FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Our local Islamic Center is holding a 9/11 memorial program tomorrow. They’ve invited a woman whose sister-in-law was murdered on 9/11, who will speak about it from an anti-war point of view. They are certainly entitled to do this.

I’m sure she will bring up the subject of dislike and prejudice against American Muslims. She will suggest that there is a massive amount of it since 9/11, but she will actually be wrong. Here is a table of hate crime statistics from the FBI for 2009:

Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
2.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
0.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
8.3 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
4.3 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).

There are perhaps three times as many Jews as Muslims in the US. But a Jew is almost nine times as likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a Muslim (nevertheless the example of a hate crime victim on the FBI site is a Muslim). Keep in mind that the large Muslim organizations like CAIR have been aggressively encouraging Muslims to report ‘Islamophobic’ incidents as hate crimes.

Think about what happened to innocent Jews in Arab countries when those countries lost a war that they started against the new state of Israel. Talk about hate crimes! Comparatively, the US has done remarkably well in its treatment of American Muslims since 9/11.

‘Islamophobia’ is used quite loosely not only to mean prejudice against Muslims, but any criticism of Islam. For example, I recall a meeting with several Muslims when the name of Daniel Pipes came up. “Oh, he’s Islamophobic,” the Muslims agreed.

Pipes actually is neither prejudiced against Muslims nor anti-Islam: his position is that the religious texts can be — and are, by some — interpreted in an aggressive, expansionist or violent way, and that there is presently a struggle in the community of Muslims between traditional Muslims and the radicals. But because this implies that Islam is not perfect in all respects, he is considered ‘Islamophobic’.

In the UN, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) has been working with some success to criminalize ‘defamation of religion’, an effort which some see as legitimizing anti-blasphemy laws in Islamic countries. Lately, the effort appears to be receiving some support from the Obama Administration. Of course, the Western position until now has always been that individuals have rights which must be protected, not religions:

The administration is taking the lead in an international effort to “implement” a U.N. resolution against religious “stereotyping,” specifically as applied to Islam. To be sure, it argues that the effort should not result in free-speech curbs. However, its partners in the collaboration, the 56 member states of the OIC, have no such qualms. Many of them police private speech through Islamic blasphemy laws and the OIC has long worked to see such codes applied universally. Under Muslim pressure, Western Europe now has laws against religious hate speech that serve as proxies for Islamic blasphemy codes.

Last March, U.S. diplomats maneuvered the adoption of Resolution 16/18 within the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). Non-binding, this resolution, inter alia, expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and “negative profiling” but does not limit free speech. It was intended to — and did — replace the OIC’s decidedly dangerous resolution against “defamation of religions,” which protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms.

But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.

Liberal Jewish leaders in the US also seem to be worried about the threat of Islamophobia:

“Ten years after 9/11, it has somehow become respectable to verbally attack Muslims and Islam in America,” Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, said Thursday at the Washington event organized by Shoulder to Shoulder, a group founded a year ago during a period of intensified anti-Muslim rhetoric.

“There are very real consequences when entire populations are represented in the public imagination by their worst elements, when the sins of the few are applied to the group as a whole. I have watched in astonishment as prominent politicians, including candidates for president of the United States, have found it politically opportune to peddle divisive anti-Muslim bigotry.” — JTA

I am not sure which candidate(s) Rabbi Yoffie is talking about, or what “bigotry” they are peddling. But I think we are moving dangerously close to stifling free speech when we create a psychological no-go zone around critical discussion of Islam. After all, the 9/11 attacks were committed against us by Muslims in the name of Islam. As I wrote yesterday, it isn’t enough to just blame “al-Qaeda.”

The word ‘Islamophobia’ is a bad choice to describe anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic prejudice, because etymologically it should mean “fear of Islam” (a better word would be ‘misislamy’ or something similar, but it’s almost unpronounceable). It seems, though, that while Muslims are strongly opposed to criticism of Islam, the radical ones at least are quite happy to promote fear of Muslims. There is a reason that random attacks against civilians, like 9/11 or Hamas’ missile attacks on Israel, are called ‘terrorism’. They are intended to demoralize a population by creating fear.

Fear of terrorism is a very real thing. But especially in the culture of the West in the last 50 years or so, fear of being called a ‘bigot’ is also real. And just as we need to defend our people and civilization, we need to defend our ability to speak freely and openly about forces that threaten them.

Technorati Tags: Islamophobia

TV transmission antenna on the North Tower of the World Trade Center

As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 draws near, much is being said about it — ‘where was I when’ stories, political lessons to be learned, stories of great personal loss (the husband, daughter, son that never came back), and more. It’s impossible to escape in local and national newspapers, the radio and TV, the internet.

“Everything changed,” many say. But what changed isn’t the same for every one of us.

What stands out the most for me is this: 9/11 thrust itself in the most concrete way possible — interposed astonishing cruelty, massive destruction and widespread pain — between the politically correct discourse that had come to characterize our national conversation, and the reality that exists beyond it.

It’s as if Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atta, et al, struck a powerful blow which propelled us into their world, a world in which honor and shame are the primary determinants of behavior, in which you get points for gratuitous cruelty (except it isn’t gratuitous), and in which ideology is far more important than economic benefits. In this world, the ‘other’ is often your enemy, and what you do to enemies is kill them.

It’s an uncivilized world, and many of us still don’t know how it works or how to survive in it.

We started fighting a ‘war on terror’, not always against the correct targets, and even today our government is capable of saying only that they are fighting ‘al-Qaeda’ — a relatively small piece of the coalition of radical Islamists that has declared war on us. Even when it was obvious that they were trying to kill us because we were their enemies, government officials insisted that “terrorism is caused by poverty” and similar ridiculous explanations (even your average teen-age gang member understands killing enemies).

We have finally — after 10 years — figured out how to kill members of al-Qaeda, starting with bin Laden, and that organization is staggering today. But apparently our administration still doesn’t see that the coalition of convenience of radical Islamic powers — which includes Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and (more and more) Turkey — is lined up against us, despite their considerable differences.

It’s the ideology, stupid

The cooperation of Shiite Hizballah and Sunni Hamas to threaten Israel should be instructive to us. Until we understand, for example, that Turkey can be preparing to invade Syria and challenging Iran for domination of the region, while still cooperating with those powers to push out US influence, we will continue to miss the point that we are fighting an ideology, not terrorist militias.

The danger of home-grown terrorism is not reduced when we insist that those who practice jihad without explicit connections to al-Qaeda are mentally disturbed or otherwise irrelevant. The facts that there are mosques in the US where radical Islamic views are preached, that some of the largest and most influential Muslim organizations espouse Islamist ideologies, and that many Muslims feel that piety is proportional to radicalism — these are things that we can’t afford to ignore.

Muslim organizations would like us to think that the biggest problem resulting from 9/11 is a ‘wave of Islamophobia’, a backlash against innocent Muslims. Actually, although prejudice against Muslims does exist, it is almost negligible — far less prevalent than antisemitism. But if every expression of concern about radical Islamism, every suspicion that some organization or mosque is imbued with Islamist ideology is forbidden on the grounds that it constitutes an unacceptable form of prejudice — then we will be defenseless against this ideology, which, frankly, wants to kill us.

This should be the main lesson of 9/11: enmity based on ideology is not obsolete. We are at war with an ideology, one closely bound up with religion in the most dangerous way possible. We need to name the enemy, fight it abroad and suppress it at home.

I have to agree with the bumper sticker:

Everything I need to know about radical Islamism I learned on 9/11.

Technorati Tags: 9/11, radical Islam

Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Tayyip ErdoÄŸan. Can he climb down?

Israel’s enemies often characterize her as warlike, or a ‘bully’. In fact, Israel’s diplomacy is often excessively conciliatory — especially in the Middle East, where attempts at compromise and conciliation are often seen as weakness or surrender, and where the goal of Israel’s enemies is not to solve problems but to create them.

However, the award for the most childish display of belligerence in the region has to go to Turkey. After the publication of the Palmer Report, in which the UN (for once) had the audacity to admit that Israel was actually justified in blockading Gaza and boarding the Mavi Marmara, Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador, ended military and trade cooperation and announced that it would support Palestinian statehood in the UN.

All very nice, but the icing on the cake was Turkey’s threat to escort future flotillas to Gaza:

“The eastern Mediterranean Sea is not a region unfamiliar to us,” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Tuesday in his first public comments on measures that Turkey was taking over Israel’s failure to apologize for killing nine Turks on a Gaza-bound aid ship last year.

Turkish forces stationed at naval bases in Aksaz and Ä°skenderun are capable of patrolling regional waters and escorting civilian ships in the Mediterranean, ErdoÄŸan told reporters.

“Certainly, our ships will show up more frequently in these waters. We will see them [there] very frequently,” he said. “So far, Israel has always played the role of a spoiled boy in the face of U.N. resolutions concerning Israel, thinking that it would carry on with this role.”

On Friday Ankara last said it would take action to ensure the safety of maritime navigation in the East Mediterranean as part of measures against Israel that included also the downgrading of diplomatic ties to the second-secretary level. — Hürriet Daily News (Turkey)

Emanuele Ottolenghi has pointed out that ErdoÄŸan ought to read some of the details of the legal case found in the report (which he demanded that the UN produce in the first place):

Because the Palmer Report has recognized an on-going state of war exists between Israel and Hamas; that Israel has a right to self-defense in this context; that the blockade is a legitimate instrument to meet Israel’s security requirements; and that therefore Israel’s blockade is legal; any attempt by Turkish ships to breach the blockade would be an act of aggression. Israel, provided it follows the rules of engagement (prior warning, ascertainment of the vessels’ intentions, non-violent means, proportionality etc.) laid out in the Palmer Report, is entitled to board, capture or otherwise use force to prevent Turkish ships from getting to Gaza.

This is more than childish — it’s extremely dangerous. Does Turkey really want war with Israel?

One of the requirements for a blockade in international law is that it be ‘effective’. You can’t make exceptions and still have a legal blockade. Israel simply can’t afford to have ships carrying tons of arms and ‘volunteers’ or who knows what landing in Gaza. So Israel will enforce the blockade, even if it means using force against a Turkish warship.

Turkey is a member of NATO. Article One of the NATO charter reads as follows:

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Turkey’s warlike threats  obviously contradict the NATO charter. Since the Islamist AKP’s ascendance to power in 2002, ErdoÄŸan has pushed Turkey away from the West and closer to those dark forces which NATO, from its activation in 2001 as a result of the 9/11 attack on the US, has fought against.

Turkey opposed sanctions on Iran, courted Hamas (which ErdoÄŸan does not consider a terrorist group), and is presently trying to ensure that the replacement for Assad’s terror-supporting regime in Syria will be a Sunni Islamist terror-supporting regime that he controls.

It’s clear that Turkey’s NATO membership and the amount of military hardware it has received as a result was a mistake.

Technorati Tags: Turkey, Israel, NATO

On Sunday I found myself ‘stunned’ by the remarks of Hedva Radovanitz, a former officer of the New Israel Fund (NIF) who said that she believed that

in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.

Today I understand that I shouldn’t have been surprised. This point of view is not really all that rare among the Jewish Left.

I suppose the stunning part is the way they can throw away the idea of a Jewish state so easily, when creating it was so difficult. Apparently keeping it may be as difficult or more so.

To my surprise, I received an answer from another former board member of the NIF and a member of the steering committee of Shatil, its “operational arm” in Israel. I don’t have permission to use his name, but he is a serious academic, someone that nobody would call an extremist. Here is what he wrote:

Here’s the problem:

Israel has 7.5m people, of whom ~20% are Arabs:  5.84m Jews and 1.59m Arabs.  Israel is democratic with a lot of discrimination:  Israeli Arabs are kept under control by depriving them of land rights, discrimination in housing and jobs.

The West Bank has around 2m Arabs (also 350,000 Jews, but these are also counted in the Israeli census figures).  They are kept under control by isolating them geographically one from the other, depriving them of all but the most fundamental rights (they can eat and shit, but they do not have freedom of movement without getting permission from the Israeli military, the unemployment rate is 20-40%) and by making the hapless Palestinian regime “responsible” for their welfare.  Their population is unknown, but somewhere between 2-4 million.

The dream of the Israeli right is to hold onto the West Bank and integrate into Israel  (most of them feel that somehow the Arabs will then just disappear). Suppose we succeed in holding onto the West Bank, and suppose that there is neither a massive Jewish immigration nor any return of Palestinian refugees.  As the spreadsheet below shows, in just 14 years, the population of Israel/West Bank will be about 55% Jewish and 45% Arab.   In 2025, the % of completely-deprived-of-civil-rights West Bank Arabs will have risen to 26%.

Now suppose we use the same population growth figures, but shift the date to 2050.  Jews will be 43% of the total population and West Bankers 37%.  Shift the date to 100 years from now, adjust the Arab growth rates down significantly, and you still get a very small Jewish minority.

So now the Jewish people—with a strong democratic tradition—has a problem:  Suppose we exclude the possibility of expulsion of Arab from Israel/Palestine.  If we get rid of the West Bank and manage to integrate the existing Israeli-Arab population (this will drive their birth rates down, and perhaps make them better citizens), then we have a chance of having a Jewish state.  It will have a large ethnic Arab minority, but this is doable.

On the other hand, if we insist on keeping the West Bank, then there is no way that we can have a Jewish state west of the Jordan River.  Unless, of course, we continue to oppress the West Bankers … in which case we will look even more like South Africa pre-1993.  Ultimately the Arabs will rise up and we will (at best) have a bi-national state.

This is the well-known ‘demographic argument’ against keeping control of the territories. Before I discuss it, I want to point out that it does not make the comment of Hedva Radovanitz, quoted above, any less offensive or irresponsible. Radovanitz not only predicted an Arab majority, but welcomed it, saying it would be ‘more democratic’. If her desire for an end to the Jewish state — in effect, a third diaspora for the Jewish people — characterizes the NIF, it is a pernicious organization indeed.

But let’s tackle the argument above, a case for divestment from the territories. I don’t intend to quibble with the numbers or growth rates (although some do).

The first thing to think about is that the argument above does not take security into account. The “hapless Palestinian regime” is the PLO, the folks who have murdered more Jews than anyone since the German guy with the funny mustache. The policy of the PLO, which should be 100% clear to anyone who pays attention to what its spokespeople say in Arabic, is to use a Palestinian state in the territories to leverage the conversion of Israel into an Arab state. More evidence for this consists of the PLO’s unending incitement against Jews and Israel,  veneration of terrorists, presentation of ‘Palestine’ as encompassing all of Israel, refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, etc.

There is also the very real possibility that the US, Europe and Israel will not succeed in propping up this regime, vicious as it is, and it will be taken over by Hamas, which is worse. And there is no assurance that a sovereign PLO state will not invite foreign troops to ‘defend’ it, or be ‘unable to prevent’ terrorism against Israel by ‘dissident’ factions. The withdrawal from Gaza should be a clear warning.

Those who argue for withdrawal insist that there would have to be meaningful security guarantees, perhaps international forces stationed in the territories. But there is no track record in the Middle East for the success of such an arrangement. Think of the MLF in the Sinai that departed at Nasser’s command, or the UNIFIL that failed to prevent the rearming of Hizballah, and mostly complains about Israeli reconnaissance flights  over Lebanon.

If there’s no security, then there will be no Jewish state, regardless of demographics. And I will add that an argument which mentions ‘civil rights’ for Palestinian Arabs but does not mention terrorism or security for Jews is dishonest.

Second, the argument doesn’t take into account the reality of expelling hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in the territories (the number is close to half a million if you include eastern Jerusalem — which the Arabs and many on the Left do). When 8,000 Jews were removed from Gaza, it created a social disaster. Some of them have still not found permanent housing, and all of them are furious at the government for the way their compensation was handled (or not handled). The resources simply do not exist, not in Israel and not in the US, to provide for hundreds of thousands of new Jewish refugees. Politically, it would tear the country wide open.

Third, withdrawal would be an Israeli concession of something concrete in return for words. Once the land is evacuated, it will almost certainly not be reoccupied. If the PLO does not live up to its end of the bargain, or if the regime is replaced by one even more hostile, it cannot easily be undone.

Fourth, a withdrawal represents a surrender of the principle that Jews have the right to live anywhere in the historical Land of Israel. This right, recognized in the Mandate, has always been disputed by the Arabs. If Israel withdraws from Gush Etzion, eastern Jerusalem, Hevron, and other places where Jews lived before 1948 (from which they were ethnically cleansed by Arab pogroms or Jordanian soldiers), what guarantees the right of Jews to live west of the 1949 armistice lines either?

Fifth, the integration of the Israeli-Arab population is a very difficult proposition. Although some might suggest that the increasing radicalization of the Arab citizens of Israel is due to ‘occupation’, a consideration of their own proposals for change — some of which were produced by the NIF-funded groups Adallah and the Mossawa center — indicates that while they may use the words “civil rights” they are in fact demanding national rights, demands which would end the Jewishness of the state if they were implemented. These ‘Palestinized’ Israeli Arabs are not moving in the direction of greater cooperation with Israeli Jews, and it’s reasonable to suppose that an Israeli surrender to the PLO (this is how they would see it) would encourage them to greater radicalism, not less.

Indeed, it’s obvious that part of the Arab strategy, after a state in the territories is obtained, is to leverage the issue of ‘civil rights’ for Israeli Arabs (along with the refugee issue, of course) to “de-Zionize” Israel.

Finally, the argument assumes that the only alternatives are 1) nearly full withdrawal from the territories or 2) retention of  all the land, including the Arab population. But it is possible to separate the Jewish and Arab populations with minimal compromises to security by withdrawing only from part of the territories.

The proponents of the demographic argument will say that all of the above are separate, unrelated questions that can be dealt with. The imperative is to get rid of the territories, they say. But if getting rid of them is impossible or sure to be disastrous, and entails waiving the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in the Middle East, then a different solution to the demographic problem must be found. And there are other solutions.

I see the objective of a solution to be an Israel containing as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible, with no compromise in security. Since nothing is more disruptive than forced population transfer, every effort should be made to keep as many people, Jews and Arabs alike, in their homes (although the Left abhors the idea of transfer for Arabs, calling it ‘racist’ or ‘Kahanist’, it seems to have little trouble in recommending it for Jews).

With this in mind, let’s look at a different proposal for solving the demographic and security problems.

Approximately 95% of the Arab population of Judea/Samaria live under PA control in ‘area A’ and ‘area B’. Most of the Jewish residents live in the so-called ‘settlement blocs’, most of which are contiguous with or quite close to the Green Line. So I propose that we finally replace the arbitrary armistice line with a rational partition:

1. Israel should annex the settlement blocs and areas that are critical for security (e.g., the Jordan Valley and the ‘high ground’ overlooking Israel’s heartland). Some places of great religious, historical or psychological importance for the Jewish people should be included as well.
2. Land swaps should be implemented wherever possible to reduce the Arab population of Israel. For example, the so-called “Arab triangle” around Umm al-Fahm could be placed under Palestinian sovereignty.

Both of these ideas are entirely unacceptable to the Palestinians, so they would have to be accomplished unilaterally.

I understand that some would consider it unfair or unjust to ignore the wishes of the Palestinians. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that the goal of all of the Palestinian leadership, the PLO/Fatah, Hamas, and Marwan Barghouti (may he stay in jail), as well as the Palestinian in the street (according to numerous polls), is simply to destroy the Jewish state and establish an Arab state in its place. Historical precedent indicates that the position of Jews in such a state — those that did not flee and remained alive — would be far, far worse than the condition of Israeli Arabs today (who are probably treated better in Israel than any minority, especially Palestinians, anywhere in the Arab world).

Certainly a negotiated settlement leading to real coexistence would be preferable, in some alternate universe. But here on our earth, Palestinian Arab policy, ideology and psychology have left no room for anything other than unilateral actions leading to separation, and to an armed and vigilant truce.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians

This is stunning.

Actually, it’s completely expected, not surprising at all. It’s like your spouse admitting to having an affair. You knew it all along but hearing from her own lips is … stunning.

Last year, the US Embassy in Tel Aviv interviewed a number of people in connection with a law being considered by the Knesset to require transparency in non-governmental organization (NGO) funding.

It had become common knowledge that huge amounts of money from such sources as European governments and the New Israel Fund (NIF) in the US were flowing to ‘Israeli’ NGOs — primarily left-wing organizations — which were acting against the interests of the State of Israel. A particularly egregious example was the way a group of these NGOs provided almost all of the anti-IDF material in the UN’s vicious blood libel, the Goldstone Report.

Ambassador James B. Cunningham reported on the interviews in a cable sent to the State Department on February 25, 2010, now made public by Wikileaks. The cable includes an explanation by Dr. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor (a source I’ve quoted often) of why the legislation, based on the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is needed.

You should read that, but let’s cut to the chase. Ambassador Cunningham’s cable included this:

New Israel Fund (NIF) [former] Associate Director in Israel Hedva Radovanitz, who manages grants to 350 NGOs totaling about 18 million dollars per year, told PolOff [political officer] on February 23 that the campaign against the NGOs was due to the “disappearance of the political left wing” in Israel and the lack of domestic constituency for the NGOs. She noted that when she headed ACRI’s [Association for Civil Rights in Israel] Tel Aviv office, ACRI had 5,000 members, while today it has less than 800, and it was only able to muster about 5,000 people to its December human rights march by relying on the active staff of the 120 NGOs that participated. Radovanitz commented that the NIF was working behind the scenes through many NGOs to prevent the NGO legislation from passing in its current form. She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.

Could we roll the tape back, please:

She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.

I would like all of my friends here in America who contribute to the NIF because they would like Israel to become “more democratic” to please read that again, and think about it.

Think about the sacrifices made by leftists and rightists alike to create a Jewish state of Israel. How many died unable to reach the land of Israel, how many suffered or died in the wars to create the state and protect it, how many struggled in poverty to build the state in an inhospitable land surrounded by hostile neighbors. The one, single, tiny Jewish state in the world. The one place a Jew is always welcome.

And this woman believes that a Jewish state can’t be democratic enough? That 22 Arab states in the Middle East aren’t enough, there should be 23? That the ‘Palestinian people’ have a right to realize their national aspirations but the Jewish people do not? That everything that the Jewish people created at such great cost in their historic homeland should be dismantled and the Jews sent out to wander the world, living or dying by the whims of ‘real’ nations?

Don’t kid yourself — that is what she (and the NIF) are working toward. Perhaps they imagine that Jews and Arabs could live together in peace, in the new, more democratic, Arab-majority state they want to create. Just look around in the Middle East if you  believe this.

Do not support the NIF of Hedva Radovanitz. Israel is a democracy, although it is not a democracy just like the US. There is a reason that the Israeli Left is disappearing, and that is because Israelis have learned by hard experience — from Gaza, for one example — that concessions and withdrawals do not bring peace.

Live in Israel or support it in the diaspora, but do not help those who want to destroy it.

Technorati Tags: Israel, New Israel Fund, Hedva Radovanitz, Wikileaks