FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

I knew this was going to happen.

The Jews are now in trouble with both the Turks and the Armenians: the Turks because we are blamed for the genocide resolution’s Oct. 10 approval by the House Foreign Relations Committee, and the Armenians because several Jewish organizations opposed it.

It looks now as though the resolution will not pass the full House, thanks to Turkish threats to complicate the situation in Iraq. Does this mean that the Turks will like us? Fat chance. Antisemitism always plays well when a government wants to change the subject.

Technorati Tags: Armenian genocide, Turkey

Having just written about the International Solidarity Movement [ISM] and noted their concern for international law as well as their desire for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank, I also note the following news item:

Qassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip continued to strike southern Israel on Monday, the day’s third barrage brought the total number of rocket strikes to 12.

Two rockets were fired from Gaza at the western Negev late Monday evening. Earlier, shortly after 8 p.m., a barrage of four rockets landed in open territory in the western Negev.

In the afternoon, six rockets were fired at southern Israel. No wounded or damage were reported in any of the attacks. — Jerusalem Post

If anything is forbidden by international law under any circumstances, it’s random shooting into civilian areas.

The other point is this: what do they think they are teaching Israel about the occupation? The lesson seems to be that if you stop occupying a Palestinian area, like Gaza, you will get rockets. Every day.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Gaza, Qassam rockets, ISM

The ‘realists’ in the US foreign policy establishment continue to push for the US to deal with radical Islamic regimes like Syria and Iran, and with terrorist groups like Hamas. So does the EU, and even some US presidential candidates. But it is just the opposite of realistic.

Without illusions

by Barry Rubin

The alternative Western view of Middle East strategy–so influential in academic, media, and to some extent diplomatic circles—has a six-point program that boils down as:

Make deals with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah; ally with Muslim Brotherhoods; and split Iran and Syria.

The more extreme of those that advocate this approach are sympathetic to these forces, seeing them as more misunderstood victim than aggressive oppressor; the more moderate among them merely think the radicals can be moderated through concessions and confidence-building measures. In other words, they are not really adversaries but either already good guys or can be converted into playing that role.

By this analysis, those who claim these radical regimes and movements are dangerous due to their radical ideology, violent methods, and totalitarian goals are standing in the way of solving issues quickly, painlessly, and peacefully. They are warmongers perpetrating needless conflicts.

(more…)

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-run organization which recruits ‘internationals’ (mostly Europeans and Americans) to take part in demonstrations, interfere with IDF activities, sabotage the security fence, etc. This serves a dual purpose: they can get away with activities for which Israeli citizens or Palestinians would be arrested, and they become passionate advocates of the Palestinian cause in their home countries. Rachel Corrie was an ISM member.

The ISM is committed to a one-state solution, including full right of return for the descendants of Palestinian refugees. The effect of this would simply be the replacement of the Jewish state by an Arab one. Although they claim to be non-violent, they do their best to provoke violent confrontations, and they sometimes act as human shields for Palestinians engaged in violent actions.

In the US, the ISM is known as the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, or PSM. It has connections to other anti-Israel groups such as al-Awda (”the right of return”) and others. It employs a highly effective propaganda approach in which support for the destruction of Israel is linked to themes popular among young people, such as environmentalism, human rights, civil rights, and opposition to the Iraq war. It presents Israel as a racist apartheid state.

ISM/PSM turns the truth upside down, and uses the language of peace, freedom, human rights, anti-racism, justice, and nonviolence to support a project which is being implemented by means of terrorism, which is genocidal in its goals, and whose practitioners are racist, sexist and homophobic.

ISM makes much of its “nonviolence”. But we must keep in mind that what they mean is ‘non-violence in support of terrorism’. In an article entitled “Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada“, ISM leaders Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro write,

The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement…

Recently, the ISM and affiliated groups took credit for causing the One Voice Movement’s simultaneous ‘peace concerts’, supporting a two-state solution, in Jericho and Tel Aviv to be canceled, although the organizers cited threats from terrorist groups. One Voice is an organization whose goal is to put pressure on both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to bring about a two-state solution, and although it says that it does not advocate any particular position, it falls on the left side of the spectrum.

Even this, however, is too much for the ISM, which is uncompromising in its desire to see Israel gone. Here’s an excerpt from an email sent by ISM to supporters, which contains their rationale:

This achievement [the cancellation of the events] is further proof that a clear majority in Palestinian society continues to insist on the full realization of the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, paramount among which is the right to self-determination and the right of return for the refugees, as guaranteed by international law. A just peace can only be attained by completely ending the occupation with all its manifestations as well as the various forms of Israeli oppression against the Palestinian people, in compliance with international law and the universal principles of justice and human rights.

A perfect example of the truth inversion technique, this argument ignores the reason that the refugees have remained refugees since 1948 (Arab rejectionism), the cause of the occupation (Nasser’s failed attempt at genocide in 1967), the reason that Israel continues the occupation today (see the results of withdrawal in Gaza), the reason for ‘oppressive’ measures such as the security fence and checkpoints (terrorism), and the right of the Jewish people, as well as the Palestinians, to self-determination.

A two-state solution that would actually be a peaceful solution could only come to be if the will existed on both sides. I think a majority of Israelis would support it, if they thought it would bring peace and be more than just a vehicle for Israeli concessions that would come back to bite them when the relationship with the Palestinians deteriorated into conflict.

But the positions of Israelis and Palestinians do not seem to be symmetrical. The ISM/PSM is another expression of the widespread view among Palestinians that a) the only just solution is one that does not include a Jewish state, and b) with persistence and struggle on many fronts, they can succeed in eliminating it.

If the Palestinians have another point of view, they should show it to us.

Technorati Tags: ISM, PSM, Israel, Palestinians, One Voice Movement

What are they up to?

The Fatah operatives suspected of plotting to assassinate Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were rearrested last week and are currently being held in custody, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad told Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik during a meeting Sunday afternoon…

According to [Shabak head Yuval] Diskin’s report, Israel obtained intelligence on the planned assassination attempt and transferred the details of the plot to the PA, whose security forces promptly arrested three of the suspects. However, security officials said that the suspects were released two months later despite having confessed to their involvement in the plot. — Jerusalem Post

Israeli politicians responded predictably:

“Even assuming goodwill on the part of Abbas… we’ve just seen a red warning light. Don’t delude yourselves - [Abbas] doesn’t control his own forces. This is neither the time nor the place for agreements [with the Palestinians],” [Likud MP Yuval] Steinitz said shortly after Diskin made his report to the cabinet.

However, Meretz chairman Yossi Beilin told Army Radio, despite the report of the planned assassination, Israel could not “be the prisoner of those elements who don’t want the parley to take place.”

One interpretation, apparently shared by both Steinitz and Beilin, is that the ‘assassins’ were part of an extremist group opposed to Abbas, who appears to favor a deal with Israel (at least, a deal that meets his specifications).

Another is that the whole thing was a bit of drama designed to show Israel what she will be dealing with if she does not come to agreement with Abbas.

As I wrote yesterday, Abbas is pulling out all the stops in trying to push for a settlement that basically replicates the Palestinian interpretation of the Taba proposals: borders close to the 1967 lines, with some land swaps; re-division of Jerusalem with Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount area (they accepted an Israeli ‘relationship’ to the Western Wall); and Israeli assumption of moral responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem, including the right of return or compensation.

Nobody knows how far both sides will go towards a compromise, but it looks today as though Israel is being asked to choose between a very bad agreement or war.

Some people argue that a bad agreement is better than war. But the worst case is a bad agreement followed by war anyway.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Annapolis conference, Abbas, Olmert

Abbas threatens to use his ‘nuclear option’:

Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas is reported to have threatened to resign if the upcoming peace conference in Annapolis fails, paving the way for another round of violence and for the emergence of al-Qaida in the Palestinian territories…

“It was a very tough meeting,” the [unnamed PA] official said. “President Abbas threatened to resign and to deliver a public speech that would cause the US political difficulties and earthquakes not only in the Palestinian territories, but among US allies throughout the world as well.”

The PA official also quoted Abbas as telling Rice that the absence of his “moderate” policies would force Washington to deal with a “third intifada”…

The official added that Abbas made it clear during the meeting that had it not been for his Fatah security forces in the West Bank, Iranian, Hizbullah and al-Qaida operatives would have infiltrated Israeli cities.

“You would have heard about hundreds of civilians killed every day in Israel had it not been for our efforts,” Abbas was quoted as saying. — Khaled Abu Toameh, Jerusalem Post

Failure, for Abbas, means failure to come up with an agreement on ‘core issues’: borders, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.

There are two big problems that prevent such an agreement: first, Abbas has so far demanded much more than Israel can give. And second, even if agreement is reached, Israel does not believe that Abbas can deliver the necessary commitments on the Palestinian side, which would have to include an end to terrorism and a compromise on the refugee issue.

Israel wanted the conference to limit itself to a declaration of principles which would form the basis of an agreement, not the agreement itself.

Possibly Abbas thinks that with anything less than a big victory (e.g., an Israeli agreement to leave the territories, including East Jerusalem, and to at least take responsibility for the refugees), he will not be able to maintain even the little bit of support he has. So he might as well quit if he doesn’t get it.

He also is very aware that he is the only game in town for the US and Israel. What would happen if he walked away? He is at pains to detail this, especially for the Americans whom he feels can squeeze anything out of Israel (that’s why he repeatedly mentioned our bête noir, al-Quaida).

So it looks like either he will get what he wants, in which case Israel will be in a far weaker position when he is replaced by Hamas, or he will not get what he wants, in which case he will quit and be replaced by Hamas.

If these are the alternatives, it’s better to call his bluff.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Abbas

Yesterday’s murderous attempt on Benazir Bhutto’s life in Karachi:

KARACHI, Pakistan [AP] - Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, her return from exile shattered by a suicide attack that killed up to 136 people, blamed militants Friday for trying to kill her and said she would not “surrender our great nation” to them.

Bhutto said there were two attackers in the deadly bombing, and that her security guards found a third man armed with a pistol and another with a suicide vest. Ahead of her arrival, she said, she was warned suicide squads were dispatched to kill her.

“There was one suicide squad from the Taliban elements, one suicide squad from al-Qaida, one suicide squad from Pakistani Taliban and a fourth — a group — I believe from Karachi,” she said.

Whoever was responsible, this was one of the worst terrorist attacks in recent history, and Pakistan’s worst ever, with at least 113 dead and hundreds injured from the suicide bomb packed with the usual ball bearings and other metal scrap.

I am still always surprised when somebody is sincere enough in his (or her) belief that mass murder will achieve their political or religious goals to atomize themselves. I guess I should get over this.

I’m waiting for the usual suspects to say that the attack was perpetrated by the Mossad, or by ‘Zionists’.

Or that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would prevent this kind of thing.

Technorati Tags: Pakistan, Bhutto

Here is a story about how we are allowing our enemies to define us:

PALO ALTO, Calif. — An Israeli-American artist contends that a San Francisco gallery that displayed his paintings dropped plans to publish a catalog of his work after he proposed that the cover title of the collection refer to Zionism.

The artist, Alan Kaufman, said several of his Jewish-themed paintings were rotated on-and-off the walls at the Himmelberger Gallery near Union Square beginning in July. Some of Mr. Kaufman’s works bear the names of figures from the Hebrew Bible, while others listed in a contract with the gallery have titles such as “Anti-Semitism,” “Battle for Israel,” and “Flight of Israel’s Foes.” One canvas is named after an Israeli city near the Gaza Strip, Sderot, and depicts a figure crouched under a Jewish star as missiles fly overhead.

Mr. Kaufman said he and the gallery’s owner, David Himmelberger, were working closely on a catalog of the art as well as plans to exhibit it at other sites, when Mr. Himmelberger expressed discomfort with using the word “Zionist” in the catalog’s title and with essays that included references to Zionism…

Mr. Kaufman said the disagreement erupted on October 8 at a meeting with Mr. Himmelberger to discuss the layout and contents of the 24-page catalog. “He had a printout of the catalog with ‘Visionary Expressionism: A Zionist Art’ in front of him. He pointed to the word, ‘Zionism,’ and said, ‘I can’t do that,” Mr. Kaufman told The New York Sun. “I said, ‘What exactly is the problem? You know what my paintings are about.’”

“He said, ‘I don’t stand for that. … We don’t want to advocate any kind of platform here,’” Mr. Kaufman said. — NY Sun

One is hard-pressed to imagine what Himmelberger thinks Zionism is, since he is obviously not uncomfortable displaying Zionist art, painted by a Zionist (the American-born Kaufman is the child of a Holocaust survivor, served in the IDF, and does not try to hide his pro-Israel point of view). But calling it by its name, apparently, is taboo — or at least very bad for business.

San Francisco, of course, is a center of the radical left, and today antisemitism and anti-Zionism permeate the media and the campuses. So it’s not unlikely that the gallery owner really had very little idea of what Zionism actually is, and what it isn’t — for him, the word probably is synonymous with ‘fascism’ or ‘racism’. This is certainly what he would hear, for example, on Pacifica Radio’s KPFA.

Kaufman and some others are doing their best to reclaim the word:

Kaufman; David Twersky, a longtime editor and publicist for Jewish groups; David Rosenberg, co-author with Harold Bloom of “The Book of J”; Israeli writer Etgar Keret; and Polly Zavadivker, a Judaic studies scholar, hope to turn the episode into a cause celébre that will redeem Zionism as a concept and as a term.

“Zionism is the Civil Rights Movement of the Jewish People,” the five proclaim in a statement. “It is the answered prayer to two thousand years of ceaseless persecution at the hands of unpredictable host nations.” — The Jewish Week

Technorati Tags: Zionism, Kaufman, Jews, Israel

1. Arming the terrorists

From YNet:

[Israeli] Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter warned Wednesday that over the past three months Hamas has equipped itself with 200 tons of explosives, most of which were obtained from the Palestinian Authority [PA]…

“I am mentioning this issue of the weapon transfers in Gaza, sometimes from one street to another, so that we can understand the risks we are taking in the Judea and Samaria, unless we demand that they enforce the law.”

The close connections between PA ’security’ forces and Hamas (sometimes they are the same people) means that arms and equipment that the US and Israel supply to the PA to ‘fight terrorists’ often fall directly into the hands of those terrorists. Dichter says that he wants the PA to arrest, try and jail those taking part in terrorist activities:

“The ease in which Hamas took over Gaza worries me. I demand that the Palestinian Authority enforce the law through police and security organizations, prosecution bodies, courts and jails for convicted people.”

I am sure that he does not believe that this is possible. The implication must be that he does not believe in the strategy of building up a countervailing Palestinian force in Fatah.

2. What do Palestinians want?

Many Palestinians who do not align themselves with Hamas nevertheless oppose the idea of a two-state solution, such as the one that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas claims to want. I imagine that they are thinking as follows:

Israel has been defeated by Hezbollah, and they are unable to do anything about Hamas’ rockets in the south. There will certainly be more fighting in the North and the South, and the outcome will be the same. Ultimately — possibly with outside help from Syria and Iran — Israel will begin to fall apart, and we will get the whole thing. Abbas is an American puppet and his phony Palestinian state will just slow the process down.

What should Israel do in this situation? I suggest that the most important thing is to restore its power of deterrence against Hezbollah and Syria, as well as find a way to stop the death by a thousand cuts being inflicted by Hamas.

This probably means that there will be more war before there is peace. But one can’t negotiate from weakness.

3. Rumors are swirling…

Stories being passed around in Israel say that what was hit in Syria was much more than a partially-built nuclear reactor, that American forces were involved in the strike, and more. Much of it is not believable, but ask yourself this: why would Israel risk attacking a reactor that was, as the semi-official disinformation suggests, far from becoming active? I suspect that some day we will find out exactly what used to be where that hole in the desert is today.

4. There’s already a war in Gaza

Yesterday a Golani brigade soldier, Sgt. Ben Kubany (20) of Hadera, was killed in an encounter between the IDF and Hamas near Khan Younis.

“What we are doing in Gaza is fighting for the security fence,” a military source said Wednesday morning. “Terrorist organizations are trying to harm our control of the fence so that they can use the area to launch attacks within Israel. Our job is to prevent them from reaching this goal, and this is done through daily operations, which are complex, and which also carry an element of risk”…

Recently, the IDF said terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, have gained strength, as seen by pinpoint terrorist activities and confrontations which take place throughout IDF operations. The IDF added that terror cells are visibly more organized, improved, and possess a wider range of weapons. One senior officer described the terrorist cells as an organized army.– YNet

If (when) Israel mounts a large incursion into Gaza in order to stop the war of attrition that is being waged against her, the friends of Hamas will claim that it’s “unprovoked aggression against a civilian population”. Just watch.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Dichter, Gaza, Hamas, Palestinians, IDF, Kubany

Representatives of Israel’s Left and Right have found something to agree about: the Annapolis conference is not a good idea:

The unanimous opinion was voiced by four leading MKs currently visiting Washington for a series of high-ranking meetings prior to the conference. On Tuesday the group met with US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns and Deputy National Security Advisor Jim Jeffrey.

Following the meeting with Jeffrey, [left-wing] MK Yossi Beilin (Meretz) said that the Americans were “creating a situation wherein failure in Annapolis may lead to disaster. It would have been possible for bilateral talks between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to continue. If after seven years of no negotiations at all, this summit fails – it could truly bring about catastrophe.

Failure, Beilin said, would also spell out the end of Abbas’ rule and “give an unbelievable boost to Hamas’ strength.”

Of course, Beilin’s idea of ’success’ would be for Israel to give up the store to the Palestinians. But I think that even he realizes that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is presently too weak to make any kind of agreement that would stick. Beilin would prefer to continue ‘bolstering’ Abbas until he is strong enough to control Hamas (as if any amount of bolstering could bring this about).

On the other hand, Likud MP Yuval Steinitz is more worried that the conference will ’succeed’, opening the way to the establishment of a terrorist state on the West Bank as well as Gaza:

He warned against “signing an agreement with Abbas on Judea and Samaria while ignoring everything that has happened in Gaza over the last two years – we gave up everything and got an Iranian-backed Palestinian army in return.”

Steinitz accused the US of “playing with fire when it comes to Jerusalem. It’s difficult enough as it is to control the city, there are constant attempts to turn the Temple Mount into ground zero for all religious wars. Israeli control over East Jerusalem is the only thing preventing a bloodbath and religious war that could ignite the entire Muslim world.

“If Annapolis fails it would be bad. If Annapolis succeeds we fear that once against Israel will give up everything and receive nothing in return.” — YNet [my emphasis]

Meanwhile, Condoleeza Rice is forging ahead, having met with the Egyptian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister today and apparently receiving grudging support.

It’s hard to see what can come out of this. Israel is unhappy (although PM Olmert puts on an appearance so as not to be called “anti-peace”), and wants only an agreement on ‘principles’. The Palestinian Authority (Abbas faction) has demanded that it include agreements on substantive issues like borders, refugees, and Jerusalem that are so far quite distant from anything Israel could possibly accept. And nobody thinks that Abbas can control even his own faction, so any committments he makes will be worth little.

One bright spot is that Hamas, Iran and Syria have all denounced the idea of a conference. So there must be something good in it.

My own gut feeling is that with the price of oil reaching $88/bbl. today, elements in the US government are pushing to finally fulfill the promises made by Henry Kissinger in the 1970’s that we would reverse the territorial results of the 1967 war.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Annapolis conference, Beilin, Steinitz, Rice

Our UN and the latter-day Barbary Pirates:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Libya, once a pariah of the West, took a giant stride back to global respectability when it was elected along with four other countries on Tuesday to a two-year term on the United Nations Security Council…

The United States, which had used its influence to foil previous Libyan attempts in 1995 and 2000 to win a coveted seat on the powerful council, took no similar action this year, diplomats from other countries said.

This is apparently a reward for finally releasing five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who were held captive since 1999, and tortured into ‘confessing’ that they had deliberately infected Libyan children with AIDS, despite the fact that this was clearly impossible. The nurses and doctor were tried and condemned to death, finally being ransomed in July of this year:

The release follows a deal under which the families of the infected children will reportedly receive compensation of about US$1 million each. The deal also calls for stronger economic and political ties between the European Union and Libya, as well as health aid to Libyan children infected with HIV. — Center for Nursing Advocacy, update on the Benghazi Six

Technorati Tags: UN, Libya, Benghazi Six

Barry Rubin (‘And what do we get?’) points out that most of the discussion about the coming negotiations (as always) centers on how much Israel will be forced to give to the Palestinians. But negotiations are a two-way street, and Israel must get something in return. Rubin suggests that it will be something like the following:

• The conflict would be ended. Over. Finished.
• Palestinian refugees would be resettled in Palestine.
• The PA-Fatah-PLO would energetically work to bring Arab states into the peace arrangement.
• Palestine would block terrorist attacks from its territory on Israel by force if needed and stop the systematic incitement of hatred, certainly on the official level, against Israel.
• No foreign troops would be permitted on Palestine’s territory.

With the exception of the refugee issue — which is really a statement that whatever happens to the descendants of the refugees, they will not go to Israel — all of these are hard to define and easy to revoke. Israel’s concessions, of course, are concrete and likely to be permanent.

But even this will be hard for the Palestinians to agree to, thanks to Hamas and the radical elements in Fatah. And if there is agreement, then these will be difficult or impossible for the weak, unrepresentative Abbas / Fayad branch of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to deliver.

Rubin thinks Israel should take part in the conference anyway:

Is it worth trying talks? Yes. Aside from showing the world Israel’s peaceful intentions there might be small successes. The level of conflict could be lowered, PA-Fatah preserved, international help obtained, Arab states brought into deeper engagement.

I can’t agree:

• Israel’s security has been damaged time and again in the name of “showing the world Israel’s peaceful” intentions. The world could not care less, it simply wants to see Israeli concessions.

• The level of conflict would be increased, not lowered, as the radical elements do their best to sabotage any agreement, no matter how worthless for Israel.

• PA-Fatah will lose status if there is an agreement that Israel can approve of, particularly about the refugee and Jerusalem issues.

• International ‘help’ will mean more weapons given to Abbas, which will fall into the hands of Hamas.

• And Arab states, in particular the holy grail of Saudi Arabia, have consistently used the Palestinian issue as a lever to push for the destruction of Israel. Let them worry about the Iranian situation, a real threat to them.

Today, the best peace conference would be no conference at all. But Israel really does desire peace, and the time will be right when the Palestinians and the Arab nations develop a realistic attitude — one which really and truly accepts the presence of a Jewish state in the Mideast.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Barry Rubin