FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

PM Netanyahu has been talking about an Israeli initiative to head off UN recognition of ‘Palestine’:

While there is speculation that Netanyahu is interested in a Palestinian state within temporary borders, with the final borders to be negotiated at a later date, others believe Netanyahu’s plan entails a reiteration of the goal of two states, and the announcement that the IDF will turn control of all the major cities in the West Bank over to the Palestinian Authority, giving it control over some 90 percent of the Palestinian population. Under this plan, the IDF would no longer operate inside the cities, except in extraordinary circumstances. — Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post

The ever-patriotic Ha’aretz speculates thus:

Netanyahu mulls pulling IDF forces out of Palestinian [sic] West Bank

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is weighing a withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces troops from the West Bank and a series of other measures to block the “diplomatic tsunami” that may follow international recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders at the United Nations General Assembly in September…

Netanyahu is still uncertain to what extent the withdrawal would be, but it will probably not include the evacuation of settlements.

(I included the headline from the Ha’aretz article to illustrate their commitment to unbiased journalism).

Now, the PM may not be planning anything like this. At this point, nobody — probably not Netanyahu and his advisers — knows what diplomatic tack he will take to oppose the effort to declare a Palestinian state in the UN.

Nevertheless, the logic behind these ideas escapes me.

The Arabs are saying “we won’t negotiate because we can get everything we want from the UN without giving Israel anything” — no security arrangements, no recognition, etc. And Israel considers responding by saying “no, wait — let’s make more concessions! Let’s weaken and endanger ourselves!”

I expect that the Arabs will accept concessions offered and then continue their concurrent diplomatic whining and violent terrorizing. Why would any other action make sense for them?

I’d like to see a different approach. This one hasn’t worked yet.

I would like to hear PM Netanyahu tell the UN that he is sorry, but conditions are not ripe today for a Palestinian state. Given the danger of Hamas being supported via a newly hostile Egypt, because of the threat from Hizballah in Lebanon, Israel cannot permit the creation of another entity which will certainly be hostile, which expresses its hostile intentions every day, next door.

Surely the UN will understand that with all the instability in the Middle East today, now is not the time to add more (note that this is the opposite of the “linkage theory“).

When will it be possible for there to be a Palestinian state?  It will be when the Arab world is ready to make peace with Israel — when Hamas and Hizballah are disarmed, when Egypt and Syria stop trying to solve their domestic problems by bellicosity toward Israel. And when the Palestinian Arabs are prepared to say, “this is the end of the conflict” (note that this is the opposite of the sequence prescribed by the Arab Initiative).

After the 1967 war, the UN expressed the idea that peace can come along with recognition and secure borders in UNSC resolution 242. Since then, the Arabs have said ‘no’ a thousand times, and punctuated these negations with violence. And every time, the ‘international community,’ often along with Israel, takes another step closer to the Arab position.

But there was nothing wrong with the original one. Secure borders, recognition and disarming the terrorist militias are necessary for peace.

The Israeli position should be based on demanding these things, not on giving them up!

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs

General William Tecumseh Sherman (seated, center) with staff

“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.”

“War is Hell.” — W. T. Sherman

News item:

During Operation Cast Lead in January 2009, maps used by commanders operating on the ground in Gaza highlighted some 1,800 buildings and various infrastructure sites that should not be attacked and next to which troops needed to operate with extra sensitivity.

The list included hospitals, United Nations facilities, schools, power grids, flour mills, food storage centers and various homes and office buildings.

Senior IDF officers have told The Jerusalem Post that new maps being drafted by the Gaza Division in the Southern Command ahead of a possible future operation in Gaza now include more than 3,000 sites that are off-limits to attacks. — Jerusalem Post

This new kind of war that Israel is forced to fight is unprecedented.

Remember that Israel supplies most of Gaza’s electricity and water. I once wrote a satirical piece about a lathe operator in Gaza calling the Israel Electric Company and complaining about interruptions to his power. How can I make rocket nozzles, he asked. And of course the Israeli apologized: sorry, we’re having a labor dispute and the union is applying sanctions.

Very Israeli, but in the history of warfare until very recently, completely insane.

Could you explain this to Eisenhower, to Churchill, to Ulysses S. Grant, to William T. Sherman? I don’t think so.

Now Amr Moussa of the Arab League is calling for a ‘no-fly zone’ over Gaza. Hamas launches hundreds of rockets, fires a high-tech laser-guided antitank weapon at a school bus, attempts to tunnel under the border in multiple locations, three-quarters of a million Israelis have to live in bomb shelters, and the Arabs expect international intervention to protect them?

If you want to protect some Arabs, go intervene in Syria, where security forces are shooting down demonstrators like plastic ducks in a carnival shooting gallery.

I really don’t get it. They get to make war, including the most vicious terrorism against civilians imaginable (Itamar), and we get to … fight them without hurting anybody.

The next war will be like the kind of game I played in the street as a boy: throw a ball at someone and run for one of the designated locations of sanctuary. Touch the fireplug and you are safe.

Blockades used to be legitimate weapons of war. Real ones, in which the enemy either surrendered or starved. Today even a partial blockade to prevent an enemy from receiving strategic materials is considered inhumane.

Turkey called Israel’s response to Hamas rockets ‘disproportionate’ because more Hamas operatives than Israeli civilians were killed. For their information, ‘proportionate force’ in the laws of war used to mean the minimum amount of force needed to achieve a military objective. Since the rockets continue to fall, then this proves that more, rather than less, force should have been used. But the old definition seems to be falling by the wayside, at least where Israel is concerned. Today, anytime an Arab is killed, soldier or civilian, it’s ‘disproportionate’.

It’s as if OSHA regulations (for non-Americans, OSHA is the agency responsible for workplace safety) were extended to the battlefield. Soon rubber bullets or paintballs will be required in all IDF weapons.

There is no doubt that war with Hamas in Gaza (and Hizballah in Lebanon) is unavoidable. Even more so than in previous wars, if present trends are indicative, Israel will be fighting with both hands and one foot tied behind its back.

For Hamas and Hizballah, in a modernized version of Sherman’s famous words, war will indeed be heck.

Technorati Tags: Israel, war, Hamas, Hizballah, Sherman

The scar.

President Obama’s scar has created a lot of excitement among bloggers, some of whom suggest that he may have had brain surgery, performed either by human doctors or extraterrestrials. I’m not speculating.

What I would like to know, though, is this:

Is there anything that could count as a reason for him to not force Israel to give up as much as possible of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to create a Palestinian state?

One would think that the fact that US sort-of-ally Egypt is in turmoil and is likely to soon be ruled by anti-American Islamists or Arab nationalists would be a reason that this is not the best time to weaken Israel and strengthen Hamas.

One would also think that the fact that Lebanon is now dominated by the terrorist Hizballah is another reason, the fact that the Jordanian regime is struggling yet another. Yemen will soon be in the anti-Western column. Even Saudi Arabia is worried. It’s hard to see how Syria or Libya could get worse, but despite the wishful thinking in some of the media, none of these countries is moving toward democracy.

Look at it this way: what seems to be happening is that relatively stable, moderately pro-Western regimes are changing, and the direction of change is to reduce US influence. So what is the advantage of helping to create yet another radical, aggressive and ultimately (when Hamas takes over) Islamist Arab state, while at the same time undermining the strongest, most stable democracy and US ally around?

And if you think ‘Palestine’ will be pro-American because of all the money we are giving their corrupt leadership, you don’t understand the ideology of this leadership, or the power relationships in the Mideast.

I am speaking from America’s point of view here. From Israel’s, it’s even worse. Instead of facing heavily armed terrorist proxies on two sides, it will be three (if Arabs could breathe in water, it would certainly be four).

There is only one explanation for this. The Obama Administration does not expect Israel to survive and has decided that its future lies with the Muslim bloc. So it is making the best of a bad deal — after all, it’s hard to ignore all the anti-American propaganda in the region — and, within limits set by its desire to prevent a revolt by pro-Israel voters in the US, encouraging Israel’s demise while pretending to support it.

That is the only way to understand why the administration is very concrete about what it wants Israel to give up, and very vague about how its security requirements will be met. International guarantees, peacekeeping forces, etc. have never worked to keep peace when one of the parties doesn’t want to be peaceful. In the most polite terms possible, these promises are bullshit.

Here’s what’s behind the scar: Obama and his team are prepared to sacrifice Israel for Peace In Our Time. If  Israeli policymakers don’t understand this by now, the state is in trouble.

Americans: the loss of Israel would mean the loss of the Middle East to radical Islam. If you don’t think radical Islam is a real threat to the US, and indeed, to Western civilization, if you want the US to be the kind of nation that allies with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, then go ahead, re-elect Barack Obama.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama administration, appeasement

Barry Rubin’s blog is here: http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/
This article didn’t fit, so I’m honored to make it available here. What he writes is quite upsetting — here in the US it hasn’t gotten to this point yet.

Some European Intellectuals Go Insane With Hatred

By Barry Rubin

People in English-speaking countries are often horrified and outraged by what’s published in their language’s mass media. They have no idea what’s being published in other European languages!

This article isn’t typical but it shows the kind of lynch-mob insanity seizing much of Western Europe’s intellectual and cultural elites. I’ve written about a similar example here and let’s not forget the top-circulation Swedish newspaper that prominently published an article saying that Israel murdered Palestinians to steal their body parts.

De Volkskrant is one of the largest Dutch mainstream newspapers. It’s leftist but regularly publishes columns from people with an opposite view point.

Thomas von der Dunk, a historian and Labour party member as well as an influential intellectual (he’s weirdly eccentric but that isn’t so unusual in such circles), made the following points in an op-ed piece:

— What Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi has done in his country is less bad than Israel’s operation in the Gaza Strip in 2009.

— Nobody should be outraged of the murder of the Fogel family, the parents and three of their little children, because they were living in a West Bank settlement on land stolen by an illegitimate government.

— Israelis living in land from which Palestinians have been driven out are like a Dutchman who in 1944 lived in the home of Jews deported to concentration camps. (There are probably far more Muslims living in Arabic-speaking states living in homes from which Jews were driven out–BR).

— Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are criminals as bad as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Qadhafi.

— Israel is an apartheid state and not a democracy or a state where law prevails.

— Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad could learn from Israel how to organize phony, pro-regime demonstrations.

In short, what we have now is not criticism of Israel or of its policies but a demonization of Israel by much of the European left that is starting to approach the hatred daily projected in Muslim-majority dictatorships.

Obviously, there are other voices heard, too, but in large sectors of the opinion-making elites—and every country is different of course—the level of irrational hatred is growing frightening. And for local Jews, the choice is to join the chorus, remain silent, leave, or face intimidation.

Technorati Tags: Barry Rubin, Europe, Israel, Thomas von der Dunk

Gideon Levy: how can we account for his warped perspective?

The Israeli Left becomes more pathological every day. Here is how Gideon Levy of Ha’aretz responded to the admission by Judge Richard Goldstone that “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document”:

Anyone who honored the first Goldstone has to honor him now as well, but still has to ask him: What happened? What exactly do you know today that you didn’t know then? Do you know today that criticizing Israel leads to a pressure-and-slander campaign that you can’t withstand, you “self-hating Jew”? This you could have known before.

Goldstone’s recent statement that “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy” repudiates the central blood libel contained in the report that bears his name. But Levy thinks the facts support the original accusation:

But let’s put aside the torments and indecision of the no-longer-young Goldstone. Let’s also put aside the reports by the human rights organizations. Let’s make do with the findings of the IDF itself. According to Military Intelligence, 1,166 Palestinians were killed in the operation, 709 of them terrorists, 162 who may or may not have been armed, 295 bystanders, 80 under the age of 16 and 46 women.

All the other findings described a more serious picture, but let’s believe the IDF. Isn’t the killing of about 300 civilians, including dozens of women and children, a reason for penetrating national soul-searching? Were all of them killed by mistake? If so, don’t 300 different mistakes require conclusions? Is this the behavior of the most moral army in the world? If not, who takes responsibility?

Actually, yes, it is a remarkably good outcome for urban warfare, especially considering the fact — which  the Goldstone report itself notes — that Hamas had a deliberate policy of fighting from among civilians. Evelyn Gordon points out that, according to Red Cross figures, the proportion of civilian casualties in war for most of the last century has been close to 90%. IDF figures put the proportion in the Gaza war at 39%, and even NGO figures — including Palestinian NGOs — don’t approach the 90% that is routine for the wars of Europe, the US, etc.

Goldstone attributes his change of heart to information developed by the IDF’s own investigation that directly contradicts much of the NGO testimony upon which the Goldstone Report was based. But Levy, who simply discounts IDF information because of its source, turns on Goldstone himself, blaming his recantation on cowardice.

Levy writes as one who is burning with hatred and bitterness. His own solution to the problem of Hamas is not clear. In a recent interview, he writes

No doubt the government cannot tolerate attacks on the southern part of Israel — no government in the world would have tolerated it.  It couldn’t go on, Qassams every second day and the state lives with it?  This is out of the question.  The problem is that nobody asks why they launched the Qassams.  I guess that if Gaza would have been free, there would have been no Qassams.  But Gaza is not free, and the occupation didn’t end in Gaza — it just changed its form.

So I suppose he advocates opening borders, relinquishing control over airspace and shipping, etc. The consequences of this would be obvious and tragic — yesterday’s attack on a school bus is an example. But in general he talks only from the point of view of the Palestinian Arabs, about how ‘the occupation’ is oppressive and must be ended. What will happen then, will happen, he seems to say.

“Nobody asks why they launched the Qassams,” he says. But do we need to ask? Don’t they tell us, in the Hamas covenant, in their media, and in the statements of their officials?

How can we account for his warped perspective?

I’m not qualified to psychoanalyze Levy, although someone like Dr. Kenneth Levin could use him as a case study in ‘Jewish delusional grandiosity (JDG)’ (I think I made up that term, but Levin would like it), the belief that Jews can protect themselves against antisemitic violence by a process of self-improvement, a process of making themselves better so that the antisemites will like them.

Note that this requires that the JDG sufferer must accept the antisemitic stereotypes of his persecutors. Is Levy’s outburst at Goldstone antisemitic? Perhaps.

By the way, Dr. Levin argues persuasively (The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege), that this strategy didn’t work throughout Jewish history, and is not working today.

You’d think that Levy, et al, would want to emigrate, and some other left-wing extremists like historian Ilan Pappé have done so. But perhaps part of the JDG syndrome is an exaggerated belief in the moral righteousness of one’s position, so that Levy sees himself as almost a martyr to ‘justice’:

It’s not always very pleasant, but do I have a choice?  I can’t change my mind, I will not stop raising my voice as long as I can raise my voice, and as long as I have the platforms to raise my voice — and altogether I still, as I said, feel very free to do so.  With all the price that I’m paying, it’s a relatively minor price.

Levy, as he admits, is doing well. Who pays the price for him, as well as myriad other media and academic personalities who are also anti-state activists, is the Jewish people.

Technorati Tags: Gideon Levy, Goldstone report, Israel