FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

The list of prisoners that Hamas wants Israel to free in return for Gilad Shalit cannot be accepted. It includes convicted mass murders, the leader of a faction that murdered an Israeli cabinet minister, etc. One specimen is Abdullah Barghouti, who is serving 67 consecutive life sentences for building the bombs that killed 66 and wounded 500 in a series of bombings (details in YNet, Notorious Palestinian prisoners demanded in Shalit exchange).

As I’ve said before, the Israeli government is incapable of playing chess better than a five-year old, since it is always surprised by the next move of its opponents. Who did they think would be on the list, traffic violators? Are not Palestinian and Arab demands always outrageous?

The function of negotiations for the Palestinians and Arabs in this conflict is not to achieve peace, not to reach compromises, not to solve problems. The function is to humiliate, to pocket concessions and move world opinion about where the center lies. Then the terrorism starts again (or never stops) to bring forth another round of ‘negotiation’ in which what was previously unthinkable becomes possible and what was unacceptable becomes a given.

Israel should treat proposals like this list with the contempt they deserve. The question should not be “what will Israel give to get Shalit back?” but rather “what will happen to the Palestinians if Shalit is not returned quickly and in good shape?”

Technorati Tags: Israel, Shalit, Palestinian prisoners

Raed Salah again:

Speaking at a rally celebrating the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the northern branch of Israel’s Islamic Movement, called for thousands of Muslims to rise, unite and defend Jerusalem and al-Aksa mosque.

At the event, which took place in Kafr Kanna on Friday night, Salah said that “even if Israel [banished] him to the moon, the Islamic movement will continue to chant – in blood and spirit we will redeem al-Aksa. — Jerusalem Post

This man is an Israeli citizen. No country in the world would allow this kind of incitement — yes, you might hear something like this in Berkeley, but only because the speakers are not taken seriously. Many Arabs take Salah very seriously. He is not only shouting ‘Fire’ in a theater, he is lighting matches.

To allow Salah to continue with his activity is an affront to Israeli self-respect. Israel should call his bluff, strip him of his citizenship and expel him. Let him preach in Gaza.

Technorati Tags: Salah

Recently PM Olmert refused to consider any peace agreement that granted a “right of return” to Israel — either actual or symbolic — for Palestinian refugees or their descendants (see “Olmert has it exactly right“). Alan Dershowitz suggests a less drastic position:

Having concluded that Olmert was absolutely right as a matter of principle, he may have been wrong as a matter of tactics. The Palestinian narrative, whether factually correct or incorrect, is a reality in the minds of most Palestinians. Earlier Israeli Prime Ministers recognized that, and were prepared to compromise principle for a pragmatic peace. They indicated a willingness to accept some symbolic right of return coupled with compensation.

Dershowitz is wrong. Granting a ‘symbolic’ right of return (what is a “symbolic right”, anyway?) means taking responsibility for the refugee situation. It means, therefore, admitting to having caused it by deliberate ethnic cleansing or at least by being responsible for the war in which the refugees were created. It means giving up the position that Israel was founded in justice.

Why should the ‘right’ be only symbolic if the Arab story is accepted by everyone, including Israel? How long would it stay symbolic then? What argument could Israel give for it to remain only symbolic? What argument could Israel give for (Jewish) aliyah?

The fact is that Israel’s right to exist is grounded in the rightness of its historical narrative. Take that away — as the pro-Arab propagandists are trying to do — and there is no reason for there to be such a state, which, after all, nobody else in the region wants.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Dershowitz, right of return

The Winograd Commission, established after the recent war in Lebanon, is expected to publish an interim report before the end of April. A commission source told YNet news:

“Contrary to what many people think, the commission will take a harsh and specific tone with those responsible for the incidents of the recent war.

“It will also point out that in the name of ministerial responsibility, which should have been claimed, the government should have resigned after the war,” the source continued.

“They will do the complete opposite of what the public thinks they will do. They will say that in a democratic government – when something like this happens – the government should quit.” — YNet

The act of taking responsibility — and actually bearing the consequences — when something goes wrong is rare among public officials in Israel and the US. Dan Halutz did the right thing, and one hopes that the PM and Defense Minister will do the same.

Olmert and Peretz have both made excuses, blamed others, and in Olmert’s case even claimed that the war turned out exactly as planned. They need to understand that along with the perquisites of high office, comes the responsibility for what happens on their watch, even if they can explain how they are personally blameless.

They need to understand that making such explanations not only doesn’t free them from the consequences of their responsibility, but cheapens them and lowers them in the public’s esteem.

They need to behave like adults and resign.

[tags] Israel,Winograd Commission,Olmert,Peretz [tags]

One of the defining characteristics of civilization is a commitment to understanding and learning from history. One hopes that this process will make it possible for real social progress to occur over time. But those who want to use history as a tool to advance their own interests actually work against civilization and promote the cause of barbarism:

Teachers [in the UK] are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.

The report, produced with funding from the Department for Education, said that where teachers and staff avoided emotive and controversial history, their motives were generally well intentioned.

“Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship,” it concluded. [my emphasis] — Times Online (UK)

Pay attention to the last paragraph, whose implication is the following: history teachers are simply afraid to talk about these subjects because they face retaliation from Muslims who insist on their right to teach their children, for example, that the Holocaust was invented by the Jews.

Technorati Tags: education, UK, Muslims, Holocaust, Crusades