FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

You may remember the controversial remark recently made by Keith Ellison, our first Muslim congressperson:

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you.” — Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Writing in Ha’aretz, Shmuel Rosner is mystified and bothered by the fact that Jewish organizations in particular are upset by Ellison’s remark (”Why did only Jews go after the Muslim congressman“):

Ellison wasn’t saying anything offensive specifically to Jews, but rather used a hideous comparison to describe the policies of the Bush administration. On some level, the fact that it was mainly Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders going after the Congressman after what he said is even more troubling than the speech itself.

Rosner suggests two possible explanations:

Explanation number 1: The Jewish community is more attuned to misspeak by a Muslim Congressman. The affair is yet another example of the rocky relations between Jews and Muslims. That’s the wrong conclusion.

Explanation number 2: The Jewish community is the gate-keeper for everything related to Nazi Germany. Again, this is even more troubling than Ellison’s words.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum issued a statement saying: “Nazi Germany committed unprecedented crimes against Europe’s Jews and others. Invoking the Holocaust to make a point about the United States is unfounded, minimizes the evil of Nazism, and is an offense to its victims.” But Ellison wasn’t mentioning the holocaust specifically; he was talking about the burning of the Reichstag, and the imprisonment of political rivals (communists).

But neither of these is correct, and I’m surprised that Rosner missed explanation number 3:

The Reichstag fire was probably set by Marinus van der Lubbe, an admitted communist sympathizer (who was not at that time a member of the Communist Party), who was executed for the crime. Although Hitler tried to show that the fire was set as part of a wider plot involving the Communist Party, this is very doubtful. However, Hitler used this ‘plot’ as a pretext to issue a decree suspending most civil liberties in Germany.

It has been suggested that van der Lubbe was helped by Nazi agents provocateurs, or even that the Nazis set the fire themselves, although there is no definite proof. However — and this is the important point — this is very widely believed.

So most people will assume that Ellison is implying that the Bush Administration not only made use of 9/11, but were complicit in it, despite the creative ambiguity of the last sentence in the quotation.

This is a pretty outrageous statement, but what does it have to do with Jews?

Unfortunately, far too much. When I Google “Jews 9/11″ I get 1.6 million hits; some of them debunk the conspiracy theories, but many (a large majority of the first few pages) assert that 9/11 was an inside job, variously involving the Bush Administration, Israel, the Mossad, the Elders of Zion, etc. Such theories are widespread throughout the world and the US. Jewish concern about 9/11 conspiracy theories is quite understandable.

So although we don’t know what Keith Ellison was thinking when he made his statement, we know that it lent support to some of the darkest corners of hatred out there (if you don’t believe me, go ahead and Google ‘Jews 9/11′).

Technorati Tags: keith Ellison, Jews, 9/11, Reichstag, Bush administration

An Najah University, in Schechem (Nablus) on the West Bank has always been a militant place, having had no less than 19 ‘martyr’ alumni (although I don’t know if they graduated before exploding). Recently there was some controversy when Manchester University in the UK “twinned” with An Najah.

An Najah was also in the news in 2001, when students created an ‘art’ exhibition which included a bloody replica of the bombed Sbarro pizza restaurant in which 15 people were killed and 130 injured.

The exhibit’s main attraction was a room-sized re-enactment of the bombing at Sbarro. The installation featured broken furniture splattered with fake blood and human body parts as well as an idolized portrait of the suicide bomber holding a Koran and an automatic rifle. Also featured in the exhibition is a room with mannequins dressed as suicide bombers carrying automatic rifles in one hand and the Koran in the other, and aside another mannequin dressed up to resemble an Orthodox Jew with a taped voice quoting from the Muslim Hadith: “O believer, there is a Jewish man behind me. Come and kill him.” — Wikipedia

Yesterday Hamas and Fatah supporters among An Najah students lit into each other, bringing an immediate response from Fatah ’security’ forces:

Three people were wounded by live fire, including one who was shot in the head and was in critical condition, doctors said. Others suffered beating injuries.

The clash began when Hamas supporters staged a sit-in on campus and raised their movement’s green flags. Fatah activists demanded that the Hamas flags be removed, and a fistfight erupted.

At some point, dozens of Palestinian security officers broke into the university and opened fire, the witnesses said. They were joined by about two dozen gunmen in civilian dress. — Jerusalem Post

The harsh response was undoubtedly intended to send a message to Hamas that agitation leading to a putsch in the West Bank, as happened in Gaza, won’t be tolerated. My feeling is that if there is an attempt to execute a coup, Fatah will need the help of the IDF to put it down.

Technorati Tags: An Najah, Hamas, Fatah, West Bank, Nablus, Schechem

The Jerusalem Post reports:

In a report to be published on Tuesday, a subcommittee of the House of Lords’ European Union Committee said that the EU should avoid an “undesirably rigid” approach to dealing with Hamas that would risk undermining progress in building viable and democratic Palestinian institutions, a prerequisite, they say, for any peace settlement…

A spokesman for the Foreign Affairs subcommittee, one of seven subcommittees of the European Union Committee, said that Hamas must be “clear on renouncing violence” and that while pressure should be put on the group to recognize Israel and accept previous agreements, “progress should not be scuppered because of this.”

Two things should be clear: first, recognition is not just a side issue, it is the issue. And second, Hamas will never agree to recognize Israel (other than in the trivial sense of admitting its physical existence).

Recognition is a big deal because it goes against both the general Arab narrative of the conflict, and the specific Islamic sensitivities of Hamas.

In the Arab narrative, the Jews have no legitimacy in the Middle East. They are no different than bandits that steal your horse. They showed up from Europe and took the Palestinians’ land. Recognition implies that they have a right — in some way, shape or form — to be there at all.

From an Islamic point of view, such as that of Hamas, the problem is multiplied. Not only are they bandits, they are not Muslims — so how can they be allowed to hold any Muslim land or rule over any Muslims?

Hamas is an organization that came into being specifically to fight the Jews, not to govern the Palestinians. Hamas simply exists for the sake of the jihad it believes is obligatory. Take away the jihad and Hamas vanishes.

So consider the three principles of the Road Map: Recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements (the Oslo accord, which implies an acceptance of Israel’s right to exist) are simply out of the question for Hamas, as the House of Lords seems to realize.

What about renunciation of violence?

Here there’s room for confusion, which Hamas wishes to exploit. Since ‘jihad’ for Hamas means armed struggle, and jihad is obligatory, there can be no permanent renunciation of violence. Hamas is prepared under some conditions to agree to a long-term but temporary truce, or hudna. Nevertheless, it is essential to a hudna that it is temporary.

Israel must not permit herself to be forced to make agreements with Hamas. There can be no real ground of agreement between to be and not to be.

Technorati Tags: Hamas, Israel, Road Map

A new permanent page has been added to FresnoZionism.org, called “Zionism — What it is and isn’t“. Have a look, and comment if you wish.

Another technical note: recently I added LGF Headlines to the sidebar. Regardless of what you may think of the ideology or the tone of Little Green Footballs, it is possibly the most up-to-date source of breaking news in many areas of particular interest, such as the Middle East and terrorism.

The NY Times reports:

JERUSALEM, July 22 — Israel’s Education Ministry announced Sunday that it had approved a textbook for use in the state’s Arab schools that for the first time described Israel’s 1948 war of independence as a “catastrophe” for the Arab population…

The Arabic version of a new book for a third-grade course on homeland, society and citizenship, states that “some of the Palestinians fled and some were expelled following the War of Independence” and that “many Arab-owned lands were confiscated,” said an Education Ministry official, Dalia Fenig. It refers to the establishment of Israel as a catastrophe [nakba — ed] for the Palestinians.

The book also reflects the Jewish version of the establishment of the state, as have previous books for the Arab curriculum, including the fact that the Arab parties rejected the 1947 United Nations partition plan for Palestine while the Jews were willing to accept it…

The education minister, Yuli Tamir, of the left-leaning Labor Party, told Israel Radio that there were two populations in Israel, Jewish and Arab, and that “the Arab public deserves to be allowed to express its feelings.” [my emphasis]

Of course the outcome of the 1948 war was bad for the Palestinians. The war was the culmination of almost fifty years of violence against Jews in Palestine, and finally — with the help of neighboring Arab nations — they were on the verge of throwing them out. But they didn’t succeed, and so they suffered.

But the word ‘nakba‘ to the Palestinians refers to much more than a ‘catastrophe’; it denotes the mythical event in which a Zionist conspiracy stole their land, murdered and expelled innocents. The truth is different and more complicated, but there is no other way a Palestinian will understand this term, and there is no room in it for Palestinian responsibility, historical accuracy, or Jewish legitimacy.

It’s as though I wrote a German history book and said, “in 1945, Germany suffered a horrible catastrophe at the hands of the Russians, the Americans, and the British”. In one sense it is true; in another, false. It’s actually much worse than this, because of the Palestinians’ understanding of ‘nakba‘.

But the Hebrew version of the third-grade book does not include the Palestinian version of the events of 1948. Ms. Fenig said that while the Arabic translation was adjusted to address Arab sensitivities and culture, Jewish third graders were considered too young to cope with the conflicting narratives.

I suspect that there may have been some thought that the Jewish parents would not be able to cope, either.

In any event, should the State of Israel aid in “expressing the feelings” of the Arab population when these “feelings” are an ahistorical account of the founding of the state which delegitimizes it? What is the next step for an Arab population with these “feelings”?

The same Times article gives us a possible answer, describing another group of Palestinians with strong feelings:

Later on Sunday, three rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel. One fell outside a college near the Israeli border town of Sderot, slightly wounding one woman, and another fell in the grounds of a school in the town. The third landed in an open area, causing no damage, army officials said. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the rocket fire.

Update [24 July 1012 PDT]:

Why do I ever read the New York Times? The report apparently is false. The Jerusalem Post editorial staff, certainly no friend of post-Zionism, describes the actual content of the book as follows:

Unit 3 of the Arabic version is titled “This Land is our Homeland.” Sticking carefully to basic facts, this chapter weaves together the Jewish and Arab perspectives on the Zionist enterprise. It explains why the Jews came to this land, why they wanted a state, how the Arabs reacted, and how the War of Independence started with the refusal of Arab side to accept the UN partition plan and with the invasion of five Arab armies.

The controversial line reads: “The Arabs call the war ‘nakba,’ a war of disaster and loss, while the Jews call it ‘The War of Independence.’”

Contrary to the impression given by the headline in The New York Times (”In Arabic Textbook, Israel Calls ‘48 War Catastrophe for Arabs”) and by some of the critics, the textbook does not itself endorse or justify the use of the term “nakba.” Anyone reading the chapter would conclude that Jews and Arabs suffered greatly from a war that the Arab side chose and started.

Indeed, the text seems to be written to help persuade an Israeli Arab third-grader who was being told by much of his surroundings that the Jews are interlopers who stole his land that there is another way of looking at things. Far from presenting the Arab “narrative,” the text seems to be designed to open minds to the Jewish narrative, while including accurate points of reference, such as the costs of the war, that might help reconcile the distortions these students receive from their environment with the facts.

I apologize to the Israeli Education Ministry for accepting this account at face value, and I apologize to my readers for depending on a source as untrustworthy as the New York Times.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, nakba

There are all kinds of anti-Israel bias in news reporting, from the honest one-sidedness found, for example, on Aljazeera or Pacifica Radio, to the subtle manipulation by selective use of emotional content as practiced by NPR.

The BBC is somewhere in between, including correspondent Barbara Plett who famously ’started to cry’ when the helicopter carrying mortally ill Yasser Arafat took off from Ramallah.

And of course there was Alan Johnston, who did his best to ‘tell the Palestinian story’ from Gaza until one of the militias, in an act of profound ingratitude, kidnapped him and held him for ransom over several months.

But anecdotal evidence of bias is just that. The BBC claims (as does NPR) that overall their reportage is balanced. Now Honest Reporting has analyzed the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past half-year, and showed conclusively that the style used in headlines and text, and the voices — Israeli or Palestinian — chosen to present the human side of the news, are steeply slanted in one direction.

You can read Honest Reporting’s critique of the BBC here.

Technorati Tags: BBC, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Plett, Johnston

David Forman (”A Liberal’s Lament“) laments that

Since the onset of the second intifada, the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas’s takeover of Gaza, the encroachment of Hizbullah, I am fighting forces within me that are edging to the political right - all the while desperately holding on to a progressive philosophical mindset. In the deepest recesses of my being, I am finding it difficult to maintain my usual equilibrium.

I am constantly doing battle with two competing inclinations - one to preserve my body (my physical well-being) and one to preserve my soul (my moral integrity). And, right now, the urges of my body seem to be getting the upper hand…

How do I maintain a sense of justice for Palestinians whose freedoms have been compromised under Israel’s 40-year occupation and continue to advocate for their human rights, when I know they are being swept up by a pan-Islamism characterized by Islamist extremism? No wonder the Israeli Left has gone underground. Many of our cherished values have gone up in smoke.

We hate the security barrier because it steals Palestinian lands, divides villages and separates families, but we sleep better knowing our children no longer play Russian roulette with their lives when they venture out in public. We deplore targeted assassinations, but when the IDF kills terrorists on their way to fire rockets into Sderot, we breathe a sigh of relief - even if innocent Palestinians are caught in the cross fire.

Does this mean that Forman and others like him have finally understood that they have misread the intentions of the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Iranians — and indeed much of the world — toward the Jews and Israel?

After all, Forman adds,

Everything that those who opposed the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza predicted would happen has happened. Hizbullah in the north and Hamas in the south are squeezing us and, at a moment’s notice, could wreak havoc upon the country. The internecine fighting in Gaza, where Palestinians killed each other with impunity, proved a harsh reality: These Muslim fanatics are out for anyone’s blood that gets in the way of their ultimate goal - spilling the last drop of Jewish blood.

So what’s an Israeli liberal Jew to do - turn to our leftist sympathizers abroad to gain some perspective and objectivity? Who are they - the American Center for Constitutional Rights that has issued warrants for the arrest of Moshe Ya’alon and Avi Dichter for war crimes; the International Solidarity Movement or the Christian Peacemaker Teams whose Web sites are veritable wellsprings of anti-Semitic drivel?

If he previously had trouble understanding history, does he now — as a result of current events and personal danger — finally get it? Fat chance.

The arrogance of his tone gives a clue. A struggle between body (right-wing territory) and soul (belonging to the Left)! As if his ideological opponents have only an animal ruach next to Forman’s Jewish neshamah! As if they are motivated by fear and self-interest, while he is inspired by higher things!

Forman does not say that he was wrong regarding Oslo, the security fence, the withdrawal from Gaza, or — importantly — about who bears primary responsibility for Palestinian misery. Rather, he recommends for practical reasons that liberals start being more careful lest their words and demonstrations be used by our enemies — even though their “moral conscience” is still with the Palestinians (at least the non-Islamist ones):

So as not to further darken the gathering storm hovering above, we liberals will have to temper our views and moderate our behavior. Does this mean that we limit self-criticism and curtail what we say and what we do because our words and actions can supply ammunition to our detractors and to those who decry our legitimacy as a state? Does it mean that we sacrifice our moral conscience on an altar of fear? No! But, it does mean that we must carefully weigh the possible consequences of our rhetoric and activities. [my emphasis]

In other words, don’t change your beliefs, just be more careful in expressing them.

And he is prepared to acknowledge that at least the Islamists among the Palestinians comprise a threat:

It also means that we who are sympathetic to Palestinian suffering cannot become mirror images of our right-wing adversaries - abandoning any sense of balance [give me a break - ed], thus discounting Israeli pain. More so, even as we concede Israeli offenses, we must acknowledge Palestinian violence and, more importantly, its global implications. With the radicalization of Gaza, surely to be exported to the West Bank, Palestinians are part of a growing Islamist threat to Western stability, and we stand at the forefront of its eventual onslaught. [my emphasis]

What Forman does not say, and what I am almost certain that he would not say, is something like this: “We were wrong in not understanding that the Arabs, including the Palestinians, have been violently opposed to a Jewish presence in the Mideast since the turn of the 20th century, and we were wrong in thinking that the Oslo/Arafat process had a chance. Now we understand that a majority of Palestinians — both Islamist and secular — can be satisfied only by the end of Israel, and are working toward that goal with the support of much of the world”.

The bombast with which Forman presents his manifesto belies its insignificance. While I certainly welcome a reduction in anti-Israel expression from left-wing Jews and Israelis, a deeper understanding of history and events would be even more appreciated.

Technorati Tags: Forman, Israel

In my previous post, I discussed the view of Augustus Richard Norton that the US and Israel should “open diplomatic connections with Hamas”. Here’s a short example of Hamas’ attitude toward diplomacy, from Dr. Ismail Radwan on Palestinian Authority TV this March.

[youtube jxErvEzfoO0 nolink]

Technorati Tags: Hamas

Augustus Richard Norton is a high-powered scholar with numerous books and articles about Middle Eastern politics under his belt. He is fluent in Arabic, and in 1981-2 he served with UNIFIL in Lebanon as a liason to the Shia population. He was a contributor to the Iraq Study Group. His 1988 article on Shiite Islam is worth reading.

Having said that (you knew it was coming), he has recently written a more-or-less friendly book about Hezbollah (read Jonathan Schanzer’s review of Hezbollah: A Short History here).

And his idea of appropriate US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians is disastrous. Here are Norton’s recommendations for our Israel/Palestinian policy:

(more…)

Some of our local Hadassah women traveled to New York for their annual convention, where one of the speakers was “Muslim refusenik” Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam Today. Here’s a report from one of them.

By Lise Rosenthal

I don’t think I’ve been so excited since my cousin got us tickets to see the Beatles in Candlestick Park in 1966. What is it about this woman? There are other voices—not many, not enough, but some—calling for an Islamic Reformation, but Manji’s voice slices through the rhetoric, the excuses, the blame throwing and the posturing, like Alexander’s sword through the Gordian knot.

I think it’s her optimism. She’s not asking Islam to be something it’s not. She’s insisting that it be what, in her view, the Prophet intended—demanded—that it be. Speaking on a panel with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, and author and BBC commentator Douglas Murray, Manji took issue with the term “moderate Muslim.” “The Moderate Muslim is part of the problem,” she explained. “He denounces violence but denies the role that Islam plays in the violence.”

(more…)

Hamas is not going to give up its dream of an Islamic state in place of Israel. It is not going to become ‘moderate’, it is not going to be controlled by a satellite Palestinian Authority, and it is fully focused on war:

“In the two years since the IDF left the Philadelphi Corridor (along the border between Gaza and Egypt), Hamas has leapt forward by a generation,” a senior IDF officer said in a briefing.

The relative quiet in Gaza in the past month has been maintained by Hamas only in order to be able to build up its forces and arsenal more easily, he said. “Sooner rather than later, there will be Katyusha rockets in Gaza. If they already possess missiles 115 mm in diameter, Katyushas are only a matter of time.”

Hamas has built a de facto army, the officer added, noting that their forces number from 12,000 to 13,000, with a clear command structure and training regime.

“Hamas already has four trained divisions… It also has forces specializing in various types of combat. An additional element is the hundreds of operatives traveling to Iran in order to acquire new (military) knowledge to bring back to Gaza.” — YNet

Since Israel gave up control of the border between Gaza and Egypt, the flow of weapons and explosives to Hamas has been massive. The international boycott of Hamas has not prevented Iran and Syria (and possibly other Arab states) from building up Hamas’ fighting ability, even while civilians suffer shortages. Hamas has been building fortifications like those in South Lebanon, and may also have antiaircraft and antitank weapons.

This situation cannot get better by itself, and it cannot be solved by any imaginable diplomatic activity. Every day Hamas gets stronger. And it’s impossible to consider Hamas in isolation: when war comes it may also involve Hezbollah, which has not been sitting still either.

We should also keep in mind that at some point, the Fatah army being built in the West Bank by the ill-conceived US plan to “bolster” the Palestinian authority will become a threat.

And I haven’t mentioned the Iranian threat to provide a nuclear umbrella to protect Hamas and Hezbollah. How much time is left before this becomes a deterrent?

Israelis really hate war and the idea of war, despite the propaganda coming daily from their enemies. But if war is inevitable, then it’s best to fight at a time and place of one’s choosing, and to have the advantage of surprise (as in 1967).

Israel needs time to correct the problems in the army and in “home front” defense that were made apparent in the war last summer. Israel must also find a way to deter Hezbollah and other forces from joining the fight, or neutralizing them if they do. But the time available is not unlimited.

Let’s hope Israel’s leadership is thinking in these terms.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas

It’s time for some clarity regarding the relationship of the Bush administration to Saudi Arabia — in terms of the national interest of the US as well as the consequences for Israel.

A complete discussion of Saudi influence in the US is beyond the scope of a blog post, but it’s well known that it is enormous — both in the private and government spheres.

Jimmy Carter’s Saudi funding — both for the Carter Center and for, shall we say, more personal needs, is well known. It’s also common knowledge that Saudi money has built and supported mosques throughout the nation, mosques where political as well as religious doctrine is propagated.

The House of Saud has developed a technique of gaining influence over the US government that Daniel Pipes calls “preemptive bribing“:

A hint of the problem comes from none other than Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The Washington Post reports that he boasted of his success at cultivating powerful Americans: “If the reputation . . . builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you’d be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office.”

The extent of this practice is remarkable:

[Former CIA case officer Robert] Baer notes that every Washington think tank has taken Saudi money, as have numerous lobbyists, PR firms, lawyers, and every presidential library of the last thirty years. Nor is this all.

Despite CIA censorship, [Baer’s book] Sleeping With The Devil reveals that there is hardly a living former CIA director, assistant secretary of state for the Near East, White House staffer, or member of Congress who hasn’t ended up on the Saudi payroll in one way of another. “At the corporate level, almost every Washington figure worth mentioning has served on the board of at least one company that did a deal with Saudi Arabia.” — Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Nor are the media free of Saudi influence. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns large stakes in Time Warner and even Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

The Bush family and administration is especially close to the Saudis. Adviser James Baker’s law firm represents the Saudi government and he was senior counsel to the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm with large investments in Saudi Arabia. Former President George H. W. Bush was a Carlyle Group Adviser and is a large shareholder. Indeed, representatives of the Bin Laden family were in Washington for Carlyle’s annual meeting on 9/11 (and were allowed to leave the country shortly thereafter, as Michael Moore gleefully pointed out in “Fahrenheit 911″).

The Saudi kingdom’s support for radical Sunni Islamism should be worrisome to the US, which is one of its prime targets. And Saudi Arabia’s influence on US policy, such as the decision to invade Iraq (for which some blame Israel!), is a highly dangerous aspect of the relationship.

The President’s new Israel/Palestine policy, as enunciated in his speech yesterday, also shows traces of the Saudi hand, probably by way of James Baker. There’s no doubt that the President’s adoption of the highly unbalanced Arab (Saudi) Initiative represents that Saudi point of view, as does the build-up of a powerful Fatah army as a counterforce to the Iranian/Syrian supported Hamas.

As I wrote Monday, the development of a massive Fatah army in the West Bank is terribly dangerous for Israel, and will not result in the elimination of Hamas or its conversion into a moderate force, as the plan’s proponents seem to suggest.

If the US wants a two-state solution which includes a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel, a huge military buildup of forces opposed to the existence of Israel is not the way to achieve it.

But one can see the Saudi vision of ‘peace’ in this proposal: the Israeli state forced back to 1967 borders, forced to take in Palestinian ‘refugees’, and forced to accept a powerful enemy, armed and financed by the US and perhaps the Saudis, sitting in the West Bank a few miles from her population centers.

Technorati Tags: Saudi Arabia, George Bush, James Baker, Iraq, Israel