FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

With all the discussion of Israeli concessions and Palestinian states — Carolyn Glick has a good article here — we shouldn’t forget the basis of the conflict, or who we are dealing with:

[Security] sources said Hamas activists believe they cannot keep Israeli hostages out of the Shin Bet and Palestinian Authority’s reach for long. So they plan to kill them, abduct and bury the bodies, then negotiate returning them to Israel…

On September 1, a day after a Hamas cell murdered four Israelis near the Beit Hagai settlement in the Hebron area, another cell opened fire at an Israeli couple from Ma’aleh Efraim in a car on the road to the Rimonim settlement east of Ramallah. The terrorists overtook Moshe and Shira Moreno’s car and opened fire at them.

At this stage their plan went wrong. The AK-47 (“Kalashnikov”) rifle the attackers were using jammed and the couple, although injured, jumped out of the car and rolled down the wadi beside the road. The terrorists stopped their car and approached the Israeli vehicle. When they saw it was empty they took a bag containing documents from the car and fled. The couple hid in the wadi and were saved by the darkness. The husband was moderately injured and his wife lightly injured…

The interrogated militants [sic] said they had intended to kill their targets and abduct the bodies. They had dug graves in advance near their home village of Silwad east of Ramallah, they reportedly said. — Ha’aretz

The arrested terrorists are presently in the hands of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Historically, Hamas terrorists that kill Israelis have been released or ‘escaped’ from PA custody before too long.

Terrorist activity in Judea and Samaria was suppressed in 2002 by Ariel Sharon’s very effective “Operation Defensive Shield.” Until recently, there were regular incursions by counterterror forces to arrest terrorists and break up terrorist cells. This activity has been reduced and security responsibilities given to the PA in an attempt to ‘strengthen’ it — the theory seems to be that the Arab population will support the PA if it is seen as reducing IDF activity. And of course it is supposed to show that a Palestinian state in the territories will not pose a threat to Israel.

Needless to say, this is irresponsible. Israelis are already paying the price.

What has happened in the past 20 years or so is that there’s been a progressive change on the Israeli side in which things that were formerly inconceivable, like redividing Jerusalem, giving up control of the Jordan Valley, even negotiating with the PLO — today it’s hard to remember that this was once illegal — have become acceptable compromises for ‘peace’.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed on the Arab side, whose position, has actually hardened as vicious radical elements such as Hamas and hardliners in Fatah have become more powerful.

Despite the fact that Israel has made more and more concessions, the Arabs have simply pocketed them without ever agreeing that a ‘peace’ settlement must include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, a commitment that there will be no further claims against Israel, and give up the idea of ‘right of return’.

An agreement without these things is not a peace agreement — it’s simply a massive retreat that invites more war and gives the enemy an improved position.

Now there is even talk about a unilateral declaration of statehood according to the 1949 lines — ‘unilateral’ meaning that the Arabs get the territory and meet none of Israel’s demands!

Time to put on the brakes and to stop giving up land and security ‘on account’, so to speak, in the hope that some day the Arabs will suddenly turn around and start to reciprocate. Isn’t 20 years long enough to learn the lesson that this is stupid? Don’t the statements that Arab leaders — Palestinian and others  — make to their own people mean anything?

Reread the news item above and ask yourself if you want the IDF to be unable to enter the territories. Think about what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza. What kind of crazy logic makes anyone think that continued concessions will bring peace?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas, Palestinian Arabs, terrorism

Sometimes the Quote of the Week just gets me started, but on other occasions it’s so good that I find it hard to add anything. This week’s is like that:

No serious person I know is saying Muslims aren’t up to democracy (and what we’re talking about here is a Muslim issue more than an Arab issue). This is not a question of ignorance or incompetence. They understand the principles of our democracy. They just don’t want them. Any democracy worth promoting is a democracy that runs afoul of key sharia-law principles. Muslims don’t want our democracy because they believe their civilization — including its law and desired political structure — is superior. I think they are terribly wrong about that, but it’s a considered choice and one that is theirs to make.

— Andrew C. McCarthy: No Intervention in Libya

McCarthy gives good reasons for not intervening, particularly that although we don’t know who the rebels are and what kind of regime they would like to install — probably there’s more than one — it’s a pretty universal theme in the Middle East that they don’t want us telling them what to do.

But I think we need to think about a broader question. What people seem to mean when they talk about ‘democracy in the Middle East’ is actually a lot more than democracy, more than a government chosen by the people in some way. What we mean is liberal society, like we have in the US, Europe and Israel, where the following things exist, or at least are generally aspired to:

1. Freedom of information and expression: a free press
2. Reasonable literacy
3. An economy that provides for more than subsistence for most people
4. A commitment to development and peace rather than aggression
5. Equal treatment for ethnic, religious and gender groups under the law
6. A reasonable degree of tolerance for various groups in society
7. A police and court system that’s relatively free from politics and corruption
8. A minimal amount of corruption in government functions
9. Democratic elections

I’m sure you can think of more. Simply dumping a Mubarak or even a Qaddafi may be a start — or it may not. Even democratic elections don’t mean much. In a country where all politics is ethnic, like Iraq for example, elections just allow the majority ethnic group to institutionalize its dominance. Egypt today seems to have none of the above characteristics, and recent events show that attitudes toward Christians and women are less than liberal, to say the least.

Note that  proficiency with Facebook is not on the above list. Social media are a tool for communication which can be used to communicate liberal or profoundly illiberal messages, just like the TV or telephone.

McCarthy says “Muslims don’t want our democracy.” I think it might be more correct to say ‘Islamists’ than ‘Muslims’, because it’s possible to be a Muslim without calling for the state to be governed according to sharia (Turkey, at least until recently, has been a secular state of Muslims). But he is quite right that sharia — which calls for clerical rule and a hierarchy in which Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims and men more than women — is incompatible with a liberal society.

After 9/11 there was a lot of discussion about whether there was a “clash of cultures” between the Muslim world and the West. Clearly there is a clash between Islamism, which calls for societies to be governed according to sharia, and the liberal and democratic culture of the West.

Right now the House Homeland Security Committee is holding highly controversial hearings about the radicalization of some American Muslims and the possible connection of radicals to terrorism. Of course it’s important to find potential terrorists and prevent them from acting.

But the more fundamental issue that needs to be brought out into the open between Muslims and others in America is the question of how Muslims relate to our Constitution, and what they think the role of sharia should be in this society.

Just as it is wrong to accuse Muslims in general of being soft on terrorism, it is wrong to say that the main difference between Islam and other religious communities is that they have services on Friday, while Jews and Christians prefer Saturday or Sunday. We need to talk about the elephant in the room, sharia.

Technorati Tags: Islam, Andrew C. McCarthy

1. Get Fuzzy out of the Ghetto.

Recently (“Get out of the Ghetto“) I argued that Israel’s efforts at telling its story were ineffective because of their apologetic nature. Now my favorite cartoonist, Darby Conley, illustrates the problem precisely in the March 2, 2011 “Get Fuzzy”:

2. Area A poetry.

“Area A” refers to the portion of Judea/Samaria that has been transferred to full Palestinian Authority control. Here’s a photo of the sign you will see when you approach it:

And here is the translation:

This road continues on to area

A

Which is under the control of the

Palestinian Authority

Entrance for Israelis to area

A is forbidden

Endangers your lives

Is a felony.

Technorati Tags: Israel