FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Daniel Gordis:

Until this week, we might have thought that while America and Israel could disagree on certain policies, when it came to defending Israel’s fundamental legitimacy, there could be no doubt as to what the US would do. Now, the pretense is over. This administration will protect the Jews and their state only if the Jews accede to American demands that Washington thinks it needs to advance its own diplomatic agenda abroad. That is the sign neither of a trustworthy ally nor of a country animated by principle.

The Obama Administration is animated by ‘principle’ to be sure, but the principle involved is not the moral vision of our Founding Fathers, which is grounded in Judaism, Christianity and the principles of the Enlightenment. Rather, this administration adheres to the ethical system of left-wing academe, in which the highest values are multiculturalism and political correctness (PC).

This is why our government places a nation like Israel on the scales with political entities that behave like the Barbary Pirates or worse, and finds it moral to be ‘even-handed’ in its treatment of them. And this is why our President treats despots like the King of Saudi Arabia with exaggerated respect, despite the fact that this unelected tyrant rules a kingdom which violates our basic ideals of equal rights for people of different race, sex or religion, and chops off the hands of petty thieves.

But it would be very un-multicultural to note that these Saudis (and others) are uncivilized barbarians with noisome habits and ugly attitudes, so we pretend that they deserve the same respect as Israelis or Americans.

Nothing illustrates the way in which we’ve allowed our principles to be subverted than the current flap about invasive airport security. In order to avoid the act or appearance of profiling — a serious violation of PC — the TSA is prepared to violate a much older and important social taboo by invading the personal space and privacy of travelers in an unprecedented way.

Full-body scanner image. There are better ways to spot a terrorist.

The cost of the technology is enormous, and there is a large group of people — the ones whose values differ the most from those of our administration, by the way — who will at least be humiliated and at most placed in a mortifying bind.

Not only is this expensive and socially explosive, it represents closing yet another barn door after the horse has been carried away. Having caused us to jump through another hoop, terrorists will now find a different method or target to attack.

Nevertheless, an alternative known to be effective — a rational system of profiling and psychological screening like Israel uses — is absolutely ruled out for moral reasons! But like the people who cling to their guns and their religion, the ones who object to having their bodies viewed or their ‘junk touched’ will just have to get used to it.

It’s ironic that the culture of the ‘Palestinians’ or the Saudis is considered so worthy of respect, while that of socially conservative Americans is treated with disrespect and condescension.

The administration isn’t even consistent in its multiculturalism!

Technorati Tags: Daniel Gordis, political correctness, TSA, full-body screener

It’s a no-brainer that for the 4 to 5 million hostile Arabs, 99% of whom have never lived in Israel, who have grown up and been formed under the thumbs of the most radical terrorist factions in the ‘refugee’ camps of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority (PA), to ‘return’ to pre-1967 Israel would be catastrophic.

Everyone knows this. How could it be otherwise? And yet, the ‘right of return’, a ‘right’ which doesn’t exist anywhere in international law, combined with a hereditary refugee status — something which no other class of refugees has ever been granted — is insisted upon by those who at the same time claim that their goal is ‘two states living side by side at peace’.

The premier example, of course, is the PA, which includes the ‘right of return’ as part of their definition of a ‘two-state solution’. We’ve been through this before: a state of ‘Palestine’ where Jews are not allowed, and what used to be Israel, which will be an Arab-majority state. Good luck to the Jews there!

Another example is the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which holds the ‘right of return’ as one of its objectives. Thanks to friend-of-Obama Ali Abumimah for stating this clearly:

An overwhelming majority of organizations have endorsed Palestinian civil society’s two calls for boycott, divestment and sactions against Israel and for academic and cultural boycott of Israel — until it ceases to deny Palestinian history, ends the Occupation, ceases discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and permits displaced Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

You can be sure, therefore, that when someone calls for ‘right of return’ and ‘ending the occupation’, they are talking about the ‘occupation’ of 1948, not 1967. The advocates of BDS make a big deal about how it is a non-violent strategy, but clearly the denouement will not be non-violent, not when the ‘returnees’ start to try to claim ‘their property’.

This provides a test to distinguish those who really do desire coexistence from those who want to throw the Jews into the sea (an expression perhaps originated by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hassan al-Banna). Do they call for ‘right of return’? Do they support the BDS delegitimization strategy? If so, they fail the test.

Even J Street is careful to claim that they are opposed to BDS. But Jewish Voice for Peace, the only ‘Jewish’ organization on the ADL’s list of the top ten most anti-Israel groups in America, supports it.

Locally, Peace Fresno explicitly calls for right of return and supports BDS (as if anyone cares). The Fresno Center for Nonviolence does, too. Do they see a contradiction? Probably not.

Technorati Tags: Israel, right of return, BDS, Palestinian Authority

Here are a couple of things to think about today:

First, for the absolutely most unadulterated 200-proof bullshit in the world of Mideast punditry, it is impossible to beat Roger Cohen, who was actually paid something by the NY Times to write this:

But what of Iran? Netanyahu wants Obama to build a credible military threat. Ascendant Republicans bay for war. Clinton has to persuade Israel the best way to disarm Iran is by removing the core of Tehran’s propaganda — the plight of stateless Palestinians.

Imagine:

— Mr. President Ahamdinejad, listen, great news!

— What? Did the Zionists move back to Poland?

— No, but almost! Obama persuaded them to dismantle all the settlements and move back within the 1948 lines. A Palestinian state has been declared, with its capital in al-Quds!

— Allah be praised! Now we won’t need those atomic weapons — quick, sell the uranium on Ebay. Nasrallah can close up shop and go home — who will want to join Hizballah now?  Stop sending money to Hamas — they are dancing in the street now that Palestinians aren’t stateless. And Assad might as well dump his missiles, too.

This business of trying to control the entire Middle East and its oil resources, overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, establish a Shiite caliphate, humiliate the US and wipe the Zionists off the map was tiresome — I’m glad we can stop, now that the Palestinians have a state.

And get Obama on the phone — thanks to him, we can finally have good relations with the Great Sat– er, America. What a man he is!

***

There’s no freeze agreement yet, and the US has apparently not put its promises into writing. And anyone who remembers the way Hillary Clinton announced that the oral commitments made by the Bush Administration were not ‘enforceable’ knows that you can’t trust these people otherwise. Daled Amos has a good summary here of the way the carrots seem to be evaporating from the Obama Administration’s carrot and stick offer.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Roger Cohen, Iran, settlement freeze

That’s what everybody’s asking about the latest settlement freeze offer/demand by the Obama Administration to Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, here are the details:

The US said that if the deal was accepted it would not request an additional settlement freeze. The request does not include east Jerusalem.

The date for the new freeze has not been set, but it would be retroactive to the September 26th date, when the previous 10-month moratorium on such activity expired…

Should Israel accept the offer, the US in turn has pledged in the next year to veto any efforts by the UN Security Council to impose on Israel a non-negotiated solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as the Palestinians have requested.

It would further veto any resolutions that deny Israel the right to self-defense or seek to de-legitimize Israel. The US would also oppose such efforts in other UN bodies and forums.

The US administration would ask Congress to approve the supply of 20 additional advanced fighter planes to Israel worth $3 billion so that Israel can keep its qualitative edge.

There are many things to think about here, like why the US believes that an additional 3 month moratorium that does not include Jerusalem is going to cause a breakthrough, when the Palestinians already refused to talk for 9 months of the previous 10-month freeze, when they are demanding that Jerusalem must be included, and when we know that the PA can’t agree to end the conflict on any terms that would be acceptable to Israel. But never mind, there’s a much more important question:

Has it ever been the case before that the US would not veto a Security Council resolution to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state, to deny Israel the right of self-defense or to delegitimize her?

No, never. No American administration since 1948, including that of Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush, would have allowed such a resolution to pass. So President Obama has simply made support for Israel at the UN, formerly unconditional, depend on Israel doing his bidding. Yes, this is the most anti-Israel administration ever.

In other words, the answer to the question posed by the title of this post is that it’s a threat. Do what we say or else.

But there is even something worse: the ‘deal’ is only good for one year. So even if Israel gives in and accepts the freeze the process starts all over again in a year. What will the US demand then? Probably Israel’s signature on a highly disadvantageous diktat establishing a ‘Palestinian’ state.  And if Israel won’t go along, then the Security Council will impose it, by threat of sanctions or even force.

The US in the past guaranteed Israel’s sovereignty against threats from the hostile UN. That’s over.

And it is so over that I don’t think Israel should agree to the proposal, which, after all, will only buy a little time. Here are some reasons a freeze is bad:

• If the PA returns to negotiations, then what happens after three months when the freeze expires? They’ll walk out and it will be Israel’s fault, yet again.
• An additional freeze will be a betrayal of the Israelis living in ‘settlements’, who (with very few exceptions) accepted the previous freeze and were promised that it was temporary. Now they will be told that work must halt on construction that was begun after it expired.
• Despite the language used in the media (“settlement construction”) settlements are not being constructed or even made larger. The construction in question is inside existing settlements. So the point of the freeze is not to make more land available to the future Arab state, but rather to delegitimize all Jewish presence east of the line.
• An extension of the freeze will be yet another blow to the national-religious sector of Israeli society, the same people that were kicked out of Gaza to make room for Hamastan, and who lately have been accepting so much of the burden of Israel’s defense.

I know that Israel’s government faces a very tough decision. Some will say it is  better to play for time, get a few F-35’s –although who knows when delivery will be scheduled — and hold off possible UN recognition of a terror state on Israel’s eastern flank.

On the other hand, in a year the choice may be between signing a dictated agreement approving such a state or having one imposed anyway. And this will be after Israel has in effect abdicated her claim to any land east of the 1948 line, publicly shown herself to be a satellite of the US rather than a sovereign state, and screwed her most patriotic and Zionist citizens.

Hmm, put that way it’s not such a tough decision, is it?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama, settlement freeze

What could possibly go wrong?

Wednesday I mentioned that the US was giving $150 million of a planned total of about $740 million (including US funding of UNRWA) to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Much of this money will be spent in Gaza, even though Gaza is under Hamas control. $102.5 Million is going to ‘security’ forces — which Israeli military planners are assuming will likely be turned against the IDF at some point. And some undetermined amount is escaping through the leaky pipes of the PA to arrive at Fatah’s own terrorist militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

But there is an even more dangerous enemy that is also receiving US funds:

WASHINGTON – Two key members of Congress have decided to lift their holds on aid to the Lebanese military on Friday, clearing the way for $100 million to be transferred to the force.

The money has been tied up since August after the members expressed concern about American funds ending up in the hands of Hizballah, particularly after a deadly incident in which Lebanese Armed Forces soldiers shot at IDF soldiers along the border.

Nita Lowey (D-New York), chairwoman of the foreign operations subcommittee of the appropriations committee, and Howard Berman (D-California), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had both requested reassurances from the State Department concerning oversight for the money, which helps train and equip the military.

“The administration gave detailed briefings and provided thorough written responses to Congresswoman Lowey’s questions and concerns about the assistance and safeguards in place to prevent it from falling into terrorists’ hands,” a Democratic Congressional staffer said of Lowey’s decision to lift the hold Friday. “Improving Lebanon’s ability to defend its borders, stop arms trafficking, build institutions and fight terrorist elements is imperative to the security and stability of the region.”

The State Department, which lobbied to reverse the holds, has long argued that the funds are an important counter-weight to Hizballah’s growing influence and military might.

As always, the State Department is on the wrong side of an issue that is critical to Israel’s security. Even if it were possible to ensure that US-provided weapons will not be used to cold-bloodedly murder Israelis as happened this August, the political influence of Hizballah and its patron, Iran, in Lebanon has become so great that the control of the army can’t be assumed to be in the hands of pro-Western forces, especially in the event of war. And the probability of a war between Israel and Hizballah remains high, although it’s impossible to predict exactly when it will occur.

Indeed, in 2006, the Lebanese army allowed its facilities to be used in a missile attack against an Israeli Navy vessel. And that was when Hizballah had far less power in the country.  Further, I don’t trust the State Department’s promises that  equipment will not be transferred to Hizballah. After all, the Lebanese army and the UN have been completely unable or unwilling to stop Hizballah from receiving an astronomical quantity of arms smuggled through Syria, reasserting its control on the ground in South Lebanon, and rebuilding its fortifications there ahead of the next war. Many army units and personnel are sympathetic to Hizballah.

What credible assurances could there be? What leverage does the US have, after standing by and watching Iran and Syria support the emasculation of the March 14 movement and Hizballah’s assertion of control — just short of an actual takeover — in Lebanon?

We are also selling large quantities of the most sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, ostensibly to help them defend themselves against Iran.  Although the weapons are truly dangerous and the size of the sales are large, the buyers don’t have the technical skills or military infrastructure to utilize or maintain this stuff effectively. They will therefore not protect them against Iran, but neither will they menace Israel. It’s been suggested that such arms deals happen primarily to provide profitable commissions for well-connected Arabs and an opportunity for the West to get back some of its oil money.

Hizballah and the Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, are the point of the spear, and represent a very immediate and local threat.

If our president is as firmly committed to Israel’s security as he claims, why is he helping to arm some of her most dangerous enemies?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinian Authority, Hizballah, Obama administration