FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Sometimes it’s hard to talk to someone when you each have different understandings of the words you must use. For example, here are some questions about definitions of terms, put to an Israeli and an Arab:

Q: What is “the occupation”?
Israeli: The legal military occupation of the West Bank, which began in 1967 as the result of a defensive war, and which would end if the Arabs would agree to make peace.
Arab: The illegal Zionist entity in land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, which began in 1948.

Q: What is a “two-state solution”?
I: The Jewish state of Israel living peacefully alongside an Arab Palestinian state.
A: An Arab Palestinian state next to a “bi-national” state with an Arab majority.

Q: What are “equal rights” for Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel?
I: No discrimination in matters of resource allocation, housing, education, health care, employment, etc.
A: The replacement of the Jewish state with a “state of its citizens”, replacement of the flag and national anthem, a veto power on all governmental decisions by the Arab minority, repeal of the Law of Return for Jews, passage of a Law of Return for Palestinian refugees.

Q: What is “firing rockets from Gaza into Israel”?
I: Terrorism, murder.
A: Legitimate resistance to occupation.

Q: Who was “Yasser Arafat”?
I: A terrorist, a murderer, a man who started at least three wars, who caused the deaths of thousands in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, etc., a liar and thief who stole billions in funds intended to improve the lot of Palestinians, the man who prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state.
A: The father of the Palestinian nation.

Update [13 Apr 2056 PDT]:

Here’s one more, suggested by a reader:

Q: What is “peace”?
I: The condition in which the Arabs have finally given up trying to destroy Israel and turned their attention to the welfare of their people.
A: A pause in the struggle for which we will be paid by the Americans, and during which we can build up our forces for the next round.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians

Palestinians talk about ‘humiliation’ a lot. Humiliation at checkpoints (carefully ignoring the reason for the checkpoints), humiliation by airport security, and above all, humiliation caused by the very presence of the hated Zionists on soil which they believe to be theirs. Today an op-ed in our local newspaper, written by two people prominent in our Muslim and Jewish communities, mentioned the “daily humiliation” of the Palestinians. The very carefully written op-ed — the subject of creative ambiguity is something I’ll discuss another time — reminded me that I wanted to talk about humiliation, and who is humiliating whom.

News item:

Gaza’s only power plant will be shut down in two to three days unless Israel resumes fuel shipments, power plant director Rafik Maliha said Saturday.

Maliha warned that half a million Gazans would be left without electricity.

Israel halted supplies last week after Gaza terrorists attacked the Nahal Oz fuel depot on the Gaza-Israel border and killed two workers.

The power plant’s fuel reserves have been low in recent months, after Israel restricted fuel supplies in hopes of forcing terrorists to halt rocket attacks from Gaza.

First of all, the ‘crisis’ that would occur if the power plant shut down is exaggerated. Gaza gets fully 70% of its power from the Israeli electrical grid and another 5% from Egypt. The Gaza strip has about 500,000 residents in toto, so the statement is sheer nonsense.

Now here is what happened at Nahal Oz: a carefully planned, sophisticated attack was executed as a cooperative effort between Hamas and several other terrorist groups.

It was not a random action. One of the participants, the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), named the operation “Breaking Zionist Arrogance.” The Zionist arrogance in question, of course, constitutes supplying fuel to Hamas-ruled Gaza, and the strategic purpose of the attack was to interrupt it so that there will be another pretext for more actions, such as breaking down border fences — either into Egypt, Israel or both. It will be another cause for the massive ‘frustration’ building up in Gaza.

On the same day of the attack on the terminal, about 50 rockets and mortars fired from Gaza fell in Israel.

So what Hamas and friends are saying is the following:

“We will kill you as much as we like and you will supply fuel and electricity with which we will build rockets to kill you more. We will only stop when you agree to open up your borders to us, so that we can go among you and kill even more.”

This is what is truly humiliating.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Nahal Oz, Gaza, Hamas

National self-respect demands that Israel not give in on the matter of Richard A. Falk (see: Picking the right guys for the job), UN Human Rights Council nominee for “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967”. Despite the fact that the position itself is absurd and simply an excuse for producing more anti-Israel propaganda, Falk is really exceptional in the degree of bias he brings to his position.

In the essay, “Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust”, he called on foreign governments to intervene in Gaza.

“The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty,” Mr Falk wrote, adding it was not “an irresponsible overstatement” to associate the Gaza situation with the Holocaust. — UK Daily Telegraph

In a recent BBC interview, Falk reiterated his position, and as a result Israel is refusing to grant him a visa.

His point of view is quite common in the academic world (Falk is Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton), despite the fact that it entirely ignores reality.

In the real world, Hamas fires rockets at Israel every day, sends terrorists across the border to murder Israelis, and is presently engaged in a huge military buildup with the help of Iran and Syria in preparation for the next war, which will probably involve coordinated attacks on Israel by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south. Meanwhile Israel supplies fuel and electricity to Gaza.

But Falk apparently is quite accustomed to living in fantasy worlds. Here is an example:

On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, “It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don’t think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess.” NY Sun (my emphasis) (h/t: LGF)

Falk claims that he is “not irresponsible” in equating Israel’s actions in Gaza with the Holocaust, and I presume his ideas about 9/11 are also acceptable in his mind. I’m sure his reference to “neoconservatives” had nothing to do with the common linkage of neocons to Jews (Falk himself is of Jewish extraction). It is strange, though, that he doesn’t simply blame the Bush Administration as most 9/11 conspiracy theorists do.

But it is about time that intellectuals like Falk start to understand that their ‘provocative’ talk may have consequences in the real world, including people getting killed. Certainly anything that prevents Israel from responding to Hamas terrorism falls into that category.

Technorati Tags: Richard A. Falk, Falk, Israel, UN, 9/11

It’s well known that some Arab countries do not permit Jews to live in, or even visit them. Until recently the official Saudi Arabian website carried a notice that visas would not be granted to “Jewish people”.

This is of course in contrast to Israel, which permits people of any religious persuasion to visit and live there and guarantees access to holy places of at least three faiths. Indeed, Israel apparently gives special consideration to Muslims, having ceded de facto sovereignty over the sites most central to Judaism to them.

Saudi Arabia was created by Britain, the local colonial power, in 1927-1932. Nobody asked the Jews or the Jewish community in the pre-state settlement what they thought about its Judenrein [Jew-free] policy.

Now perhaps a new state is about to come into being, ruled by the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas — which, incidentally, refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This new state of Palestine will be born out of an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. And it is already clear that Israel will be required to put her imprimatur on a state that, like Saudi Arabia, will be officially Judenrein.

Not only will Palestine not accept Jews, any living there now will be forced to leave, one assumes, by the Israeli government and the Israeli army. And this will be considered entirely normal by the world, and even by many Israelis!

Moshe Arens, in Ha’aretz (of all places) writes:

The concept of removing all Jews from a certain region is surely repugnant to any person not prepared to deny somebody’s rights on the grounds of his ethnic or religious origin. It brings back the worst memories of the tragedy that befell the Jewish people in World War II. When it is applied to a part of the Land of Israel it is also contrary to the very foundations of Zionism, a movement based on the right of Jews to settle and live in their land, a right that has received international recognition…

It is generally agreed that Israel should not incorporate all of Judea and Samaria, with its large Arab population, within its borders. But does it necessarily follow that all areas not incorporated within Israel’s borders need to be cleared of all Jews? The Palestinian negotiators currently engaged in the phantom negotiations with Israel’s foreign minister are in any case not capable of making and carrying out any commitments.

But when and if serious Palestinian negotiators appear, it will have to be made clear to them that the continued presence of Jews on territory over which they will have sovereignty in the future, and the assurance of their safety, must be part of a durable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. An agreement that does not include such a provision will not be an agreement worthy of being called a peace agreement.

Another essential part of such an agreement, and I’m sure Arens would agree with me, is an unambiguous recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

The creation of Palestine — if it happens — will be a recognition that a Palestinian People exists and that they have a right of self-determination. It must not also be a negation of the rights of the Jewish People, either individually as human beings with human rights, or collectively as a people with a sovereign state.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestine, Jews, Moshe Arens

Here’s another take on the terrorist attack on the Erez fuel terminal, which I wrote about earlier. I would like to think that this incident will mark the end of Israel supplying its deadly enemy, but I doubt it.

Frog Bites Scorpion*
By Barry Rubin

On April 9, Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip attacked the Nahal Oz fuel terminal in Israel near the border. Two Israeli workers were killed. Shortly before, a shipment of diesel fuel for the Gaza power plant, paid for by the European Union, had left there.

What makes this attack especially significant—and horrible—is that the only reason the terminal was open and the workers were present was to supply the needs of the Gaza Strip’s population. In previous months, the international media and many governments criticized Israel for not doing enough to help Gaza, despite the fact that the area is ruled by an openly anti-Semitic regime which makes clear its goal of destroying Israel, and also daily fires mortars and rockets into Israel. Indeed, as part of this attack, several mortar shells were fired at the terminal.

Hamas, and the world, cannot have it both ways. Either Hamas is the aggressor while Israel is the victim, in which case there should be full international support and favorable media coverage for Israel. Or if unwilling to take such an appropriate stance, the world cannot expect Israel to risk its people’s lives to fuel Gaza machine shops that make rockets to assault it and should stop complaining about Israeli actions in self-defense.

In either case, the latest attacks make even clear what should already be obvious: Hamas is responsible for any suffering in the Gaza Strip. And if Israel should cut off all fuel deliveries to the Gaza power plant, which would only affect about one-quarter of the area’s supplies, it is fully justified in doing so.

The situation, however, goes even beyond this: Hamas is deliberately intensifying the suffering in order to use it as a pretext for its own failure as government, its attacks on Israel, and its ability to beg for international support for victim.

Could the situation possibly be any more obvious?

Apparently it is still not obvious enough for too much of the media and too much of the Western political establishments. Of course, there are many exceptions and more so as time goes on.

One of the classic Middle East stories is the tale of the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion demands that the frog provide a ride across the river on his back. “But you will sting me and I will die,” protests the frog.

The scorpion points out, in response, that since he cannot swim he would not do such a rash thing since he, too, would drown.

The frog agrees.

The scorpion climbs onto the frog and they set off. But in the middle of the river the scorpion stings the frog, and as they sink beneath the water the frog complains, “Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die!”

And the scorpion complains: “Well, what do you expect, this is the Middle East.”

So goes the story in its traditional form. But now we can add some additional modern touches.

First, in the new version the scorpion declares that he will sting the frog without any doubt. But the frog agrees to take the scorpion because he is encouraged or intimidated by onlookers’ remarks: “What! You won’t take that poor scorpion on a ride? What kind of imperialist, racist aggressor are you?”

Second, after the duo drowns, the next day newspapers run the following headlines:

“Frog in Unprovoked Attack on Scorpion!”

“Cycle of Violence Continues”

“Frog Uses Excessive Force on Scorpion Civilian”

* Based on the classic journalistic saying, “Man Bites Dog, news; Dog Bites Man, no news.

. . .

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas, terrorism, Erez, Gaza