FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

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

School bus struck by laser-guided antitank rocket fired across Gaza border

When I heard that Hamas had fired an antitank missile across the border directly at an Israeli school bus, wounding the driver and critically injuring a child — only the fact that the bus was otherwise empty prevented an even more horrendous outcome — I thought: they want a war. The fact that the attack was accompanied by a barrage of at least 50 rockets and mortars fired at Israeli towns and cities reinforced that assumption.

You can easily imagine their thinking: if a bus full of Jewish children goes up in flames, Israel will have to take the bait. But the last war was painful for Hamas. Why would they want another go-around?

I wasn’t surprised to see that Barry Rubin agrees with me that Hamas is looking for trouble. But here is his analysis of why:

The recent upheavals in the Arab world have emboldened revolutionary Islamists and Hamas most of all. Its close ally, the Muslim Brotherhood, can operate freely in Egypt. There is much support for Islamism in the Egyptian army. And even the “moderate” presidential candidate Muhammad ElBaradei said that Egypt would go to war if Israel attacked the Gaza Strip.

Does Egypt want war with Israel? Of course not. But Hamas calculates–and, of course, it often miscalculates–that crisis with Israel will increase its support from Egypt and perhaps even create a situation where Cairo intervenes on its side on some level.

At a minimum, thousands of Egyptian volunteers, mobilized by the Brotherhood, might fight on its side, money would be raised in Egypt on its behalf, and large amounts of arms would flow across the border.  Then, too, international public opinion could be mobilized against Israel with tales–often phony–of atrocities as happened last time. And the Palestinian Authority (PA), ruling the West Bank, could be shamed and subverted. While the PA can claim to be delivering some prosperity–which the West thinks is all people care about–Hamas can deliver heroism and jihad.

Rubin also points out that since the fall of the Mubarak regime, the border between Egypt and Gaza has been wide open, with weapons — like the antitank missile used in today’s attack or the Iranian Grad missiles fired at Ashkelon, etc. — freely flowing into Gaza.

Hamas thinks it can’t lose: either (1) the IDF will smash back into Gaza, and Hamas — with Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood help — will be able to put up a vicious fight, perhaps even drawing the Egyptian army into it, perhaps triggering a two-front war with Hizballah in the north. Or (2), Israel will content itself with limited retaliation, and Hamas can continue gaining points in the Arab world for its effectiveness at killing Jewish children with impunity.

Today’s attack was not random: it was a bright yellow school bus, and a laser-guided missile. The creature that pulled the trigger knew exactly what he was doing.

Hamas has already taken credit for the attack with the following statement:

Palestinian resistance factions in Gaza targeted with number of mortar shells the nearby Israeli settlements, bus driver and other Israeli settler were injured after a shell targeted their bus driving in the southern Israeli kibbutz of Sa’ad April 7, 2011.

Not that it matters, but the ‘settlements’ in question are inside the 1949 armistice lines, and ‘the other Israeli settler’ is 16 (some reports say 13) years old.

But you say, doesn’t it look bad to kill children?

Not to many Palestinian Arabs:

Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their children – Yoav, 11, Elad, 4, and three-month old baby Hadas – were murdered in the Israeli town of Itamar on March 11.

“63% of the Palestinians oppose and 32% support the attack in the Itamar settlement in the West Bank in which a family of five was murdered.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, official PA newspaper, April 7, 2011] — PMW

Just one out of three! Imagine my relief.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas