FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Many Israelis hoped that Shimon Peres would be capable of being a non-controversial president. This has not turned out to be the case. Peres has inappropriately involved himself in negotiations with the Palestinians, and now has used his presidential power to grant what appears to be a very questionable pardon:

(IsraelNN.com) President Shimon Peres has decided to reduce the jail sentences of five Israeli-Arab terrorists.

Three of the terrorists are serving for the brutal murder of Haifa Jewish teenager Danny Katz in 1983 and two for the rape and murder of IDF soldier Daphna Carmon in 1987. Katz, the son of Holocaust survivors, was kidnapped from near his Haifa home at the age of 15 by Arabs who worked at a nearby supermarket while on his way to visit a friend. He was beaten to death with sticks and then sodomized. He was found dead four days later in the Israeli-Arab village of Sakhnin.

The men were sentenced to life in prison, plus 27 years. They will now be eligible for release in the near future following Peres’s commutation…

[Amnon] Katz says that his brother’s murderers have become a cause celebre in recent years for the extreme-left, who claimed that they confessed to the crime due to police pressure. The murderers were even granted a retrial based on those claims in 1999 – but were found guilty again.

This is one of those cases that makes one wish that Israel had a death penalty. It would seem to me that the only good reason for releasing these men would be if it could be shown that they were in fact innocent. Peres claims that he has a good reason — but he won’t tell the public and the Katz family what it is:

Peres said that four separate legal bodies discussed the case, and all of them reached the unanimous conclusion that the sentences should be reduced. Nonetheless, Peres said that the reasons for his decision could not be published because they are classified. — Ha’aretz

Peres has said that the decision was “purely legal, and was not based on political considerations”.

I don’t believe it. Considering the emotions surrounding this issue, it seems to me that if there were good legal, nonpolitical, grounds for his action, there would be a way to explain them without revealing classified information like names of informants, etc.

Peres has yet again proven that he did not accept the Presidency in good faith. He cannot seem to make himself perform the presidential function of uniting Israelis and providing a moral example; rather, he continues to be an arrogant, highly political manipulator.

Technorati Tags: Shimon Peres, Israel, Danny Katz

The excruciating tragedy of Gilad Schalit’s captivity continues, as he marks his 21st birthday and his 14th month of imprisonment in whatever dank hole Hamas is keeping him.

On Tuesday a Hamas official claimed that they had been on the verge of releasing him 4 months ago, but the deal fell apart because the Israeli government “didn’t care about its people or its soldiers”.

Of course the reason that it fell apart is that the price was precisely calibrated to be too high for Israel to pay — a list of 350 terrorists, many of them mass murderers, of whom Israel could only agree to release 40. Noam Schalit, Gilad’s father, criticized both the Prime Minister’s office and Hamas for the failure to reach an agreement.

In order to understand Hamas’ strategy, we need to understand how Hamas evaluates Israel, and how it expects Israel to respond.

Hamas sees Israel as morally and spiritually weak, lacking the will to stand up for itself. Hamas expects the Israeli government to always take the easy way out of any situation, even if it involves compromising important principles and achieving short-term relief at the expense of long-term goals, even survival.

Some will agree with them. To a certain extent, the West in general is unclear about basic principles, and this gives an impression of weakness. But there is another reason for the difficulty that Israel and the West face in hostage situations, and this is something that the Islamists of Hamas and Hezbollah can see, but cannot interpret correctly.

Call it an excess of empathy. For some reason, large elements of Western cultures like that of Israel have become painfully able to empathize with a broad range of other creatures (human and animal), even those to whom they are not closely related. It’s not possible for many Israelis to read about Gilad or Noam Schalit without feeling pain. In fact, many of them empathize strongly with Palestinians, too, which explains some of the apparently psychotic behavior of the far Left in Israel.

I am not saying that Palestinians are incapable of empathy for a wide circle of others, but I must say that public expression of it on their part is rare indeed. And I believe that the Hamas leadership certainly is not made up of particularly empathetic individuals!

So they just don’t get it, and they interpret Israeli attempts to make deals for the return of captives as simple weakness, and they keep pushing the goalposts back in order to demoralize Israelis, shake their confidence in their leaders, and — in their view — weaken them further.

At some point, they believe, Israel will be so weak that it will take any deal, no matter how dangerous, to get Schalit back.

What is actually happening, though, is that the accumulation of pain that Hamas is inflicting is creating a reservoir of hatred which, at some point — perhaps in response to a new atrocity, if, God forbid, Gilad Schalit dies, or perhaps if Hamas joins Hezbollah in the next war — will make it possible for Israel to take military action against it unrestrained by empathy.

Meanwhile, I don’t have a lot of hope for Gilad Schalit. I fear that he will not survive unless information develops which will make it possible for Israeli forces to rescue him.

Technorati Tags: Gilad Schalit, Israel, Hamas

From John Hilary, Director of Campaigns at War on Want, a British charity:

“Israel’s continuing disregard for international humanitarian law and human rights stands as one of the gravest injustices of the 21st century”

Although relatively young, the 21st century has seen 9/11, the Darfur tragedy, various atrocities perpetrated by Sunni and Shiite Arabs against each other in Iraq, bloody murder of civilians in Algeria, massive amounts of killing and maiming in several countries of West Africa (sometimes perpetrated by and against child soldiers), etc. I would count all of these things as violations of human rights.

And don’t forget the continued terrorism of the Palestinians against Israel, supported by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. The Passover Seder bombing in March 2002 was quite unjust to the 30 who died and the 140 who were injured! And this was only one of many such incidents.

The hyperbole is understandable, given the apparent focus of the organization:

War on Want, ostensibly a charity set up to fight worldwide poverty, recently published a guide on its website, entitled, “Towards a global movement for Palestine; a framework for today’s anti-apartheid activism.”

“Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions have gained currency in recent years as a series of strategies to pressure Israel in pursuit of justice for Palestinians,” the guide’s introduction said.

“Yet, it is clear that initiatives need to strengthen and gain greater popular support if they are to be an effective force in support of Palestinians,” it continued, before instructing readers to boycott Israeli goods, support a trade embargo against Israel, back the academic boycott against Israelis, and enforce a sports boycott. — YNet

Perhaps the group should be renamed ‘War on Israel’?

Technorati Tags: War on Want, Israel

Sometimes the experts really blow it. A good example is what has become the conventional wisdom about dealing with the rogue states and radical Islamists of the Middle East. Barry Rubin explains how these policies are encouraging, rather than deterring, our antagonists.

Engage, Moderate, Split

By Barry Rubin

Engage, moderate, and split—that’s the mantra for Middle East policy of the wrong-headed in many foreign ministries, newspaper editorial offices, universities, and other places where the rapidly growing international bad-ideas industry is centered.

Yet nothing could seem more self-evident than these propositions. What could possibly be wrong with engaging radical forces, persuading them to change their ways, and breaking up their alliances?

Read the rest of this entry »