FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Women of the Wall — the end of the Jewish state?

Sometimes our friends can be worse than our enemies.

Here is an argument made by Yori Yanover of the Jewish Press, to a correspondent named Dan Silagi, who found the “Women of the Wall” [WOW] relatively harmless:

Our entire justification for having conquered the land from the former inhabitants, which we have done, is that it was God given to us. Otherwise, we’re just European colonialists who pushed out the indigenous people for no good reason other than the power of the gun.

If we believe that God gave us the land, we must ask, what is our relationship with God? Do we bring anything into the relationship, or is the Gift from God argument, essentially, an empty slogan we don’t really believe in?

If we believe in it, then we must accept that our relationship with God is through the commandments, more accurately through our adherence to His commandments — because that’s what He, in his eternal wisdom, told us.

So that our adherence to halacha and our right to the land are inseparable, and if we don’t adhere to halacha, we have no rights here.

Now, the most essential, most central, most crucial part of halacha is submitting to the yoke of our sages. In this case, there is one sage who is the state appointed administrator at the Kotel, and he laid down the law — only to be defied both by the WOW and by two lower courts. Incidentally — the high court still sides with the Rabbi of the Kotel.

So, Dan Silagi, while I agree that your predictions are true, I also say that they make you and your ilk nothing better than the British and French oppressors of the black tribes of Africa, and that you, as a secular European invader devoid of justification for your occupation, must at once relinquish authority over the land to its rightful Arab owners.

Now I would be the last to argue that God did not give the land of Israel to the Jewish people, but like many other gifts, it didn’t fall on us like manna. We had to earn it. And we, the Jewish people, did earn this one. In fact, even for those who don’t believe in God, the right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is clear.

Yanover is apparently a Zionist, but he’s been listening to anti-Zionist talk for so long that he seems to believe it. We “pushed out indigenous people,” did we? Time for a short history lesson:

There were Jews in the land of Israel since biblical times, although many were dispersed by the Romans, murdered by Crusaders, converted by Muslims, etc. Mark Twain visited the land in the mid-Nineteenth Century — before the arrival of the first Zionists — and found a desperately poor land, where Arabs and Jews lived under unspeakable conditions, ridden by disease and exploited by absentee Ottoman landlords. Yes, there were somewhat more Arabs than Jews — so what?

The Zionists, as the cliché says, drained the swamps, reclaimed land that had been lost to agricultural use for centuries. They ultimately created industries and commerce. They turned wasteland into productive land and introduced modern medicine. These things benefited both Jews and Arabs.

When the Ottoman rulers were replaced by the British there were further improvements. The British built rail lines and other projects, for which they imported Arab workers. The Palestine Mandate area became a magnet for Arabs from neighboring countries, especially Syria, where there was continuing political unrest and famine, and Egypt. Many — probably most — of today’s ‘Palestinians’ are descended from Arabs that came to Palestine after the 1880’s.

Meanwhile, the Jews built the precursor of a state. They built roads, created health-care and pension systems, an army (well, more than one), established trade unions, and a ‘government’ which could negotiate with the British. The Arabs, most of whom were not ‘Palestinian’ nationalists but believed that Palestine was actually the southern part of Syria, followed a familiar pattern — anti-Jewish riots and terrorism. Their leader, al-Husseini, cooperated with Hitler and planned to establish extermination camps in Palestine after the German victory.

As the mandate period wore on, the British more and more sided with the Arabs, culminating with the White Paper of 1939 which more or less entirely reneged on the promise by the international community to the Jewish people of a national home in Palestine. But despite this, and with the expenditure of much blood — about 1% of the Jewish population died in the War of Independence — the Jews kicked out the British colonialists and established the State of Israel.

Of course I’ve left out a lot, including the flight of Arabs from the new state, the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab nations and their ingathering to Israel, and Israel’s struggle to survive through several wars afterwards.

But the fact is that God’s promise, if you look at it that way, was also embodied in international law and then made real by the labor, initiative and blood — a huge amount of blood — of the Jewish people, including secular ones.

So with all due respect, Mr. Yanover, don’t sweat the WOW.

The Jewish people can handle them, just like they can handle anti-Zionist Haredim and extreme leftist academics.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Zionism, Women of the Wall, Yori Yanover

Two sisters of Aya Baradiya cry at the well where Aya was murdered

The following news item appeared on the English-language site of the Palestinian Ma’an News Service in January. There was a flurry of media comment, which has since died out. Nothing has changed since then:

RAMALLAH (Ma’an) — President Mahmoud Abbas has no plans to amend laws that reduce sentences for suspects who claim an “honor” defense for murdering women, his legal adviser says.

“Why change it? This would cause serious problems,” Hassan al-Ouri told Ma’an, adding that such a reform would “not benefit women.”

In May 2011, the president pledged to amend the law to guarantee maximum penalties for “honor killing” in response to protests over the killing of university student Aya Baradiya in Hebron.

Aya Baradiya was murdered in 2010 by her uncle Okab [variously spelled Iqab or Akab], allegedly because “he disapproved of her relationship with her fiance.” Okab and his accomplices dragged her behind their car, beat her and tied her up. Then they threw her, still alive, into a well. In 2011, The Guardian reported,

But the killing went far beyond a family affair. After the discovery of Aya’s body more than a year after the 20-year-old university student went missing, her uncle confessed to Palestinian police, claiming it was an “honour” killing. Widespread protests against such crimes, led by students and women’s organisations, erupted. In response, the Palestinian president last month scrapped historic laws that permitted leniency for the perpetrators of so-called “honour” killings.

It is not so clear that this was a traditional ‘honor’ killing — some think the uncle had other motives — but after all, who cares? Tying women up and throwing them into wells is unacceptable for any reason, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, the Guardian article is incorrect. Abbas did change a law in 2011 — but it was a never-used law that pardons a murderer if he finds his wife in bed with another man. Of course this wouldn’t apply to 99% of honor killings anyway.

It turns out that the relevant law — which allows for a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail (often only 1 or 2 months in practice) if a murder is judged to be committed for the sake of preserving a family’s honor — will not be changed after all.

Al-Ouri says the president will not change the go-to clauses for lawyers seeking leniency for clients who claim they committed murder to defend family “honor.”

Articles 97 to 100 of the Jordanian Penal Code, in force in the West Bank, still offer reduced sentences for any act of battery or murder committed in a “state of rage.”

“The (law) only addresses 1 percent of the problem. What we need is a new culture,” al-Ouri said.

He got that one right.

Technorati Tags: Palestinians, honor killings, murder, Aya Baradiya, Mahmoud Abbas

Arab child is inspired by his ‘heroes’, imprisoned terrorists (2009)

One of today’s PLO preconditions for negotiation with Israel — they change frequently — is for a release of “all Palestinian prisoners.” For example, the Times of Israel reported today that

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year offered to free 50 Palestinian security prisoners who have been held since before the Oslo Accords of the early 1990s, in a bid to get Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to come back to the peace table, The Times of Israel has learned.

However, Abbas rejected the offer.

Today, a senior Palestinian official told The Times of Israel, the Palestinians might agree to renew talks with Israel if Netanyahu releases all 107 of the pre-Oslo veterans still in jail, most of whom have blood on their hands.

The Prime Minister’s Office had no comment on the matter.

It’s important to understand that these demands are more than just an attempt by the PLO to get a concession from Israel without giving anything in return (although it is assuredly that).

Although the Arabs and their supporters will refer to these individuals as ‘political prisoners’, they have by and large been convicted of serious violent crimes, especially including murder. They are not imprisoned simply for their politics.

The demand for the release of prisoners is of great ideological and religious significance. In the PLO’s secular/postcolonialist Palestinian narrative, the Jews have no legitimacy in ‘Palestine’, and therefore do not have the right to imprison Arabs, the true ‘owners’ of the land. In addition, violent terrorism is the natural right of an ‘oppressed people’ trying to free themselves from colonialists.

From the standpoint of the Islamist Hamas, the actions of the prisoners constitute defensive jihad against Jews usurping land which is an Islamic waqf. Far from being criminals, they are heroes for doing their Allah-commanded duty.

For both groups the release of the prisoners would also humiliate the Jews, who would not be able to revenge themselves on the killers of their relatives (incidentally, this is another reason Israel should implement a death penalty for terrorist murder).

And both see themselves as fighting to reestablish Arab (as well as tribal and family) honor by recovering the possessions ‘stolen’ from them in the nakba of the founding of the Jewish state.

The release of these prisoners, therefore, would be a great victory and encouragement for the Palestinian cause, even if the prisoners themselves are no longer useful in the struggle. Expect a massive celebration when the ‘heroes’ return home.

As often happens, pragmatic Israelis miss the significance of ideology. The report continues:

It is understood that the Israeli security establishment has no objections on security grounds to the release of the 107 pre-Oslo veterans, particularly in light of the release of 1,027 Palestinian security prisoners to Hamas as part of the deal that saw the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from Hamas captivity in Gaza in October 2011.

We can quibble about this, especially since some of those released in the Shalit deal did return to terrorist activity. But even if this is entirely true, the security aspect is only a small part of the significance of releasing Arabs that have murdered Jews.

The correct approach would be to apply the death penalty to murderers, and to imprison the others — and keep them imprisoned — under humiliating conditions.

If Israel would like to end Arab terrorism, the way to do it is by removing the incentives, not by making it pay.

Technorati Tags: PLO, Israel, terrorism

The ‘New Ottoman’, Turkish PM ErdoÄŸan, is forcing what could have been an insignificant incident to become an anti-regime revolution. His immense ego may be his downfall.

Illustration by Judah Rosenthal, who also did the Moty and Udi cartoons. He is currently working on a graphic novel about the conquest of Jerusalem in 1967.

It’s 2018. Israel is still beleaguered, but not by its traditional foes.

In a short, bloody war in 2015, Israel crushed Hizballah. Shortly thereafter, it launched a series of strikes against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, using new non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) technology against above-ground installations, plus ultra-precise multiple-strike penetrating bombs to open the underground bunkers. Without Hizballah and without an answer to NNEMP weapons, Iran was forced to defer its nuclear ambitions indefinitely.

Syria’s civil war still sputters and flares, with Assad’s Russian-supported forces in control of the coastal areas and Damascus, while various rebel groups hold the rest. An independent Kurdistan has been declared (although it hasn’t been recognized by the UN), including parts of Iraq and Syria.

Insurrections also continue with various levels of violence in Iraq, Bahrein, Saudi Arabia, and other states. Jordan, which received a massive amount of military aid from Israel, is still under control of the Hashemite king, although there are insurgents operating there too.

With the destruction of Hizballah and the partial neutralization of Iran, organized terrorism worldwide has declined. But there are still multiple radical Islamist organizations that are challenging their perceived enemies wherever they can.

After the Egyptian economy disintegrated in 2014-15, the Islamist regime was overthrown by the military. Some food aid was received from the US, but nowhere near enough to prevent food riots, widespread malnutrition and some actual starvation. Israel is providing the military government with large amounts of water (from gas-powered desalinization plants) to irrigate parts of the Sinai. Partly in return (and partly to protect its own existence) Egypt has been cooperating with Israel in keeping weapons away from Hamas and fighting radical Islamists in the Sinai.

Although greatly weakened during the years of AKP dominance, the Turkish military has reasserted itself and with much popular support has reined in the excesses of ErdoÄŸan’s regime. Many officers that were imprisoned (with or without trials) have been rehabilitated, and the army has made it clear that it will not stand for further erosion of secular institutions. Relations with Israel have also improved, as the pragmatic officers overrode the AKP’s ideological rigidity.

Meanwhile, Israel’s economy is continuing to do well. Its huge natural gas reserves have enabled it to produce large amounts of electricity at very low cost, which it uses in part to desalinate sea water. For the first time in history, Israel has enough water! Natural gas is also exported to Turkey and Eastern Europe, in accordance with an agreement with Russia to maintain prices.

The PLO still exists and still rules most of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. It still receives subsidies from Europe and the US, and still tries to engage in ‘popular resistance‘ (murder by means of weapons other than guns and explosives) when possible.

Hamas, cut off from aid from Hizballah and the Muslim Brotherhood, now exists primarily on UN aid, a massive expansion of UNRWA.

So where does the threat that I mentioned above come from?

In two words, Western Europe.

The UK has its first Muslim Prime Minister, elected after the escalating riots of 2014-5. Considered by all a ‘moderate’, he managed to quiet the uprisings by promising to establish shari’a courts with authority over Muslim towns and enclaves throughout the country (very few non-Muslims remain in those areas). British Jews have taken a very low profile since the riots, during which many were targeted by the rampaging mobs. Many of those whose Zionist sympathies were known fled to Australia or Canada, and some went to Israel. Although the PM publicly says that he supports the continued existence of Israel, he favors a right of return for all Arab ‘refugees’ — there are now 10 million claiming refugee status — release of all Arab prisoners, and “an end to apartheid.”

The rest of the EU states are more or less the same, although they do not yet have Muslim heads of state. The French Jewish community has almost entirely left, most going to Israel. Antisemitic acts by Muslims — but also by non-Muslims who blame Israel and Jews for the violence of Muslims and for economic problems — have multiplied. Jews in Holland, the Scandinavian countries, etc. are also fleeing because they feel they cannot depend on their governments to protect them from pervasive Jew-hatred.

Muslim demands have a history of being quickly accommodated, since if they are not the result is often violent. Most such demands relate to local autonomy, shari’a courts in Muslim areas, compliance with Muslim sensibilities about food, animals, alcohol, ‘blasphemy’ and ‘immorality’ in media, school curricula, etc.

But as happened in 2013 with the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, we see more and more violent acts ‘explained’ in terms of foreign policy. The EU has long since removed any military presence from Afghanistan (as did the US; Afghanistan is today ruled by the Taliban); but now demands center on policy toward Israel.

Antisemitism in Europe is taken for granted, even in countries where there are few Jews (most of them, now). In Germany, for example, politicians can safely say that while the Holocaust was a great evil, it is possible to understand how Jewish behavior, if it did not cause it, at least created the conditions that made it possible. Likewise, there is little sympathy for Israel, which is seen as an instigator of violence, not its victim.

As the threats from Israel’s neighbors recede, we find the danger from nuclear-armed, unstable Europe increasing.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Middle East, 2018, Europe, Islam