

Technorati Tags: Israel, information war, delegitimization

The European Commission issued a press release yesterday, saying

“…the European Union certainly takes the view that all Israeli settlement in the occupied territory is illegal and that it seriously undermines progress towards a two-state solution,” said Mr. Roy Dickinson, the European Commission’s Chargé d’affaires in Jerusalem. “Yet the economic impact of settlements on the Palestinian economy and the PA’s revenues also deserves attention. The expropriation of fertile land; the settler-only roads which carve up the occupied Palestinian territory, and the checkpoints and roadblocks which exist solely to protect settlements: these all contribute to strangling the Palestinian economy, thus they reduce the PA’s revenues and make the PA dependent on handouts from donors. And it is European taxpayers who pay most of the price of that dependence.”

What are they paying for?

Today the European Union made its seventh contribution this year to the Palestinian Authority’s payment of its civil service salaries and pensions both in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Its contribution of over NIS 71 million (€ 13 million) was delivered through PEGASE[1] and benefitted [sic] almost 80,580 civil servants and pensioners.

Yes, that’s correct. The EU is paying the salaries and pensions of Palestinian Authority [PA] civil servants in Gaza. Of course, Gaza is entirely under control of Hamas, so either these “civil servants” are working for Hamas or they are being paid for doing nothing.

And let’s also ask who are these ‘civil servants’ in the West Bank and Gaza? Are they teachers, doctors, etc.? Well, some of them are. But most are members of the various ‘security’ and police services. It seems that Palestinians need far more police officers per capita than Israel, New York or Los Angeles, despite the much lower rate of reported criminal offenses in their jurisdiction.

They need lots of weapons too. Today the Jerusalem Post reports that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, after meeting with US envoy George Mitchell, approved the transfer of 1000 Kalashnikov assault rifles to the PA.  And there are 50 Russian armored vehicles waiting in Jordan to be delivered. In the past, arms given to the PA have been used in attacks on Israelis — sometimes PA police officers moonlight as al-Aqsa brigades or even Hamas terrorists. And when Hamas took over in Gaza in 2007, they inherited huge quantities of weapons from the fleeing PA forces.

In any event, the European Commission’s worries about the costs of settlements are probably misplaced. I suggest that they worry about the amount of their aid that is going

• Directly to Hamas,
• Indirectly to Hamas,
• To corrupt PA officials,
• To support the militarization of the PA.

I am sure that the total would exceed what the Palestinian ‘economy’ loses to settlements.

If I could grab Mr. Roy Dickinson and shake him, I would point out that

• The checkpoints and bypass roads that he decries are not a result of the presence of settlements — they are there because otherwise the Palestinians will shoot and bomb the Jewish residents. Dickinson seems to accept the Arab point of view that  terrorism against ‘settlers’ is justified, since he prefers removing the settlers to ending the violence.
• Palestinian behavior is probably impacting the Israeli economy a whole lot more, being responsible for the enormous security establishment necessary to protect Israelis from Palestinian terrorism.
• It is not the settlements that are obstacles to the two-state solution. Israel has twice — at Camp David / Taba and during the recent negotiations between the Olmert administration and the PA — offered to dismantle a large number of settlements and compensate the PA for land in the settlement blocs that would remain. These negotiations failed primarily because of Palestinian demands for all of Jerusalem and ‘return’ of refugees.

Technorati Tags: Israel, EU, European Commission, Palestinian Authority