By MK Dr.Michael Ben-Ari
(Knesset speech translaned into English by Daniel Pinner)
Back in Isaiah’s day, Sennacherib, King of Assyria, the undisputed ruler of the mightiest empire in the world, arose, proclaiming himself as the international leader. He, too, waved his hand towards Jerusalem, after having passed by all the other outposts which were not really all that important to him. The prophet describes Sennacherib’s rapid succession of conquests: “he has come to Ayyath, after passing Migron; he deposited his tools in Michmas” (Isaiah 10:28).
After his impressive conquests, and intimidating the entire world with the impression he left, Sennacherib went for the icing on the cake – Jerusalem: “Today, he [Sennacherib] will yet stand in Nob, waving his hand contemptuously at the mountain of the Daughter of Zion, the Hill of Jerusalem” (ibid, verse 32).
The rest is history: the Assyrian king’s army was forced into retreat, his royal dynasty was destroyed by internecine fratricidal murders, and of all his boastfulness, little remained. Sennacherib and his empire were finished.
Just a few years ago, the arch-murderer Arafat arose and gave his Jerusalem/Al Quds speech. He had already received several cities – Jericho, Ramallah, Shechem [Nablus], Jenin, and others; and he then enunciated his true ultimate goal, the icing on his cake: Al Quds, wa-ba’ada, wa-ba’ada, wa-ba’ada; that is to say, Jerusalem, and onwards, and onwards, and onwards.
Obama, fortunately for us, has not prevaricated at all: he openly and honestly follows in the footsteps of previous oppressors. His hatred for Israel flows freely and naturally from his mouth. Let no one make any mistake: the issue of outposts is merely tactical, and not the actual goal itself. And consequently, continuing to build them has become our single most existential national task here. Dismantling the outposts will be the signal that heralds the evil, and the beginning of the crumbling of our entire existence.
Obama, like Arafat before him, sees Jerusalem as the lynchpin of the issue: integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem such as Ramot and Neve Ya’akov are “occupied territory”, and the appropriate way to deal with them is summarised in the term “internationalisation”.
It is all too clear that dismantling any outpost, even the smallest, demoralises all those of us who still cleave to our national ideals and values; and the excuse that abandoning Migron enables us to keep Jerusalem is no longer relevant after the eloquent speech of the President of the United States of America.
The time has come for us to stand straight and proud, and to tell the President of the USA to deal first of all with some of the “smaller” problems that are rampant in his region – such as more than half a million Americans being made redundant every month, which is a social earthquake of far greater dimensions than our squabbles; likewise the North Korean nuclear program, and so on.
A self-respecting leadership would announce: We have returned to our land by the will of G-d, in spite of the USA’s fundamental opposition back in those first critical days of Israeli independence. We will continue to build throughout this land, fulfilling the vision of countless past generations and for the sake of the future generations.
Dr. Michael ben Ari is the only current member of the Israeli Knesset who speaks and acts from the perspective of the authentic Jewish idea.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
An ode to the cheeseburger
Rabbis detail the law of the Torah, apparently to make it clear. Such an
approach, however, is wrong. By analogy with secular law,that which is
unspecified in the law is left to personal choice. If one is commanded to bring
a sacrifice, it is irrelevant whether he starts walking toward the Temple from
the left or right foot. In rabbinical law, the simple rules of kosher food, and
the prohibition of certain animals, evolved into a hodgepodge of petty, often
absurd regulation, such as when a “milk” steel pot is prohibited for
“meat” usage because the pot ostensibly retains “a taste of milk.” The
rabbinical concept of exhaustive interpretation is open-ended: as we can mount
questions about every rule, the more rules they heap, the more questions keep
springing up. After the rabbis have established prayer texts and prescribed
specific body movements during prayers, one can still ask how to breathe during
prayers; this question is no more mundane than the artificial questions posed
and answered by rabbis.
Jewish law was meant to put an end to superfluous pagan religious laws, with
their myriad deities and complicated rites. The Torah leaves a lot to the
people’s discretion for a reason: that they keep thinking about the law, and
have no trouble practicing it.
Rabbis began constructing a “fence around the law,” bringing up additional
prohibitions to preclude inadvertent violations of major commandments when the
Jews went into the Exile. Now that the Exile has ended, the concept of the fence
has become irrelevant and highly counterproductive, as it drives Jews away from
Judaism, whose rules are actually simple and straightforward.
Jacob bribed Esau with, among other things, milking camels. Jewish tradition
asserts that the forefathers accepted the yoke of the commandments before Moses
received them on the Sinai. That is, Jacob did not imagine that the prohibition
of non-kosher meats precluded him from drinking camel’s milk (camels are a
non-kosher animal). Non-kosher animals—just like the
equally-unsuitable-for-food human beings—enjoy great protection in Judaism. We
refrain from eating them out of respect for their lives rather than because of
their uncleanness (humans are clean, but we’re not cannibals). Just as it is
permissible to hire (but not eat) humans, it is also permissible to work, shear,
milk or otherwise use non-kosher animals—anything short of killing them.
Jewish children can play with pigs by the same logic which allowed Jacob’s
household to drink camel milk.
By proclaiming some milk non-kosher, the rabbis created the problem of kosher
milk. They require supervision to make sure that the cow's milk is not mixed
with horse or camel milk. If ever there were a far-fetched fear, this is truly
the one.
Jewish children drink the milk of their non-kosher mothers for food, and can
likewise consume the milk of other non-kosher animals. An obvious rejoinder is
that children do not have to observe the commandments. But breast-feeding
requires the participation of a Jewish adult; either all Jewish mothers grossly
transgress by offering their non-kosher milk, or kosher laws don’t apply to
milk. And indeed, Rashi says that kashrut is only applicable to meat, not to any
other animal parts or products.
The meat-milk prohibition refers, according to Maimonides, to a pagan rite of
boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk. He noted that the prohibition is in
the section dealing with pagan practices rather than dietary laws. The meat-milk
ban had nothing to do with food in the first place.
Rabbis expanded the meat-milk issue to avoid inadvertent violations. Boiling
other meat in milk was originally prohibited because goat meat could
theoretically be sold as beef. By such reasoning, all meat should be prohibited:
what if someone is selling pork as beef? Inadvertent violations are not sinful,
and the problem of fake beef is not urgent in our days of kosher supermarkets.
Chicken-milk combinations were banned lest someone see you eating chicken with
cheese and think you were consuming a cheeseburger. By the same reasoning, you
should not go out with your wife, lest someone think she’s your neighbor’s
fiancée. Someone could see you eating a beef burger and think it is
pork—that’s no reason to become a vegetarian. “They-might-think”
reasoning is irrelevant at home: obviously, your wife knows she didn’t cook a
goat in its milk. The absurdity is underscored by the fact that cheeseburger
itself is not prohibited: it is beef rather than goat meat or veal, and it is
not boiled in milk, as the Torah is careful to specify.
Rabbis advance yet another argument: self-imposed restrictions show our love to
God, our willingness to go an extra mile. But do they read his mind? Why presume
that he would like us to expand his prohibitions? The government limits driving
speed to 65 miles per hour; would anyone show his patriotism by driving 20 mph?
I doubt your wife would interpret certain self-imposed restrictions as a sign
of love. Why imagine that God wants more restrictions of us? He who created the
animals and had the man name them to establish dominance would probably love us
to eat meat in various forms. It is not even nice, let alone justified, to
reject them. We’re explicitly commanded to enjoy the meat of our sacrifices.
Judaism is not a monastic perversion but a religion of joy in that holiest
place, the World Created.
The path of expanding prohibitions is arbitrary and precarious. There are
prohibitions regarding various forms of incest. Should we expand them to the
remote, even the seventh-degree kin out of love for God? Or take food: Through
kosher laws, God banned all animals for food and only made a permissive
exception for four animals. Here his intent to limit animal slaughter is
manifestly clear. Should we all become vegetarians? Foreseeing our questions,
the Torah enjoins us from subtracting from the laws—but also from adding to
them.
“There are enough prohibitions in the Torah for you to invent new ones,”
says the Talmud. The Torah’s laws are foremost practical. The laws are so easy
that the nomadic Hebrews observed them in Sinai. Some commandments interpret the
others: thus, the prohibition of homosexuality is consequential to “You shall
not commit adultery.” It is sensible, therefore, to interpret commandments in
the Oral Law—but not violate the commandments’ plain sense.
On one hand, the sages pronounced correctly that no word or letter in the Torah
is superfluous. On the other hand, rabbis disregard the wording. The Torah says,
“You shall not boil a kid in his mother’s milk.” “Boil”—not cook in
any other fashion; a cheeseburger is okay. A specific prohibition of boiling
makes perfect sense in the context of the pagan rite.
Another fixed point is “his mother’s.” That might be remotely interpreted
as “someone of his kin,” just as “your fathers” refers to ancestors
generally; but it cannot possibly be read as “any milk.” The Torah does not
prohibit boiling a goat kid in cow’s milk.
There is some latitude in understanding the word gdi, kid. In the Tanakh, gdi
never certainly means any other animal besides goats. In particular, a gdiah is
a she-goat. Commentators assert ex nihilo that gdi can also mean lamb, but
that’s unlikely, given that there are other words for she-lamb (rchl) and lamb
(seh). Even if gdi means lamb, the two points are clear: gdi means only a young
animal and never a calf. In many contexts, gdi is taken from herd; there were no
herds of cows in the ancient Middle East. The most inclusive reading of the
commandment prohibits boiling a young lamb or goat in, respectively, sheep or
goat milk. The commandment is simple and unobtrusive; the balance is made by
rabbis.
Consider the gap between Torah and halacha. Boiling a young goat in goat milk
was extended to cows, then birds (chicken), then any mode of cooking, then any
contact, then any food which includes chicken or milk, then dishes which were
used to serve milk or meat, then storage, then sinks, then eateries—and now we
have separate meat and dairy kosher restaurants.
approach, however, is wrong. By analogy with secular law,that which is
unspecified in the law is left to personal choice. If one is commanded to bring
a sacrifice, it is irrelevant whether he starts walking toward the Temple from
the left or right foot. In rabbinical law, the simple rules of kosher food, and
the prohibition of certain animals, evolved into a hodgepodge of petty, often
absurd regulation, such as when a “milk” steel pot is prohibited for
“meat” usage because the pot ostensibly retains “a taste of milk.” The
rabbinical concept of exhaustive interpretation is open-ended: as we can mount
questions about every rule, the more rules they heap, the more questions keep
springing up. After the rabbis have established prayer texts and prescribed
specific body movements during prayers, one can still ask how to breathe during
prayers; this question is no more mundane than the artificial questions posed
and answered by rabbis.
Jewish law was meant to put an end to superfluous pagan religious laws, with
their myriad deities and complicated rites. The Torah leaves a lot to the
people’s discretion for a reason: that they keep thinking about the law, and
have no trouble practicing it.
Rabbis began constructing a “fence around the law,” bringing up additional
prohibitions to preclude inadvertent violations of major commandments when the
Jews went into the Exile. Now that the Exile has ended, the concept of the fence
has become irrelevant and highly counterproductive, as it drives Jews away from
Judaism, whose rules are actually simple and straightforward.
Jacob bribed Esau with, among other things, milking camels. Jewish tradition
asserts that the forefathers accepted the yoke of the commandments before Moses
received them on the Sinai. That is, Jacob did not imagine that the prohibition
of non-kosher meats precluded him from drinking camel’s milk (camels are a
non-kosher animal). Non-kosher animals—just like the
equally-unsuitable-for-food human beings—enjoy great protection in Judaism. We
refrain from eating them out of respect for their lives rather than because of
their uncleanness (humans are clean, but we’re not cannibals). Just as it is
permissible to hire (but not eat) humans, it is also permissible to work, shear,
milk or otherwise use non-kosher animals—anything short of killing them.
Jewish children can play with pigs by the same logic which allowed Jacob’s
household to drink camel milk.
By proclaiming some milk non-kosher, the rabbis created the problem of kosher
milk. They require supervision to make sure that the cow's milk is not mixed
with horse or camel milk. If ever there were a far-fetched fear, this is truly
the one.
Jewish children drink the milk of their non-kosher mothers for food, and can
likewise consume the milk of other non-kosher animals. An obvious rejoinder is
that children do not have to observe the commandments. But breast-feeding
requires the participation of a Jewish adult; either all Jewish mothers grossly
transgress by offering their non-kosher milk, or kosher laws don’t apply to
milk. And indeed, Rashi says that kashrut is only applicable to meat, not to any
other animal parts or products.
The meat-milk prohibition refers, according to Maimonides, to a pagan rite of
boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk. He noted that the prohibition is in
the section dealing with pagan practices rather than dietary laws. The meat-milk
ban had nothing to do with food in the first place.
Rabbis expanded the meat-milk issue to avoid inadvertent violations. Boiling
other meat in milk was originally prohibited because goat meat could
theoretically be sold as beef. By such reasoning, all meat should be prohibited:
what if someone is selling pork as beef? Inadvertent violations are not sinful,
and the problem of fake beef is not urgent in our days of kosher supermarkets.
Chicken-milk combinations were banned lest someone see you eating chicken with
cheese and think you were consuming a cheeseburger. By the same reasoning, you
should not go out with your wife, lest someone think she’s your neighbor’s
fiancée. Someone could see you eating a beef burger and think it is
pork—that’s no reason to become a vegetarian. “They-might-think”
reasoning is irrelevant at home: obviously, your wife knows she didn’t cook a
goat in its milk. The absurdity is underscored by the fact that cheeseburger
itself is not prohibited: it is beef rather than goat meat or veal, and it is
not boiled in milk, as the Torah is careful to specify.
Rabbis advance yet another argument: self-imposed restrictions show our love to
God, our willingness to go an extra mile. But do they read his mind? Why presume
that he would like us to expand his prohibitions? The government limits driving
speed to 65 miles per hour; would anyone show his patriotism by driving 20 mph?
I doubt your wife would interpret certain self-imposed restrictions as a sign
of love. Why imagine that God wants more restrictions of us? He who created the
animals and had the man name them to establish dominance would probably love us
to eat meat in various forms. It is not even nice, let alone justified, to
reject them. We’re explicitly commanded to enjoy the meat of our sacrifices.
Judaism is not a monastic perversion but a religion of joy in that holiest
place, the World Created.
The path of expanding prohibitions is arbitrary and precarious. There are
prohibitions regarding various forms of incest. Should we expand them to the
remote, even the seventh-degree kin out of love for God? Or take food: Through
kosher laws, God banned all animals for food and only made a permissive
exception for four animals. Here his intent to limit animal slaughter is
manifestly clear. Should we all become vegetarians? Foreseeing our questions,
the Torah enjoins us from subtracting from the laws—but also from adding to
them.
“There are enough prohibitions in the Torah for you to invent new ones,”
says the Talmud. The Torah’s laws are foremost practical. The laws are so easy
that the nomadic Hebrews observed them in Sinai. Some commandments interpret the
others: thus, the prohibition of homosexuality is consequential to “You shall
not commit adultery.” It is sensible, therefore, to interpret commandments in
the Oral Law—but not violate the commandments’ plain sense.
On one hand, the sages pronounced correctly that no word or letter in the Torah
is superfluous. On the other hand, rabbis disregard the wording. The Torah says,
“You shall not boil a kid in his mother’s milk.” “Boil”—not cook in
any other fashion; a cheeseburger is okay. A specific prohibition of boiling
makes perfect sense in the context of the pagan rite.
Another fixed point is “his mother’s.” That might be remotely interpreted
as “someone of his kin,” just as “your fathers” refers to ancestors
generally; but it cannot possibly be read as “any milk.” The Torah does not
prohibit boiling a goat kid in cow’s milk.
There is some latitude in understanding the word gdi, kid. In the Tanakh, gdi
never certainly means any other animal besides goats. In particular, a gdiah is
a she-goat. Commentators assert ex nihilo that gdi can also mean lamb, but
that’s unlikely, given that there are other words for she-lamb (rchl) and lamb
(seh). Even if gdi means lamb, the two points are clear: gdi means only a young
animal and never a calf. In many contexts, gdi is taken from herd; there were no
herds of cows in the ancient Middle East. The most inclusive reading of the
commandment prohibits boiling a young lamb or goat in, respectively, sheep or
goat milk. The commandment is simple and unobtrusive; the balance is made by
rabbis.
Consider the gap between Torah and halacha. Boiling a young goat in goat milk
was extended to cows, then birds (chicken), then any mode of cooking, then any
contact, then any food which includes chicken or milk, then dishes which were
used to serve milk or meat, then storage, then sinks, then eateries—and now we
have separate meat and dairy kosher restaurants.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Birthright or Taglit?
Meaning of program that brings young Jews to Israel needs clarification
Yoel Meltzer
Every Friday as I wander through Machane Yehuda, Jerusalem's large outdoor market known locally as the "shuk", I am always delighted to see amongst the packed crowds dozens of young English-speaking tourists from various Birthright groups. For someone who remembers the quiet times in the shuk nearly 10 years ago when ongoing terrorists attacks kept most tourists away, I'm very happy to see the shuk hopping again and for the added business that the presence of these groups provide to the local shopkeepers. However, I'm even happier for the Birthright participants themselves who are firsthand getting a real taste of Jerusalem. I have no doubt that the shuk experience makes quite an impression on them.
I've also been fortunate to occasionally have Birthright participants as guests for a Shabbat meal. While their personal stories are usually intriguing, it’s the fact that they are thoroughly enjoying their brief stay in Israel that provides me with the greatest satisfaction. For this reason, I tip my hat off to the Birthright organization since it’s obvious that something good is being done here.
Following a recent Shabbat when we had two guests, one a female Birthright participant from a college in Pennsylvania and the other a young female Israeli soldier working at Army Radio as part of her military service and currently accompanying the Birthright group, a question began creeping into my head. For the first time I started to ask the obvious question, namely what is the meaning of the two words that are interchangeably used for the program, “birthright” and “taglit,” since one is not merely a translation of the other.
Regarding the latter, taglit, it is Hebrew for “discovery.” Moreover, according to Natan Roi, an Israeli writer who was commissioned in 1995 to write the original project after the nascent idea of Yossi Beilin was brought to light, the term taglit, which Roi chose for the project, originally meant that through the discovery of the Land of Israel a Jew could come to discover his real self. With this idea in mind Roi invested eight months carefully crafting an assortment of programs in order to cater to the diversified nature of various target groups in the Diaspora. Thus the term taglit, at least according to the original intended meaning of Roi, is clearly understandable as a way to fight against assimilation.
Israeli version of Taglit sorely needed
Regarding the term ”birthright”, however, a term that was given by the North Americans who eventually bought the Taglit program, the meaning is not so clear. In other words, what exactly is the birthright of every young Diaspora Jew? Does this term refer to the Jewish tradition and the right of every Jew to explore it? Or is it the right of every Jew to settle in the Land of Israel? Or is it the right of every Jew to feel Jewish and to have a connection to the Jewish people? Or is it simply the right of every young Jew to visit, at least once in his life, the Land of Israel? This is certainly not a criticism of the Birthright organization since as I mentioned above I've witnessed a lot of good firsthand. It's just my own small call for clarity since I’d like to know what is the intention of the word birthright and how, if at all, is it connected to the stated goals of the organization. If someone has the answer to this question, I'd be happy to know.
One final note. When I think back to the female soldier who joined us for Shabbat and to how much she enjoyed accompanying the Birthright group as they traveled around the country, it seems clear to me that an Israeli version of Taglit, according to the original meaning of the word as envisioned by Roi, is sorely needed in this country. Such a program, adopted by the Ministry of Education and implemented via inspirational and knowledgeable tour guides, would be a fabulous way to attach many young Israelis to their country and eventually to themselves.
Yoel Meltzer
Every Friday as I wander through Machane Yehuda, Jerusalem's large outdoor market known locally as the "shuk", I am always delighted to see amongst the packed crowds dozens of young English-speaking tourists from various Birthright groups. For someone who remembers the quiet times in the shuk nearly 10 years ago when ongoing terrorists attacks kept most tourists away, I'm very happy to see the shuk hopping again and for the added business that the presence of these groups provide to the local shopkeepers. However, I'm even happier for the Birthright participants themselves who are firsthand getting a real taste of Jerusalem. I have no doubt that the shuk experience makes quite an impression on them.
I've also been fortunate to occasionally have Birthright participants as guests for a Shabbat meal. While their personal stories are usually intriguing, it’s the fact that they are thoroughly enjoying their brief stay in Israel that provides me with the greatest satisfaction. For this reason, I tip my hat off to the Birthright organization since it’s obvious that something good is being done here.
Following a recent Shabbat when we had two guests, one a female Birthright participant from a college in Pennsylvania and the other a young female Israeli soldier working at Army Radio as part of her military service and currently accompanying the Birthright group, a question began creeping into my head. For the first time I started to ask the obvious question, namely what is the meaning of the two words that are interchangeably used for the program, “birthright” and “taglit,” since one is not merely a translation of the other.
Regarding the latter, taglit, it is Hebrew for “discovery.” Moreover, according to Natan Roi, an Israeli writer who was commissioned in 1995 to write the original project after the nascent idea of Yossi Beilin was brought to light, the term taglit, which Roi chose for the project, originally meant that through the discovery of the Land of Israel a Jew could come to discover his real self. With this idea in mind Roi invested eight months carefully crafting an assortment of programs in order to cater to the diversified nature of various target groups in the Diaspora. Thus the term taglit, at least according to the original intended meaning of Roi, is clearly understandable as a way to fight against assimilation.
Israeli version of Taglit sorely needed
Regarding the term ”birthright”, however, a term that was given by the North Americans who eventually bought the Taglit program, the meaning is not so clear. In other words, what exactly is the birthright of every young Diaspora Jew? Does this term refer to the Jewish tradition and the right of every Jew to explore it? Or is it the right of every Jew to settle in the Land of Israel? Or is it the right of every Jew to feel Jewish and to have a connection to the Jewish people? Or is it simply the right of every young Jew to visit, at least once in his life, the Land of Israel? This is certainly not a criticism of the Birthright organization since as I mentioned above I've witnessed a lot of good firsthand. It's just my own small call for clarity since I’d like to know what is the intention of the word birthright and how, if at all, is it connected to the stated goals of the organization. If someone has the answer to this question, I'd be happy to know.
One final note. When I think back to the female soldier who joined us for Shabbat and to how much she enjoyed accompanying the Birthright group as they traveled around the country, it seems clear to me that an Israeli version of Taglit, according to the original meaning of the word as envisioned by Roi, is sorely needed in this country. Such a program, adopted by the Ministry of Education and implemented via inspirational and knowledgeable tour guides, would be a fabulous way to attach many young Israelis to their country and eventually to themselves.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Has Treason Been Legalized in Israel? A Logico-Political Analysis - Prof. Paul Eidelberg
During Israel’s February 2009 election campaign, Binyamin Netanyahu was studiously silent about the paramount issue of that election: the “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since Netanyahu had been widely perceived as a “right-winger,” many people were surprised, a few months later on June 14, when the golden orator, speaking at Bar-Ilan University, endorsed a Palestinian—really an Arab-Islamic—state in Judea and Samaria.
No public outrage followed despite the absence of any debate on this issue in Israel’s parliament. Thus, even though Netanyahu called for a demilitarized Palestinian state, and now adds that it must have an Israeli presence on its borders, I ask: “From what source did he derive the authority to give away the heartland of the Jewish people? Is Israel a parliamentary democracy, or is it a prime ministerial dictatorship? If it is a democracy based on the rule of law, why wasn’t he formally accused of violating the Treason Law concerning the State of Israel?
Perhaps this law was rendered obsolete by the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993? In other words, perhaps that agreement legalized what hitherto was deemed treason? If so, let’s examine the four categories of acts no longer prohibited by that law:
1. Acts which "impair the sovereignty" of the State of Israel—section 97(a);
2. Acts which "impair the integrity" of the State of Israel— section 97(b);
3. Acts under section 99 which give “assistance to an enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;
4. Acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.
If we consider the meaning of these acts as layman, not as lawyers, it would be reasonable to conclude that since the 1993 signing of the Oslo Agreement, every government of Israel—its prime ministers, foreign ministers, defense ministers, and other cabinet ministers, as well as every Knesset Member that voted for withdrawal from any part of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza—is prima facie guilty of treason! Perhaps this is why the Treason Law has not been applied to territorial withdrawal, for that would be tantamount to making treason legal!
Of course, some lawyers might challenge the basis of this conclusion by saying that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza do not belong to the Jews. Canadian attorney Howard Grief disagrees. His monumental work, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, offers an abundance of legal evidence that this land belongs exclusively to the Jewish People. Eminent American jurists and professors of international law agree with Grief’s conclusion.
The trouble is that this conclusion has been rejected by Israel’s Supreme Court. In fact, the Court rejected petitions challenging the legality of the Oslo Agreement—including petitions attorney Grief drafted on behalf of prominent Israeli citizens. (See, for example, HC3414/96.)
Leaving the Court’s ruling aside, I want to raise an issue that has not been considered by lawyers and laymen: “Does the Land of Israel belong to the People of Israel or does it belong to the Government of Israel? This is a constitutional issue. But lo and behold, the People of Israel have been deprived of a Constitution! The Government failed to draft a Constitution, even though it was obliged to do so by Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence.
In contrast, the French Constitution stipulates that the territory called France belongs to its People, not to its Government. This is quite reasonable. After all, governments are transient, whereas a people constitute an enduring cultural entity. If the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel, we may infer that only the people can relinquish part of their land. The most fitting way of doing this is by a national referendum.
Ah, but no national referendum has ever been held in Israel on any issue—not even on Israel’s form of government! Does this mean the Government of Israel is illegitimate? Perhaps, but that would make the Treason Law and every law enacted by the Knesset a mere act of arbitrary power. Allow me to skirt this issue by assuming that tacit public consent to Israel’s form of Government makes it legitimate.
Assuming that the Government is legitimate, it does not follow that it can legitimately enter into agreements with a terrorist organization and give it any part of the Land of Israel. According to Professor Louis René Beres, agreements with terrorist organization constitute violations of international law.
Speaking more generally, agreements between Israel’s Government and any foreign entity are usually submitted to the Knesset for approval, although Knesset approval is not legally required. Notice, too, that the Knesset, unlike any legislature except Finland’s, does not require a quorum or minimum number of Knesset members to enact laws binding on the country. Therefore, the Government, supported by a minute plurality of the Knesset, can give away any Jewish territory Israel recovered in the Six Day War of June 1967. This also applies to the Jewish territory Israel recovered in the 1948-1949 War of Independence. Hence the Government can commit national suicide—and not only theoretically!
This leads to the conclusion that Israel’s Government is not the custodian but the owner of the Land of Israel. As owner, the Government can discard any part of this land regardless of the wishes of the people. Furthermore, as the owner, the Government can expel any number of people from this land.
However, the Treason Law implies that the Government does not own the Land of Israel, hence, that it cannot arbitrarily expel anyone from this land. Since governments come and go, the punishment prescribed by the Treason Law—death or imprisonment for life—indicates that treason involves acts against the People of Israel, affirming that the people own the Land of Israel.
This means that the People own Judea and Samaria. What about Gaza, or the part which the Government gave to Hamas? Giving this land to Hamas was an arbitrary act of the Sharon Government.
In fact, the political parties that opposed withdrawal from Gaza in the 2003 national election won 84 seats or 70 percent of the Knesset’s membership, and the paramount issue of that election was withdrawal from Gaza! Gaza is relevant to the issue of Judea and Samaria. It indicates that for reasons of security, cultural continuity, and simple humanity, a larger percentage of the voters would oppose withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, since this would entail the expulsion from their homes of some 300,000 Jewish men, women, and children. If this projected expulsion is not treason as well as a crime against humanity, we have abandoned logic and common sense as well as human decency.
Surely this is not beyond the comprehension of Prime Minister Netanyahu? Yet the crime of ethnic cleansing would logically follow the creation of an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria. A Government that would commit such a crime can hardly be deemed legitimate.
Logic and common sense tell me the Netanyahu Government has forfeited its legitimacy. Logic and common sense tell me this Government, like any dictatorship, stands above the law. Logic and common sense tell me this Government has betrayed its trust: to serve the people of Israel, to protect their lives and property including their homeland. Admittedly, this Government came to power by a democratic election. But a democratic election is nothing more than a means of securing the people’s God-given rights—as America’s Founding Fathers put it, their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights which may not be voted away or taken away by any majority—certainly not by the Government.
Mr. Netanyahu has virtually expressed the intention of nullifying these rights by endorsing an Islamic state in Judea and Samaria in contravention of section 100 of the Treason Law. True, he has been authorized by a ruling of a politically motivated Supreme Court to violate the plain meaning of that law. But this only confirms what Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin indicated in an interview published in Ha'aretz on 5 June 2003. Speaker Rivlin said, “instead of the rule of law, we have in Israel a gang of the rule of law." In that interview he alluded to Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Supreme Court President Aharon Barak.
It was in 2003 that Sharon became Labor’s surrogate prime minister by adopting Labor’s policy of disengagement from Gaza. Sharon effectively nullified the 2003 election. He was given authority to expel the Jews from Gaza by Judge Barak’s disingenuous ruling that Gaza is “belligerent occupied territory.” If, as Mr. Rivlin said, “instead of the rule of law, we have in Israel a gang of the rule of law,” no wonder treason has been legalized in this country. ___________________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 25, 2010.
No public outrage followed despite the absence of any debate on this issue in Israel’s parliament. Thus, even though Netanyahu called for a demilitarized Palestinian state, and now adds that it must have an Israeli presence on its borders, I ask: “From what source did he derive the authority to give away the heartland of the Jewish people? Is Israel a parliamentary democracy, or is it a prime ministerial dictatorship? If it is a democracy based on the rule of law, why wasn’t he formally accused of violating the Treason Law concerning the State of Israel?
Perhaps this law was rendered obsolete by the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993? In other words, perhaps that agreement legalized what hitherto was deemed treason? If so, let’s examine the four categories of acts no longer prohibited by that law:
1. Acts which "impair the sovereignty" of the State of Israel—section 97(a);
2. Acts which "impair the integrity" of the State of Israel— section 97(b);
3. Acts under section 99 which give “assistance to an enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;
4. Acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.
If we consider the meaning of these acts as layman, not as lawyers, it would be reasonable to conclude that since the 1993 signing of the Oslo Agreement, every government of Israel—its prime ministers, foreign ministers, defense ministers, and other cabinet ministers, as well as every Knesset Member that voted for withdrawal from any part of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza—is prima facie guilty of treason! Perhaps this is why the Treason Law has not been applied to territorial withdrawal, for that would be tantamount to making treason legal!
Of course, some lawyers might challenge the basis of this conclusion by saying that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza do not belong to the Jews. Canadian attorney Howard Grief disagrees. His monumental work, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, offers an abundance of legal evidence that this land belongs exclusively to the Jewish People. Eminent American jurists and professors of international law agree with Grief’s conclusion.
The trouble is that this conclusion has been rejected by Israel’s Supreme Court. In fact, the Court rejected petitions challenging the legality of the Oslo Agreement—including petitions attorney Grief drafted on behalf of prominent Israeli citizens. (See, for example, HC3414/96.)
Leaving the Court’s ruling aside, I want to raise an issue that has not been considered by lawyers and laymen: “Does the Land of Israel belong to the People of Israel or does it belong to the Government of Israel? This is a constitutional issue. But lo and behold, the People of Israel have been deprived of a Constitution! The Government failed to draft a Constitution, even though it was obliged to do so by Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence.
In contrast, the French Constitution stipulates that the territory called France belongs to its People, not to its Government. This is quite reasonable. After all, governments are transient, whereas a people constitute an enduring cultural entity. If the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel, we may infer that only the people can relinquish part of their land. The most fitting way of doing this is by a national referendum.
Ah, but no national referendum has ever been held in Israel on any issue—not even on Israel’s form of government! Does this mean the Government of Israel is illegitimate? Perhaps, but that would make the Treason Law and every law enacted by the Knesset a mere act of arbitrary power. Allow me to skirt this issue by assuming that tacit public consent to Israel’s form of Government makes it legitimate.
Assuming that the Government is legitimate, it does not follow that it can legitimately enter into agreements with a terrorist organization and give it any part of the Land of Israel. According to Professor Louis René Beres, agreements with terrorist organization constitute violations of international law.
Speaking more generally, agreements between Israel’s Government and any foreign entity are usually submitted to the Knesset for approval, although Knesset approval is not legally required. Notice, too, that the Knesset, unlike any legislature except Finland’s, does not require a quorum or minimum number of Knesset members to enact laws binding on the country. Therefore, the Government, supported by a minute plurality of the Knesset, can give away any Jewish territory Israel recovered in the Six Day War of June 1967. This also applies to the Jewish territory Israel recovered in the 1948-1949 War of Independence. Hence the Government can commit national suicide—and not only theoretically!
This leads to the conclusion that Israel’s Government is not the custodian but the owner of the Land of Israel. As owner, the Government can discard any part of this land regardless of the wishes of the people. Furthermore, as the owner, the Government can expel any number of people from this land.
However, the Treason Law implies that the Government does not own the Land of Israel, hence, that it cannot arbitrarily expel anyone from this land. Since governments come and go, the punishment prescribed by the Treason Law—death or imprisonment for life—indicates that treason involves acts against the People of Israel, affirming that the people own the Land of Israel.
This means that the People own Judea and Samaria. What about Gaza, or the part which the Government gave to Hamas? Giving this land to Hamas was an arbitrary act of the Sharon Government.
In fact, the political parties that opposed withdrawal from Gaza in the 2003 national election won 84 seats or 70 percent of the Knesset’s membership, and the paramount issue of that election was withdrawal from Gaza! Gaza is relevant to the issue of Judea and Samaria. It indicates that for reasons of security, cultural continuity, and simple humanity, a larger percentage of the voters would oppose withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, since this would entail the expulsion from their homes of some 300,000 Jewish men, women, and children. If this projected expulsion is not treason as well as a crime against humanity, we have abandoned logic and common sense as well as human decency.
Surely this is not beyond the comprehension of Prime Minister Netanyahu? Yet the crime of ethnic cleansing would logically follow the creation of an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria. A Government that would commit such a crime can hardly be deemed legitimate.
Logic and common sense tell me the Netanyahu Government has forfeited its legitimacy. Logic and common sense tell me this Government, like any dictatorship, stands above the law. Logic and common sense tell me this Government has betrayed its trust: to serve the people of Israel, to protect their lives and property including their homeland. Admittedly, this Government came to power by a democratic election. But a democratic election is nothing more than a means of securing the people’s God-given rights—as America’s Founding Fathers put it, their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights which may not be voted away or taken away by any majority—certainly not by the Government.
Mr. Netanyahu has virtually expressed the intention of nullifying these rights by endorsing an Islamic state in Judea and Samaria in contravention of section 100 of the Treason Law. True, he has been authorized by a ruling of a politically motivated Supreme Court to violate the plain meaning of that law. But this only confirms what Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin indicated in an interview published in Ha'aretz on 5 June 2003. Speaker Rivlin said, “instead of the rule of law, we have in Israel a gang of the rule of law." In that interview he alluded to Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Supreme Court President Aharon Barak.
It was in 2003 that Sharon became Labor’s surrogate prime minister by adopting Labor’s policy of disengagement from Gaza. Sharon effectively nullified the 2003 election. He was given authority to expel the Jews from Gaza by Judge Barak’s disingenuous ruling that Gaza is “belligerent occupied territory.” If, as Mr. Rivlin said, “instead of the rule of law, we have in Israel a gang of the rule of law,” no wonder treason has been legalized in this country. ___________________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 25, 2010.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Rahm Emanuel Warned Not To Make Son's Bar Mitzvah In Israel
Chevron activists Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben-Givir, who also serve as parliamentary aides to MK (Ichud HaLeumi) Dr. Michael Ben-Ari, have sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rom Emanuel suggesting he celebrate his son's bar mitzvah elsewhere, not at the Kotel as reports indicate he plans to do.
In their letter they quote Maseches Avos, in which we learn a child reaching bar mitzvah is responsible for adherence to mitzvos, stating that his example and observance of mitzvos to date is as far from what the Torah demands "as East and West", and even worse, that "he is a Hellenist, working against Israel and Eretz Yisrael".
They point out that "to our sorrow? during the last year, President Barak Obama's tenure in the White House, "You have worked against the State of Israel and the Jewish People". They remind Emanuel of his recent comment to Israel's consul general to Los Angeles, in which he is quoted as saying "I have had it with the Israelis".
"You are not the first Jew in history trying to advance himself at the expense of his people. There were traitors before you such as Josephus Flavius and others, who in all likelihood also celebrated their bar mitzvah but we remember them as traitors, seeking riches and honor, at the expense of their people.
"Unlike the Government of Israel, we will not bow and participate with all those seeking to hurt the Jewish People", promising if Emanuel comes to Yerushalayim to mark his son's bar mitzvah, he will be met and escorted by protests "as is fitting and not with candies and flowers".
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
In their letter they quote Maseches Avos, in which we learn a child reaching bar mitzvah is responsible for adherence to mitzvos, stating that his example and observance of mitzvos to date is as far from what the Torah demands "as East and West", and even worse, that "he is a Hellenist, working against Israel and Eretz Yisrael".
They point out that "to our sorrow? during the last year, President Barak Obama's tenure in the White House, "You have worked against the State of Israel and the Jewish People". They remind Emanuel of his recent comment to Israel's consul general to Los Angeles, in which he is quoted as saying "I have had it with the Israelis".
"You are not the first Jew in history trying to advance himself at the expense of his people. There were traitors before you such as Josephus Flavius and others, who in all likelihood also celebrated their bar mitzvah but we remember them as traitors, seeking riches and honor, at the expense of their people.
"Unlike the Government of Israel, we will not bow and participate with all those seeking to hurt the Jewish People", promising if Emanuel comes to Yerushalayim to mark his son's bar mitzvah, he will be met and escorted by protests "as is fitting and not with candies and flowers".
(Yechiel Spira - YWN Israel)
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Some Reflections on Barack Obama - Paul Eidelberg
1. Obama is not a deliberate liar so much as a culturally conditioned liar. This was evident in the lies he uttered in his Cairo speech. He simply uttered the lies typical of Muslims—lies he unconsciously internalized.
2. It’s natural for Muslims to blame the United States for their woes if only because Muslims—according to Islamic doctrine—do not have free will. Their sufferings are therefore the result of external forces—concerning which the United States is the main culprit.
3. Hence Obama apologizes (primarily to Islam) for America’s “misdeeds,” especially for its economic power or imperialism.
4. Obama may be deemed a college-educated Manchurian candidate primed to undermine American capitalism.
5. Obama has obviously been conditioned by his “mentors” to undermine the foundations of America: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He is really a man without a country.
6. Notice that Obama appeals to no higher authority for his actions, such as natural or divine law or the Bible. This accounts for his arrogance as well as his shallowness.
7. His professed reverence for Islam is merely a verbal contradiction: it stems from his lips, not from his heart. His heart is filled with disdain, or devoid of gratitude, of a grateful recognition of America’s contribution to the good of humanity. That’s why he does not put his right hand over his heart when patriotic music is played.
8. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton rightly referred to Obama as a “post-American” president—a deliberate euphemism for an anti-American president. This anti-American attitude will compel Obama not only to lie about America, but also to undertake anti-American policies under an American façade. Obama needs this façade to increase his power—and power or self-aggrandizement is the name of his game.
2. It’s natural for Muslims to blame the United States for their woes if only because Muslims—according to Islamic doctrine—do not have free will. Their sufferings are therefore the result of external forces—concerning which the United States is the main culprit.
3. Hence Obama apologizes (primarily to Islam) for America’s “misdeeds,” especially for its economic power or imperialism.
4. Obama may be deemed a college-educated Manchurian candidate primed to undermine American capitalism.
5. Obama has obviously been conditioned by his “mentors” to undermine the foundations of America: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He is really a man without a country.
6. Notice that Obama appeals to no higher authority for his actions, such as natural or divine law or the Bible. This accounts for his arrogance as well as his shallowness.
7. His professed reverence for Islam is merely a verbal contradiction: it stems from his lips, not from his heart. His heart is filled with disdain, or devoid of gratitude, of a grateful recognition of America’s contribution to the good of humanity. That’s why he does not put his right hand over his heart when patriotic music is played.
8. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton rightly referred to Obama as a “post-American” president—a deliberate euphemism for an anti-American president. This anti-American attitude will compel Obama not only to lie about America, but also to undertake anti-American policies under an American façade. Obama needs this façade to increase his power—and power or self-aggrandizement is the name of his game.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Old New Jew: By Moshe Feiglin
The goy drew a circle on the ground, stood the Jew inside and triumphantly declared, "If you leave the circle, you're a dead man!"
He then proceeded to rob the Jew's wife and went on his way. When the danger had passed, the wife angrily said to her husband, "Why didn't you help me? Don't you have any self-respect?"
"Didn't you see?" the husband retorted. "While the goy was robbing you, I put my foot out of the circle."
There is no need to explain what this joke reminded me of. Somebody in Israel's Foreign Ministry dared step out of the circle. But in today's reality, the joke continues. The goy, after he has robbed the Jew's wife, notices that her husband stepped out of the circle and demands an apology. Then the Jew boasts to his wife that he didn't apologize exactly the way the goy demanded.
I have a sinking feeling that this joke will be continued. Astute observers of the joke called Israel's foreign relations can easily guess how the diplomatic crisis between Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister and the Turkish ambassador will progress. (This article was written last Wednesday afternoon. By Wednesday evening, the Jew had apologized once again, in the language dictated by the goy.)
Israel's relations with Turkey, which are actually part and parcel of Israel's relations with England, Sweden, Egypt and actually - all the nations of the world - epitomize the sad story of Zionism.
We wanted to be a normal nation so badly. "On the day that the Jewish State is established, anti-Semitism will disappear," Herzl promised. Well, at least the first part of his dream was fulfilled.
The second half, though, smolders deep within our being, giving us no rest. The desire to be normal, to be part of the "family of nations," to be rid of the Diaspora hunch on our backs, to purge ourselves of our Jewish destiny - is actually the inner, founding ethos of the State of Israel. It is also the open secret of its infirmity and its Achilles heel. It is the vicious cycle from which we cannot extricate ourselves.
In the whole world, there is not a leader more dismal than Abu Mazen. He is a scarecrow set up in Ramallah by Israel, surviving there only with the help of the IDF. But this scarecrow stands Netanyahu in a circle and makes conditions for his very willingness to speak with him. And Netanyahu allows the "bully" to rob him of his right to build our Land, promises him total retreat before "negotiations" even begin and then boasts to the people he was supposed to defend - a.k.a. the Israeli public - that he does not agree to pre-conditions. We would be better off if the Jew from the joke was prime minister. At least he had to deal with a genuine bully.
From where does Abu Mazen get his chutzpah? From where do the Bedouins and Israel's Arabs get theirs? How is it that the spy, former Knesset Member Azmi Bashara was allowed to escape to Jordan and continues to receive a hefty Knesset pension? How has Israel been transformed from a local superpower to a doormat for the whole world?
We are experiencing a closing of the circle. First, there was the Jew from the joke. After that, came the proud Zionists and created the new Jew, who knew how to fight back hard. "You can call me a Jew if you would like," explains Yudka the Pioneer in Haim Hazzaz's story. "But I am no longer a Jew - I am a Zionist."
Our new Jew establishes a state that is not Jewish. It is Zionist. Together with the curse of the exile and the spinelessness that were rightfully shed, the new state also sheds its Jewish destiny and disengages from the long chain of Jewish heritage - from our Forefathers, from the ethos of the Exodus from Egypt, from King David, from the Holy Temple, from the Diaspora, from the Biblical and Talmudic epic - from everything.
But the values that Zionism pretended to establish in place of Judaism have evaporated. All that is left is reality TV, grotesque celebrity figures and a president who hates history. The only real remnant of Zionism is the aspiration that never fades; to be like everyone else, to be accepted, to stop being different.
And that means that we absolutely cannot have Turkey recalling its ambassador, because that would return us to the starting point that we tried to escape. And we absolutely cannot arrest Bashara, because in the high profile trial that would ensue, it would become clear that there is no such thing as an "Israeli Arab." It would be obvious that Israel must be a strictly Jewish state and that Yudka the Pioneer has failed.
We have come full circle. At soon as the non-Jews in Israel and the rest of the world understood that we needed them to fulfill our fantasy of the "new Jew", we became doormats. The strongest doormats in the world, replete with nuclear weapons and advanced technology - doormats that look and act more non-Jewish than the non-Jews. We have glittering Americans like Bibi, tough, proud Russians like Yvette and a Deputy Foreign Minister who has disconnected himself from his nation and married a Christian Evangelist.
The Zionist dialectic has turned us into first rate non-Jews. We have come full circle. The entire world looks at us and sees the Jew from the joke. It turns out that the new Jew is really the new, old Jew. With just one difference. He has sold not only his honor, but also his ancient culture - down the river.
He then proceeded to rob the Jew's wife and went on his way. When the danger had passed, the wife angrily said to her husband, "Why didn't you help me? Don't you have any self-respect?"
"Didn't you see?" the husband retorted. "While the goy was robbing you, I put my foot out of the circle."
There is no need to explain what this joke reminded me of. Somebody in Israel's Foreign Ministry dared step out of the circle. But in today's reality, the joke continues. The goy, after he has robbed the Jew's wife, notices that her husband stepped out of the circle and demands an apology. Then the Jew boasts to his wife that he didn't apologize exactly the way the goy demanded.
I have a sinking feeling that this joke will be continued. Astute observers of the joke called Israel's foreign relations can easily guess how the diplomatic crisis between Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister and the Turkish ambassador will progress. (This article was written last Wednesday afternoon. By Wednesday evening, the Jew had apologized once again, in the language dictated by the goy.)
Israel's relations with Turkey, which are actually part and parcel of Israel's relations with England, Sweden, Egypt and actually - all the nations of the world - epitomize the sad story of Zionism.
We wanted to be a normal nation so badly. "On the day that the Jewish State is established, anti-Semitism will disappear," Herzl promised. Well, at least the first part of his dream was fulfilled.
The second half, though, smolders deep within our being, giving us no rest. The desire to be normal, to be part of the "family of nations," to be rid of the Diaspora hunch on our backs, to purge ourselves of our Jewish destiny - is actually the inner, founding ethos of the State of Israel. It is also the open secret of its infirmity and its Achilles heel. It is the vicious cycle from which we cannot extricate ourselves.
In the whole world, there is not a leader more dismal than Abu Mazen. He is a scarecrow set up in Ramallah by Israel, surviving there only with the help of the IDF. But this scarecrow stands Netanyahu in a circle and makes conditions for his very willingness to speak with him. And Netanyahu allows the "bully" to rob him of his right to build our Land, promises him total retreat before "negotiations" even begin and then boasts to the people he was supposed to defend - a.k.a. the Israeli public - that he does not agree to pre-conditions. We would be better off if the Jew from the joke was prime minister. At least he had to deal with a genuine bully.
From where does Abu Mazen get his chutzpah? From where do the Bedouins and Israel's Arabs get theirs? How is it that the spy, former Knesset Member Azmi Bashara was allowed to escape to Jordan and continues to receive a hefty Knesset pension? How has Israel been transformed from a local superpower to a doormat for the whole world?
We are experiencing a closing of the circle. First, there was the Jew from the joke. After that, came the proud Zionists and created the new Jew, who knew how to fight back hard. "You can call me a Jew if you would like," explains Yudka the Pioneer in Haim Hazzaz's story. "But I am no longer a Jew - I am a Zionist."
Our new Jew establishes a state that is not Jewish. It is Zionist. Together with the curse of the exile and the spinelessness that were rightfully shed, the new state also sheds its Jewish destiny and disengages from the long chain of Jewish heritage - from our Forefathers, from the ethos of the Exodus from Egypt, from King David, from the Holy Temple, from the Diaspora, from the Biblical and Talmudic epic - from everything.
But the values that Zionism pretended to establish in place of Judaism have evaporated. All that is left is reality TV, grotesque celebrity figures and a president who hates history. The only real remnant of Zionism is the aspiration that never fades; to be like everyone else, to be accepted, to stop being different.
And that means that we absolutely cannot have Turkey recalling its ambassador, because that would return us to the starting point that we tried to escape. And we absolutely cannot arrest Bashara, because in the high profile trial that would ensue, it would become clear that there is no such thing as an "Israeli Arab." It would be obvious that Israel must be a strictly Jewish state and that Yudka the Pioneer has failed.
We have come full circle. At soon as the non-Jews in Israel and the rest of the world understood that we needed them to fulfill our fantasy of the "new Jew", we became doormats. The strongest doormats in the world, replete with nuclear weapons and advanced technology - doormats that look and act more non-Jewish than the non-Jews. We have glittering Americans like Bibi, tough, proud Russians like Yvette and a Deputy Foreign Minister who has disconnected himself from his nation and married a Christian Evangelist.
The Zionist dialectic has turned us into first rate non-Jews. We have come full circle. The entire world looks at us and sees the Jew from the joke. It turns out that the new Jew is really the new, old Jew. With just one difference. He has sold not only his honor, but also his ancient culture - down the river.
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Dichotomy of Democracy and Judaism*
Israel’s most fundamental dilemma—almost never discussed in a candid and philosophic manner—is the dichotomy of Democracy and Judaism. Having dealt with this dichotomy in several books, here I will only touch on Israel’s democratic quagmire.
Israel’s ruling elites—politicians and judges, academics and journalists—boast that Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East. This boast is quite understandable, for it is precisely Israel’s democratic reputation that endows its government with legitimacy and Israel’s intellectual elites with respectability. It seems never to have occurred to her policy-makers and opinion-makers that showcasing Israel as a democracy increases Israel-bashing one the one hand, and Israel’s territorial shrinkage on the other! Bear with me as I explode some myths.
Beginning on the surface, it’s obvious that the tendency of politicians in any democracy is to speak in a manner calculated to win the approval of the voters. This democratic tendency corresponds to Israel’s notorious efforts to win the approval of the nations.
Israel is the only nation preoccupied with “hasbara” or information campaigns to solidify Israel’s existence and reputation as a democracy. Here is a nation that has periodic multiparty elections where Arabs have their own representatives in the Knesset. But here is also a nation where professors can blatantly identify with Israel’s enemies with impunity, and where Arab students can wave PLO flags on university campuses and retain their government subsidies!
Israel is so egalitarian that its Supreme Court has ruled, in effect, that disloyal citizens are entitled to the political rights of loyal citizens. Israel is so liberal or permissive that its government often refrains from retaliating against Arab stone-throwers and terrorists. The elites can rightly boast of Israeli democracy—unrivaled in its indiscriminate egalitarianism and libertarianism!
Of course, we must bear in mind that Democracy is the religion of the modern age, that politicians across the political spectrum are forever burning incense to this secular religion—more immune to questioning than any revealed religion. Still, the frequency with which Israel’s elites speak glowingly of Israeli democracy is amazing. They obviously believe that showcasing Israeli democracy will garner support abroad and simultaneously diminish anti-Semitism. For these cognoscenti, Israel’s democratic reputation is more important than her Jewish reputation. No wonder, since they obviously believe that Israel’s Jewish reputation incites anti-Semitism. This prompts Israel’s ruling elites to diminish Israel’s Jewish character.
Since Democracy today is the standard of what is acceptable, Israel’s yearning for acceptance by the democratic world magnifies her fear of pursuing national security policies that may cast doubt on Israel’s democratic credentials. Hence, Israel’s government unwittingly imposes on itself the necessity of pursuing a policy of self-restraint against Arab terrorists. But this means—and no one dares say—Jews are being sacrificed on the altar of Democracy!
Summing up, since Israel’s elites believe that the legitimacy of Israel’s government and their own prestige depend primarily on Israel’s democratic reputation, they will be all the more inclined to pursue policies dangerous to Jewish life and detrimental to Israel’s Jewish character.
A subtle way of diminishing Israel’s Jewish character is to propagate former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak’s disingenuous contention that Judaism and Democracy are compatible. Israel’s Illuminati mindlessly purveyed this falsehood while warning the public that “Arab demography”—a euphemism for the democratic principle of “one adult/one vote”—endangers Israel’s survival as a Jewish state!
Of course, Judge Barak’s obscurantism regarding Judaism and Democracy facilitates the anti-Zionist goal of transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” or multicultural society. But the fulfillment of this goal requires, to begin with, Israel’s disengagement from Gaza followed by withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. The government’s abandoning Israel’s heartland is therefore motivated not simply by a desire for peace—as is commonly thought—but also by a desire to emasculate Israel’s Jewish character in view of the high birthrate of religious Jews.
The remedy? (1) Erase the historical memory of Jews by surrendering patriarchal Jewish land; (2) shrink the Jewish content of public education; (3) facilitate an influx of gentiles from Russia via the “grandfather clause” of the Law of Return; and (4) multiply judicial rulings that negate Jewish ideas and values. This will spare the elites of anti-Semitism, and Israel, deJudaized, will be accepted by the nations.
At first blush it may seem this conclusion is contradicted by Binyamin Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But for this secular prime minister, a Jewish state is little more than a haven for Jews. Notice how impatient he is to surrender Judea and Samaria, land inseparable from the teachings of Israel’s prophets and sages. Those teachings are very much the well-spring of Jewish consciousness, which will evaporate if Judea and Samaria are Islamized. Follow Netanyahu’s road map to peace and in one or two generations Israel will be little more than a subject for antiquarians. Yes, but at last Israel, or what’s left of it, will have “a place among the nations”—the title of one of Netanyahu’s books.
That title betrays his ardent desire for international approval. So it was with Ariel Sharon. Recall that Sharon justified “disengagement” from Gaza as a means of improving Israel’s international image. Sharon was practicing “PR-manship” in contrast to Jewish statesmanship.
PR-manship underlies Netanyahu’s endorsement of the “two-state solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict—the solution demanded by the democratic world. But now let’s think beyond the complacency of democracy.
We see that democracies, since the end of the Second World War, have succumbed to moral decay and cowardice. Even America, an unrivaled superpower, now appeases terrorist thugs and tyrannies. Hence the time has come to question Churchill’s adage: democracy may not be the best form of government, but all others are worse. I dare say that Israel’s Torah, which saved Rome from utter degeneracy, again offers humanity the key to salvation.
Allow me a brief digression about an extraordinary philosopher and theologian, Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh, whose magnum opus Israel and Humanity, was published posthumously in 1914. In this monumental work, its author—who was called the Plato of Italy—refutes the widespread prejudice that the Torah exemplifies a theocracy. In his profound erudition we can see that Torah government is more rational, more conducive to justice and human dignity, and even more consistent with popular sovereignty than Israel’s current political system!
Speaking of the Torah, note first that it was not a secular democratic state that bestowed on mankind the Bible, the fountainhead of civilization, where individual freedom, limited government, compassion for the poor, and hatred of violence are basic principles.
Second, it should be obvious that the ethical precepts of the Torah are being trashed by contemporary democracy, where moral relativism now thrives along with a frivolous and power-oriented atheism. Perhaps this is why democracy is succumbing to the absurd and power-oriented creed of Islam.
Third, it was not a leveling democracy that produced the exalted wisdom of Psalms or Proverbs. Neither King David nor King Solomon ever thought of Israel as having merely “a place among the nations,” where Israel now finds itself—to its disgrace—in the corrupt United Nations.
While Israel’s ruling elites boast of Israeli democracy, no one expects even the shadow of Israel’s philosopher-kings to rise in this or is any secular democratic state. The secular democratic state has reached such a level of spiritual decay that its citizens are awed by the vacuous oratory of Barack Obama!
That a prime minister of Israel should cow tow to this semi-educated demagogue is a sad reflection on Israel’s reputedly Jewish character. This may explain why most people in this country despise Israeli politicians. It may also help explain why so many nations despise Israel.
Notice that since its rebirth in 1948, Israel has produced some 30 governments, all led by secularists, all fragmented, none capable of pursuing a distinctively Jewish domestic and foreign policy. There is little sense of Jewish national pride and purpose among Israel’s secular elites. They are random men, as may be found in any democratic society, where individuals drift hither and yon animated by nothing more than their own egos.
Israel’s salvation ultimately depends on having Torah men at the helm of state, but men capable of interfacing Torah and science—the prerequisite of national unity. Such men will know how to make Israel democratic by means of Jewish principles, as well as Jewish by means of democratic principles. This will provide a governmental structure for transcending the dichotomy of Democracy and Judaism, a precondition for overcoming Israel’s enemies and bringing peace to mankind.
Israel’s ruling elites—politicians and judges, academics and journalists—boast that Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East. This boast is quite understandable, for it is precisely Israel’s democratic reputation that endows its government with legitimacy and Israel’s intellectual elites with respectability. It seems never to have occurred to her policy-makers and opinion-makers that showcasing Israel as a democracy increases Israel-bashing one the one hand, and Israel’s territorial shrinkage on the other! Bear with me as I explode some myths.
Beginning on the surface, it’s obvious that the tendency of politicians in any democracy is to speak in a manner calculated to win the approval of the voters. This democratic tendency corresponds to Israel’s notorious efforts to win the approval of the nations.
Israel is the only nation preoccupied with “hasbara” or information campaigns to solidify Israel’s existence and reputation as a democracy. Here is a nation that has periodic multiparty elections where Arabs have their own representatives in the Knesset. But here is also a nation where professors can blatantly identify with Israel’s enemies with impunity, and where Arab students can wave PLO flags on university campuses and retain their government subsidies!
Israel is so egalitarian that its Supreme Court has ruled, in effect, that disloyal citizens are entitled to the political rights of loyal citizens. Israel is so liberal or permissive that its government often refrains from retaliating against Arab stone-throwers and terrorists. The elites can rightly boast of Israeli democracy—unrivaled in its indiscriminate egalitarianism and libertarianism!
Of course, we must bear in mind that Democracy is the religion of the modern age, that politicians across the political spectrum are forever burning incense to this secular religion—more immune to questioning than any revealed religion. Still, the frequency with which Israel’s elites speak glowingly of Israeli democracy is amazing. They obviously believe that showcasing Israeli democracy will garner support abroad and simultaneously diminish anti-Semitism. For these cognoscenti, Israel’s democratic reputation is more important than her Jewish reputation. No wonder, since they obviously believe that Israel’s Jewish reputation incites anti-Semitism. This prompts Israel’s ruling elites to diminish Israel’s Jewish character.
Since Democracy today is the standard of what is acceptable, Israel’s yearning for acceptance by the democratic world magnifies her fear of pursuing national security policies that may cast doubt on Israel’s democratic credentials. Hence, Israel’s government unwittingly imposes on itself the necessity of pursuing a policy of self-restraint against Arab terrorists. But this means—and no one dares say—Jews are being sacrificed on the altar of Democracy!
Summing up, since Israel’s elites believe that the legitimacy of Israel’s government and their own prestige depend primarily on Israel’s democratic reputation, they will be all the more inclined to pursue policies dangerous to Jewish life and detrimental to Israel’s Jewish character.
A subtle way of diminishing Israel’s Jewish character is to propagate former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak’s disingenuous contention that Judaism and Democracy are compatible. Israel’s Illuminati mindlessly purveyed this falsehood while warning the public that “Arab demography”—a euphemism for the democratic principle of “one adult/one vote”—endangers Israel’s survival as a Jewish state!
Of course, Judge Barak’s obscurantism regarding Judaism and Democracy facilitates the anti-Zionist goal of transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” or multicultural society. But the fulfillment of this goal requires, to begin with, Israel’s disengagement from Gaza followed by withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. The government’s abandoning Israel’s heartland is therefore motivated not simply by a desire for peace—as is commonly thought—but also by a desire to emasculate Israel’s Jewish character in view of the high birthrate of religious Jews.
The remedy? (1) Erase the historical memory of Jews by surrendering patriarchal Jewish land; (2) shrink the Jewish content of public education; (3) facilitate an influx of gentiles from Russia via the “grandfather clause” of the Law of Return; and (4) multiply judicial rulings that negate Jewish ideas and values. This will spare the elites of anti-Semitism, and Israel, deJudaized, will be accepted by the nations.
At first blush it may seem this conclusion is contradicted by Binyamin Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But for this secular prime minister, a Jewish state is little more than a haven for Jews. Notice how impatient he is to surrender Judea and Samaria, land inseparable from the teachings of Israel’s prophets and sages. Those teachings are very much the well-spring of Jewish consciousness, which will evaporate if Judea and Samaria are Islamized. Follow Netanyahu’s road map to peace and in one or two generations Israel will be little more than a subject for antiquarians. Yes, but at last Israel, or what’s left of it, will have “a place among the nations”—the title of one of Netanyahu’s books.
That title betrays his ardent desire for international approval. So it was with Ariel Sharon. Recall that Sharon justified “disengagement” from Gaza as a means of improving Israel’s international image. Sharon was practicing “PR-manship” in contrast to Jewish statesmanship.
PR-manship underlies Netanyahu’s endorsement of the “two-state solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict—the solution demanded by the democratic world. But now let’s think beyond the complacency of democracy.
We see that democracies, since the end of the Second World War, have succumbed to moral decay and cowardice. Even America, an unrivaled superpower, now appeases terrorist thugs and tyrannies. Hence the time has come to question Churchill’s adage: democracy may not be the best form of government, but all others are worse. I dare say that Israel’s Torah, which saved Rome from utter degeneracy, again offers humanity the key to salvation.
Allow me a brief digression about an extraordinary philosopher and theologian, Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh, whose magnum opus Israel and Humanity, was published posthumously in 1914. In this monumental work, its author—who was called the Plato of Italy—refutes the widespread prejudice that the Torah exemplifies a theocracy. In his profound erudition we can see that Torah government is more rational, more conducive to justice and human dignity, and even more consistent with popular sovereignty than Israel’s current political system!
Speaking of the Torah, note first that it was not a secular democratic state that bestowed on mankind the Bible, the fountainhead of civilization, where individual freedom, limited government, compassion for the poor, and hatred of violence are basic principles.
Second, it should be obvious that the ethical precepts of the Torah are being trashed by contemporary democracy, where moral relativism now thrives along with a frivolous and power-oriented atheism. Perhaps this is why democracy is succumbing to the absurd and power-oriented creed of Islam.
Third, it was not a leveling democracy that produced the exalted wisdom of Psalms or Proverbs. Neither King David nor King Solomon ever thought of Israel as having merely “a place among the nations,” where Israel now finds itself—to its disgrace—in the corrupt United Nations.
While Israel’s ruling elites boast of Israeli democracy, no one expects even the shadow of Israel’s philosopher-kings to rise in this or is any secular democratic state. The secular democratic state has reached such a level of spiritual decay that its citizens are awed by the vacuous oratory of Barack Obama!
That a prime minister of Israel should cow tow to this semi-educated demagogue is a sad reflection on Israel’s reputedly Jewish character. This may explain why most people in this country despise Israeli politicians. It may also help explain why so many nations despise Israel.
Notice that since its rebirth in 1948, Israel has produced some 30 governments, all led by secularists, all fragmented, none capable of pursuing a distinctively Jewish domestic and foreign policy. There is little sense of Jewish national pride and purpose among Israel’s secular elites. They are random men, as may be found in any democratic society, where individuals drift hither and yon animated by nothing more than their own egos.
Israel’s salvation ultimately depends on having Torah men at the helm of state, but men capable of interfacing Torah and science—the prerequisite of national unity. Such men will know how to make Israel democratic by means of Jewish principles, as well as Jewish by means of democratic principles. This will provide a governmental structure for transcending the dichotomy of Democracy and Judaism, a precondition for overcoming Israel’s enemies and bringing peace to mankind.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Overcoming the ‘Regime of the Parties’ - Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Political parties have a bad reputation, particularly in Israel where they are so numerous, so narrow, and so noxious. Although parties serve the purpose of presenting and supporting candidates, they also muddle the relationship between the candidate and the voter. This is especially true in Israel, where citizens are compelled to vote for a party slate, and not an individual candidate representing a regional constituency. Recognizing these facts, some countries require open primaries, the registration of candidates rather than parties, and the funding of candidates by public means.
Israel is a ‘regime of the parties.’ Their primary function, David Ben-Gurion once said, is to divide the public treasury. Nevertheless, while parties are still necessary to democracy, it would serve Israel’s best interests to diminish their number and power. Here are three ways of doing this.
The first and simplest way is to raise the electoral threshold for seats in the legislature. The second is to adopt—and retain over time— the presidential model of government. Because only one candidate can win a national election for the presidency, voters will not want to waste their votes on small parties. This is why presidential governments usually produce a two-party system, the more readily when the legislature is constituted by multi-district elections—a third method of reducing the number and power of national parties.
What prevents the formation of a national two- or three- party system is that the Knesset continues to be based on a single national constituency with proportional representation.
Limiting the number of Israeli parties would enlarge their mental horizons; for to compete effectively in district elections, each party would have to consider the views and interests of diverse groups of citizens. This is why proportional representation is not necessarily conducive to the interests of minorities, even though the latter may win a few seats in the legislature. A legislature of numerous parties will be incapable of rational deliberation, to say nothing of petty rivalry and intrigue. This cannot but impair executive-legislative relations as well as a President’s ultimate function, which is to foster national unity.
Although various political scientists are critical of presidential government, their arguments are of limited validity. Invariably they refer to the failings of presidential systems in Latin America. I dare say, however, that parliamentary systems would probably fare no better. As John Quincy Adams saw some 180 years ago, the culture and class structure of most Latin American countries — their extremes of wealth and poverty — are not conducive to majoritarian democracy, parliamentary or presidential.
Critics also deplore the ‘dual sovereignty’ they associate with presidential governments. By this they mean that popular election of the president and of the legislature results in two competing ‘sovereignties.’ (A parliamentary system is immune to this phenomenon, since the ruling party controls both the executive and the legislature.) Linked to ‘dual sovereignty’ is the ‘gridlock’ that supposedly occurs in the United States when the President and the Congress are of opposite parties. But appearances are deceiving. Studies indicate that the passage of congressional legislation is usually independent of which party controls which branch of government. Public problems must be attended, and American politicians, unlike their Israeli counterparts, are more attentive to their constituents than to their parties.
Also, the notion of ‘dual sovereignty’ is misleading. A President represents the people in their collective capacity. He is expected to emphasize their common interests. This emphasis differs from that of a legislature whose members represent the particular interests of diverse constituencies. Although a legislator will presumably promote the common good, he is obliged to emphasize the concerns of his own constituents. (This applies to parliamentary governments with district elections, except that party-dominated parliamentary systems severely limit the independence of individual parliamentarians.)
Another defect attributed to presidential government is its fixed term. The truth is that parliamentary governments seldom succumb to a vote of no-confidence, meaning they usually run their allotted term. Politicians do not like to hazard their careers on new elections.
The one solid advantage of parliamentary systems is their ‘shadow governments,’ which enable experienced politicians to assume office when the ruling party falls from power. This does not apply, however, to Israel where any tyro can become a cabinet minister, thanks largely to the absence of district elections.
One way of compensating for the absence of a ‘shadow government’ is to require each presidential candidate (other than an incumbent President), to announce say five of his intended cabinet appointments. It may be assumed that only well-known, respected, and experienced public figures will be designated.
Finally, the presidential model is more consistent with Judaism than the parliamentary model. A president is an elected monarch. His election by the people is consistent with Jewish law. So too are multi-district elections. Combining the latter with a presidential system is the best way to overcome the ‘regime of the parties.’
Israel is a ‘regime of the parties.’ Their primary function, David Ben-Gurion once said, is to divide the public treasury. Nevertheless, while parties are still necessary to democracy, it would serve Israel’s best interests to diminish their number and power. Here are three ways of doing this.
The first and simplest way is to raise the electoral threshold for seats in the legislature. The second is to adopt—and retain over time— the presidential model of government. Because only one candidate can win a national election for the presidency, voters will not want to waste their votes on small parties. This is why presidential governments usually produce a two-party system, the more readily when the legislature is constituted by multi-district elections—a third method of reducing the number and power of national parties.
What prevents the formation of a national two- or three- party system is that the Knesset continues to be based on a single national constituency with proportional representation.
Limiting the number of Israeli parties would enlarge their mental horizons; for to compete effectively in district elections, each party would have to consider the views and interests of diverse groups of citizens. This is why proportional representation is not necessarily conducive to the interests of minorities, even though the latter may win a few seats in the legislature. A legislature of numerous parties will be incapable of rational deliberation, to say nothing of petty rivalry and intrigue. This cannot but impair executive-legislative relations as well as a President’s ultimate function, which is to foster national unity.
Although various political scientists are critical of presidential government, their arguments are of limited validity. Invariably they refer to the failings of presidential systems in Latin America. I dare say, however, that parliamentary systems would probably fare no better. As John Quincy Adams saw some 180 years ago, the culture and class structure of most Latin American countries — their extremes of wealth and poverty — are not conducive to majoritarian democracy, parliamentary or presidential.
Critics also deplore the ‘dual sovereignty’ they associate with presidential governments. By this they mean that popular election of the president and of the legislature results in two competing ‘sovereignties.’ (A parliamentary system is immune to this phenomenon, since the ruling party controls both the executive and the legislature.) Linked to ‘dual sovereignty’ is the ‘gridlock’ that supposedly occurs in the United States when the President and the Congress are of opposite parties. But appearances are deceiving. Studies indicate that the passage of congressional legislation is usually independent of which party controls which branch of government. Public problems must be attended, and American politicians, unlike their Israeli counterparts, are more attentive to their constituents than to their parties.
Also, the notion of ‘dual sovereignty’ is misleading. A President represents the people in their collective capacity. He is expected to emphasize their common interests. This emphasis differs from that of a legislature whose members represent the particular interests of diverse constituencies. Although a legislator will presumably promote the common good, he is obliged to emphasize the concerns of his own constituents. (This applies to parliamentary governments with district elections, except that party-dominated parliamentary systems severely limit the independence of individual parliamentarians.)
Another defect attributed to presidential government is its fixed term. The truth is that parliamentary governments seldom succumb to a vote of no-confidence, meaning they usually run their allotted term. Politicians do not like to hazard their careers on new elections.
The one solid advantage of parliamentary systems is their ‘shadow governments,’ which enable experienced politicians to assume office when the ruling party falls from power. This does not apply, however, to Israel where any tyro can become a cabinet minister, thanks largely to the absence of district elections.
One way of compensating for the absence of a ‘shadow government’ is to require each presidential candidate (other than an incumbent President), to announce say five of his intended cabinet appointments. It may be assumed that only well-known, respected, and experienced public figures will be designated.
Finally, the presidential model is more consistent with Judaism than the parliamentary model. A president is an elected monarch. His election by the people is consistent with Jewish law. So too are multi-district elections. Combining the latter with a presidential system is the best way to overcome the ‘regime of the parties.’
Friday, January 15, 2010
Saudi Arabia - Where Men Are Men And Women Are Cattle!
This is an excellent 6 Minute video about Islam. No bad pictures and with subtitles so you
listen with no sound....
http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba-408c-ace3-8cc40995e011
He makes many excellent points and if you disagree...I would love to hear from you!
Avi
listen with no sound....
http://dotsub.com/view/84f5c72d-b0ba-408c-ace3-8cc40995e011
He makes many excellent points and if you disagree...I would love to hear from you!
Avi
Thursday, January 14, 2010
You May not be Pro Israel IF... by Moshe Phillips
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think that "East Jerusalem" is anything but a myth created to wrench Jerusalem away from Israel.
The recent media attention garnered by the relatively new J Street lobby necessitates an examination of the very notion of the term "Pro-Israel." Until very recently the J Street was always self-branded as "Pro-Israel."
Intensifying the matter is the case of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel spoke on November 10, 2009 at the General Assembly/GA of the Jewish Federations of North America, the largest and most important event on the U.S. Jewish establishment's calendar. Emanuel has been called "Pro-Israel" by the media. It should be clear that the label "Pro-Israel" must be defined if the term is to be understood to have any meaning at all . . .
And so:
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you support the establishment of a "Palestinian State."
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think that there is any "Final Status" for Jerusalem other than as the Eternal and United Capitol of the State of Israel and the Jewish People.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if the words "Final Status" does not sound in your ears just too close to "Final Solution."
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you fail to advocate the immediate relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think that "East Jerusalem" is anything but a myth created to wrench Jerusalem away from Israel.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think a return to Israel's 1967 borders would place Israel in a better strategic and defensible position than where it stands now.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think that Israel should be forced to enter into negotiations with Syria where the Golan Heights would be surrendered to Syria.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you still think the piece of paper Israel received in exchange for the Sinai's oil reserves, tourism revenue and strategic depth given the likely emergence of an Iran-allied Islamic Republic in a post-Mubarak Egypt was worth it.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think the U.N is fair to Israel.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think the mainstream media portrays news from Israel accurately.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you fail to question the decades-old U.S. State Department's Arabist policies.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas ever sincerely wanted true peace.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think Israel should be held to a higher moral standard than other nations.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you agree with anything Jimmy Carter says about Israel and the Middle East.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you believe that the so-called Israel/Palestine conflict can be "solved."
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you believe that negotiations are the answer.
And lastly . . .
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if think President Obama is "Pro-Israel."
When Rahm Emanuel states, "No one should allow the issue of settlements to distract from the goal of a lasting peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world," this is not a "Pro-Israel" statement.
Mr. Emanuel needs to be reminded that service in the Israeli army by one's relatives, having gone on family vacations in Israel, planning to celebrate bar mitzvahs in Israel and speaking Hebrew do not necessarily make you "Pro-Israel."
United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote in 1964 regarding obscenity that "I know it when I see it."
"Anti-Israel" is a similar thing. Mr. Emanuel is not "Pro-Israel" and President Obama is not "Pro-Israel." You cannot be Pro-Israel and advocate schemes that are designed to bring a bloody end to the nation of Israel — even if it is all in the name of "Peace" – of course. A State of Israel without the settlements is a weaker Israel.
The recent media attention garnered by the relatively new J Street lobby necessitates an examination of the very notion of the term "Pro-Israel." Until very recently the J Street was always self-branded as "Pro-Israel."
Intensifying the matter is the case of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel spoke on November 10, 2009 at the General Assembly/GA of the Jewish Federations of North America, the largest and most important event on the U.S. Jewish establishment's calendar. Emanuel has been called "Pro-Israel" by the media. It should be clear that the label "Pro-Israel" must be defined if the term is to be understood to have any meaning at all . . .
And so:
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you support the establishment of a "Palestinian State."
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think that there is any "Final Status" for Jerusalem other than as the Eternal and United Capitol of the State of Israel and the Jewish People.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if the words "Final Status" does not sound in your ears just too close to "Final Solution."
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you fail to advocate the immediate relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think that "East Jerusalem" is anything but a myth created to wrench Jerusalem away from Israel.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think a return to Israel's 1967 borders would place Israel in a better strategic and defensible position than where it stands now.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think that Israel should be forced to enter into negotiations with Syria where the Golan Heights would be surrendered to Syria.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you still think the piece of paper Israel received in exchange for the Sinai's oil reserves, tourism revenue and strategic depth given the likely emergence of an Iran-allied Islamic Republic in a post-Mubarak Egypt was worth it.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think the U.N is fair to Israel.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think the mainstream media portrays news from Israel accurately.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you fail to question the decades-old U.S. State Department's Arabist policies.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas ever sincerely wanted true peace.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you think Israel should be held to a higher moral standard than other nations.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you agree with anything Jimmy Carter says about Israel and the Middle East.
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you believe that the so-called Israel/Palestine conflict can be "solved."
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if you believe that negotiations are the answer.
And lastly . . .
You may not be "Pro-Israel" if think President Obama is "Pro-Israel."
When Rahm Emanuel states, "No one should allow the issue of settlements to distract from the goal of a lasting peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world," this is not a "Pro-Israel" statement.
Mr. Emanuel needs to be reminded that service in the Israeli army by one's relatives, having gone on family vacations in Israel, planning to celebrate bar mitzvahs in Israel and speaking Hebrew do not necessarily make you "Pro-Israel."
United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote in 1964 regarding obscenity that "I know it when I see it."
"Anti-Israel" is a similar thing. Mr. Emanuel is not "Pro-Israel" and President Obama is not "Pro-Israel." You cannot be Pro-Israel and advocate schemes that are designed to bring a bloody end to the nation of Israel — even if it is all in the name of "Peace" – of course. A State of Israel without the settlements is a weaker Israel.
Let My People Go, So That They May Serve Me
And G-d said to Moses, 'Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him: Thus says G-d, the G-d of the Hebrews: Let My people go, that they may serve Me. (From this week's Torah portion, Va'eirah, Exodus 9:13)
"So that they may serve Me." This small phrase turns all the modern significance that we would like to attach to the story of the Exodus on its head. On the surface, the story is made for Hollywood (and it was!): It has the good guys and the bad guys. It has Moses, the underdog leader fighting for justice who defeats Pharaoh, the strong and evil king. The good guys win, the bad guys lose, the good guys live happily ever after, the bad guys drown in the sea, justice has been done, happy end.
There is just one small problem. That is not what is written. We were not redeemed from Egypt so that we could live happily ever after. We were redeemed from Egypt to serve the King of the world. Were it not for that fact, we would have remained there.
The famous verse from this week's Torah portion, "Let my people go" became the slogan of the struggle for Soviet Jewry trapped behind the Iron Curtain. It was a great struggle to be in; the Soviet Union was the bitter enemy of the United States and what could be nicer than fighting against the evil empire and dovetailing with the ethical and enlightened Western world?
The problem is that while we adopted the values of the US, the "good empire", we omitted the all-important phrase, "So that they may serve Me." All that we remembered was "Let my people go." Let my people go for the sake of freedom, for the sake of democracy, for the sake of Zionism, for the sake of the values of the Western world. Let my people go to the Pax Americana of which Israel is part.
But we - and the Americans - are in the process of collapse because we have forgotten that our purpose is to serve G-d.
We have lost our sense of justice for our existence and as a result, arrest warrants are already waiting for our elected government officials if they dare venture into Europe's capitals. In a sense, they are right. We did not leave Egypt to enjoy the desert climate and we did not establish the State of Israel because the world lacks democracies. Without the "serving G-d" factor, there is no significance to the Return to Zion - it only creates friction in the world. As far as the nations are concerned, if we do not carry the message that the world has been waiting for, we are extraneous - even a nuisance.
The Americans had a president who looked for meaning. He was inspired by the good Jew who helped to open the Iron Curtain. "Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, is always at my bedside," said President Bush. And so, the American Nation followed Sharansky's message. But unfortunately, Sharansky's book did not include the connection between liberty and the service of G-d. The attempt to force democracy upon Iraq failed, naturally and the defeat of America was remolded into the image of Obama.
"So that they may serve Me." This small phrase turns all the modern significance that we would like to attach to the story of the Exodus on its head. On the surface, the story is made for Hollywood (and it was!): It has the good guys and the bad guys. It has Moses, the underdog leader fighting for justice who defeats Pharaoh, the strong and evil king. The good guys win, the bad guys lose, the good guys live happily ever after, the bad guys drown in the sea, justice has been done, happy end.
There is just one small problem. That is not what is written. We were not redeemed from Egypt so that we could live happily ever after. We were redeemed from Egypt to serve the King of the world. Were it not for that fact, we would have remained there.
The famous verse from this week's Torah portion, "Let my people go" became the slogan of the struggle for Soviet Jewry trapped behind the Iron Curtain. It was a great struggle to be in; the Soviet Union was the bitter enemy of the United States and what could be nicer than fighting against the evil empire and dovetailing with the ethical and enlightened Western world?
The problem is that while we adopted the values of the US, the "good empire", we omitted the all-important phrase, "So that they may serve Me." All that we remembered was "Let my people go." Let my people go for the sake of freedom, for the sake of democracy, for the sake of Zionism, for the sake of the values of the Western world. Let my people go to the Pax Americana of which Israel is part.
But we - and the Americans - are in the process of collapse because we have forgotten that our purpose is to serve G-d.
We have lost our sense of justice for our existence and as a result, arrest warrants are already waiting for our elected government officials if they dare venture into Europe's capitals. In a sense, they are right. We did not leave Egypt to enjoy the desert climate and we did not establish the State of Israel because the world lacks democracies. Without the "serving G-d" factor, there is no significance to the Return to Zion - it only creates friction in the world. As far as the nations are concerned, if we do not carry the message that the world has been waiting for, we are extraneous - even a nuisance.
The Americans had a president who looked for meaning. He was inspired by the good Jew who helped to open the Iron Curtain. "Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, is always at my bedside," said President Bush. And so, the American Nation followed Sharansky's message. But unfortunately, Sharansky's book did not include the connection between liberty and the service of G-d. The attempt to force democracy upon Iraq failed, naturally and the defeat of America was remolded into the image of Obama.
An Alternative to a 'Palestinian State': By Moshe Feiglin
21 Tevet 5770
Jan. 7, '10
At a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I was asked about my alternative to a 'Palestinian State'. The solution that I propose, promotion of Arab emigration, is predicated on the following points:
A. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish Nation.
B. There is no "Palestinian nation" and aspirations for a "Palestinian State" are strictly for Arab propaganda purposes. The Arabs of Israel and their terror organizations are being offered a state on a silver platter - something that has never happened to any other group in history. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly rejected this gift. The reason that they reject this more-than-generous offer is because their real and exclusive goal is not Arab sovereignty, but the destruction of Jewish sovereignty. Thus, any plan that relies on a third side, and particularly on the good will and cooperation of the Arab countries, is unrealistic.
C. The solution for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be based on the facts on the ground and not on the fantasies of Oslo.
There are three facts on the ground that support this position:
1. The Arabs want to leave. Time and again, polls of the Arab public - including polls carried out by Arab institutions - show that a large majority of the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is interested in finding a better future elsewhere
2. Many Western countries and Arab emirates are interested in Arab immigrants from Israel. Quite a few Western countries have negative population growth (less than two children per family) and need immigrants to help sustain their economies. The question is not who will build the skyscrapers in Montreal, but whether they will be built by a Sudanese immigrant whose only construction experience is with mud huts, or by an immigrant from Ramallah, who has lived alongside a modern, Western culture for the past forty years and who has experience with building skyscrapers.
3. We have all the money necessary to promote this process. Israel spends approximately 150 billion dollars per decade -10% of its
budget - on the Oslo vision of partitioning the Land. The price will continue to inflate as the relatively less expensive separation fence is replaced with ballistic missile batteries to defend our cities from flying pipes and as Israel's towns dig themselves underground in self defense. Exchanging this defensive paradigm for the emigration proposal would release approximately one quarter of a million dollars to be allotted to every Arab family that would emigrate from Israel.
After the lecture, I discovered that Professor Martin Sherman has written a position paper with the same conclusions as mine, complete with very similar numbers. Click here for his detailed description.
The above proposal would solve Israel's local security problems, save it billions, give the Arabs mired in the "Palestinian struggle" a new lease on life and provide some Western countries with much-needed working hands. Do we dare to emerge from our Oslo box and implement it?
Jan. 7, '10
At a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I was asked about my alternative to a 'Palestinian State'. The solution that I propose, promotion of Arab emigration, is predicated on the following points:
A. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish Nation.
B. There is no "Palestinian nation" and aspirations for a "Palestinian State" are strictly for Arab propaganda purposes. The Arabs of Israel and their terror organizations are being offered a state on a silver platter - something that has never happened to any other group in history. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly rejected this gift. The reason that they reject this more-than-generous offer is because their real and exclusive goal is not Arab sovereignty, but the destruction of Jewish sovereignty. Thus, any plan that relies on a third side, and particularly on the good will and cooperation of the Arab countries, is unrealistic.
C. The solution for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be based on the facts on the ground and not on the fantasies of Oslo.
There are three facts on the ground that support this position:
1. The Arabs want to leave. Time and again, polls of the Arab public - including polls carried out by Arab institutions - show that a large majority of the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is interested in finding a better future elsewhere
2. Many Western countries and Arab emirates are interested in Arab immigrants from Israel. Quite a few Western countries have negative population growth (less than two children per family) and need immigrants to help sustain their economies. The question is not who will build the skyscrapers in Montreal, but whether they will be built by a Sudanese immigrant whose only construction experience is with mud huts, or by an immigrant from Ramallah, who has lived alongside a modern, Western culture for the past forty years and who has experience with building skyscrapers.
3. We have all the money necessary to promote this process. Israel spends approximately 150 billion dollars per decade -10% of its
budget - on the Oslo vision of partitioning the Land. The price will continue to inflate as the relatively less expensive separation fence is replaced with ballistic missile batteries to defend our cities from flying pipes and as Israel's towns dig themselves underground in self defense. Exchanging this defensive paradigm for the emigration proposal would release approximately one quarter of a million dollars to be allotted to every Arab family that would emigrate from Israel.
After the lecture, I discovered that Professor Martin Sherman has written a position paper with the same conclusions as mine, complete with very similar numbers. Click here for his detailed description.
The above proposal would solve Israel's local security problems, save it billions, give the Arabs mired in the "Palestinian struggle" a new lease on life and provide some Western countries with much-needed working hands. Do we dare to emerge from our Oslo box and implement it?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
US Loan Guarantees Cost US Nothing - Yet Cost Israel Her Sovereignty
January 12, 2010...
American Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell stated last week that if Israel doesn't advance the peace process, "[the United States] can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel". Manhigut Yehudit applauds Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz for telling Mitchell that "We don't have to use those guarantees; we are doing very well without them" and Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sar for stating that "We will act in accordance with our own interests and not in accordance with external pressures."
Though US Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman sought to minimize the threat, Mitchell's statement sheds light on years of attempted American blackmail by which the United States placed financial pressure on Israel to gain the Jewish state’s surrender to and continuation of the ongoing false peace process.
In conjunction with the loan guarantees are the roughly 2.7 billion dollars that Israel receives annually from the United States. Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction of the ruling Likud party, has been clear for years regarding US aid - that all US aid to Israel should be ended. The loan guarantees and the financial aid have come at a high price to Israel. By following this fraudulent Oslo “peace” process, Israel has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 10,000 maimed at the hands of her so-called Arab “peace partner”.
Moreover, since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 (by which Israel willingly offered to give away the Land where 93% of the places mentioned in the Jewish Bible are located), an ever increasing portion of world opinion (including Jewish opinion) questions whether justice is on Israel's side. This "peace process" has therefore had a deleterious effect vis-à-vis anti-Semitism as well as strengthening terrorism and eroding Israel's military security.
American aid to Israel comes at a heavy price with onerous strings attached. Seventy-five percent of all monies must be spent in the US thus making it a make-work program for America’s defense industry. These conditions have cost Israel 100,000 manufacturing jobs and Israel has been prevented from using its technology for the development of its own economy. The ending of American aid would solve Israel’s unemployment crisis and free Israel to reap a tremendous profit in arms sales that would more than offset any benefits of American largesse. Currently, Israel upgrades virtually all of the military equipment that it receives from the US and yet the American companies own the technology and are the only ones able to profit. Former Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs Ron Dermer publicly confirmed these assertions at the 2006 AIPAC Conference in response to a question from Manhigut Yehudit’s US Director, Rob Muchnick.
Israeli leaders typically state that they must continue the Oslo Process or else the financial spigot from the US will be shut, even though they know that the premise is false. As a case in point, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated in 2005 that if Israel did not implement the “Disengagement from Gaza”, the United States would make Israel “do something worse”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued this trend by freezing Jewish construction in all parts of the Land of Israel liberated from the Arabs in 1967. When asked at the aforementioned AIPAC conference for his opinion as to why Israel continues to take American aid, Dermer - now a senior advisor to Netanyahu - responded that this "was a political decision made by each Prime Minister".
Manhigut Yehudit does not blame America for attempting to co-opt Israel. The Jewish state must stand on its own feet and be led only by its devotion to its heritage, its Land, and its Creator.
This duplicity on the part of Israel’s leaders has caused her to give up her sovereignty to such an extent that many people now simply think of her as nothing more than an extraneous 51st state of America.
Rob Muchnick, US Director
American Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell stated last week that if Israel doesn't advance the peace process, "[the United States] can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel". Manhigut Yehudit applauds Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz for telling Mitchell that "We don't have to use those guarantees; we are doing very well without them" and Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sar for stating that "We will act in accordance with our own interests and not in accordance with external pressures."
Though US Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman sought to minimize the threat, Mitchell's statement sheds light on years of attempted American blackmail by which the United States placed financial pressure on Israel to gain the Jewish state’s surrender to and continuation of the ongoing false peace process.
In conjunction with the loan guarantees are the roughly 2.7 billion dollars that Israel receives annually from the United States. Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction of the ruling Likud party, has been clear for years regarding US aid - that all US aid to Israel should be ended. The loan guarantees and the financial aid have come at a high price to Israel. By following this fraudulent Oslo “peace” process, Israel has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 10,000 maimed at the hands of her so-called Arab “peace partner”.
Moreover, since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 (by which Israel willingly offered to give away the Land where 93% of the places mentioned in the Jewish Bible are located), an ever increasing portion of world opinion (including Jewish opinion) questions whether justice is on Israel's side. This "peace process" has therefore had a deleterious effect vis-à-vis anti-Semitism as well as strengthening terrorism and eroding Israel's military security.
American aid to Israel comes at a heavy price with onerous strings attached. Seventy-five percent of all monies must be spent in the US thus making it a make-work program for America’s defense industry. These conditions have cost Israel 100,000 manufacturing jobs and Israel has been prevented from using its technology for the development of its own economy. The ending of American aid would solve Israel’s unemployment crisis and free Israel to reap a tremendous profit in arms sales that would more than offset any benefits of American largesse. Currently, Israel upgrades virtually all of the military equipment that it receives from the US and yet the American companies own the technology and are the only ones able to profit. Former Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs Ron Dermer publicly confirmed these assertions at the 2006 AIPAC Conference in response to a question from Manhigut Yehudit’s US Director, Rob Muchnick.
Israeli leaders typically state that they must continue the Oslo Process or else the financial spigot from the US will be shut, even though they know that the premise is false. As a case in point, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated in 2005 that if Israel did not implement the “Disengagement from Gaza”, the United States would make Israel “do something worse”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued this trend by freezing Jewish construction in all parts of the Land of Israel liberated from the Arabs in 1967. When asked at the aforementioned AIPAC conference for his opinion as to why Israel continues to take American aid, Dermer - now a senior advisor to Netanyahu - responded that this "was a political decision made by each Prime Minister".
Manhigut Yehudit does not blame America for attempting to co-opt Israel. The Jewish state must stand on its own feet and be led only by its devotion to its heritage, its Land, and its Creator.
This duplicity on the part of Israel’s leaders has caused her to give up her sovereignty to such an extent that many people now simply think of her as nothing more than an extraneous 51st state of America.
Rob Muchnick, US Director
From LBJ to Binyamin Netanyahu* Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Introduction
Israel is losing its protracted war with the Palestinians. It is losing this war for the same yet-to-be-understood reason why America lost its protracted war in Vietnam.
The United States, a superpower, did not lose the war against North Vietnam on the battle field. It did not lose the war because of the antiwar movement generated by America’s liberal-left academia and mass media. In fact, as late as 1968 polls indicated that a majority of the American people supported the war despite the horrendous loss in that year and in the preceding year of more than 1,000 Americans per month!
In his book Dereliction of Duty, military historian H. R. McMaster rightly concludes that the war in Vietnam was lost in Washington, D.C., it was lost even before the first American units were deployed in Vietnam in 1963. The disaster of Vietnam was primarily the result of the failings of President Lyndon Johnson and his principal advisers, above all Robert McNamara. In this article I will speak only of their flawed mentality, leaving aside their “arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and, above all [as McMaster concludes], the[ir] abdication of responsibility to the American people.”
What is especially relevant to Israel, however, is that this flawed mentality of the Johnson administration in the Vietnam War is the key to understanding why Israel, under the Netanyahu government, is losing the war with the Palestinians.
I. Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Vietnam War
Let us go back to November 1963, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He was succeeded, of course by the Vice-President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Upon entering the presidency, Johnson inherited the Vietnam War and its competitor for fiscal appropriations the Great Society Program. If this were not enough, America was also engaged in the policy of “containment” of the Soviet Union, a basic cause of US involvement the civil war between North and South Vietnam. Johnson feared that a takeover of South Vietnam by Russia’s client North Vietnam would be followed by communist subversion of Laos and Cambodia and much more of Southeast Asia. The US-Soviet conflict and Johnson’s commitment to Kennedy’s Great Society Program prompted LBJ to pursue a “guns and butter” foreign policy.
When Kennedy was assassinated, there were 16,000 American military “advisors” in South Vietnam engaged in counterinsurgency operations against the Vietcong, North Vietnam’s proxy. After being sworn in as president, Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963. Step-by-step, the war became Americanized. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam. As mentioned, in 1967 and 1968, Americans were being killed at the rate of over 1,000 a month!
America’s objective in the war was to secure the independence of South Vietnam. It was already evident in 1964, however, that the counterinsurgency against the Vietcong was not succeeding. The Vietcong could not be defeated unless the US made an all out effort to conquer the insurgents’ military and manpower supplier North Vietnam. This was Johnson’s objective. In fact, and contrary to precedent, Johnson and McNamara excluded the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the policy-making meetings of the National Security Council. The war strategy was formulated by civilians, primarily McNamara, whose influence on LJB was decisive. The strategy was known as “graduated pressure” or gradual escalation of US Air Force bombing of North Vietnam’s infrastructure. A word about McNamara is in order.
McNamara had served on the business faculty of Harvard University, where he taught the application of statistical analysis to management problems. When LBJ appointed him Secretary of Defense, McNamara assembled a group of academic and legal minds that regarded war not from a military and ideological perspective but from the perspective of economics and game theory. They attached no great significance to the fact that North Vietnam’s leader, Ho Chi Minh, was educated in Moscow. They assumed that the leaders of North Vietnam were ordinary rational human beings who, like themselves, thought in terms of cost analysis. Thus, if North Vietnam’s infrastructure were subjected to a gradual escalation of air force bombing, sooner or later the resulting losses would convince the communists their efforts to subdue South Vietnam was not cost effective. They would then agree to a negotiated settlement of the conflict. South Vietnam’s independence would then be secured, fulfilling America’s objective in the war.
Stated another way: McNamara acted on the belief that graduated application of military force would eventually lead the Vietnamese communists to a judgment about what is the most reasonable choice to make: either suffer increasing destruction of their country’s infrastructure or negotiate an end of the war. Since McNamara believed North Vietnam would choose the negotiating track, he discarded the traditional military precept of overwhelming force as unnecessary, wasteful, and inefficient.
There was, however, at least one general who spoke out against this war strategy. McMaster quotes a complaint of Lt. General Goodpaster, who protested to McNamara in the Fall of 1964: “Sir, you are trying to program the enemy and that is one thing we must never try to do. We can’t do his thinking for him.” The general’s complaint fell on deaf ears; the cost was horrendous.
As of April 1965, approximately 400 Americans had given their lives in Vietnam. By the end of 1968, some 58,000 Americans had perished while the US persisted in the Johnson-McNamara strategy of gradual escalation! It was left to Johnson’s successor Richard Nixon to extricate the United States from that inferno in 1975—an “exit strategy” followed by the loss of South Vietnam.
But I have yet to reveal the flawed mentality of the Johnson administration. This mentality may be deduced from LBJ’s April 7, 1965 speech at Johns Hopkins University. What is more, Johnson’s speech was based on assumptions about the Communists which are virtually identical to the assumptions about the Palestinians appearing in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s June 14, 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University!
Johnson’s speech was an indication that the United States was overextended, that it was losing the war—a terrible thing to contemplate in the midst of the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Accordingly, while emphasizing his commitment to use military force to preserve the independence of South Vietnam, Johnson held out the promise of a comprehensive economic and public works development program for all of Southeast Asia. He promised North Vietnam a Mekong River development program that would “provide food and water and power on a scale to dwarf even [the Tennessee Valley Authority]” along with “revolutionary advances in medical care, agriculture, and education.”
The present writer, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, was astonished by Johnson’s ethnocentric ignorance or arrogance. Johnson seemed to regard the communist leaders of North Vietnamese as dark skinned, bourgeois Americans. The former majority leader of the Senate thought he was dealing with Democratic and Republican politicians, coaxing them to support a controversial piece of legislation. Like a typical American capitalist, he seemed to believe that Ho Chi Minh could be bought, that Ho would forsake his communist ideology and objectives for pottage. It took less than twenty-four hours for Ho to reject LBJ’s export version of the Great Society. It must be pointed out and emphasized, however, that Johnson had succumbed to the fallacy of “mirror-imaging”—of thinking the enemy thought and felt as he did. This fallacy, to which egalitarian democracies are prone, spawned McNamara’s ideologically indifferent strategy of graduated pressure and thus led to America’s disastrous defeat in the Vietnam War.
II. Conclusion: Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli-Palestinian War
The same fallacy of mirror-imaging, the same ethno-centric arrogance or condescension, is also evident in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “economic” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War. Like other bourgeois politicians, Netanyahu thinks he can buy peace from the Palestinians by an economic development program that will prompt these Muslim Arabs to abandon their bellicose Quran for the pottage of peace and commodious living.
Like other politicians steeped in McNamara’s economic or non-ideological mode of thought, Netanyahu’s proposed economic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War is based on the demonstrably false idea that economics trumps ideology, including religion. I see here not only a superficial but also a defeatist mentality. Indeed, this mentality, which pervades Netanyahu’s government and prompts him to endorse an Arab–Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, signifies that Israel is losing the war with the Palestinians, just as America, under the same mentality of the Johnson administration, lost the war with the communists of North Vietnam.
__________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 11, 2010.
Israel is losing its protracted war with the Palestinians. It is losing this war for the same yet-to-be-understood reason why America lost its protracted war in Vietnam.
The United States, a superpower, did not lose the war against North Vietnam on the battle field. It did not lose the war because of the antiwar movement generated by America’s liberal-left academia and mass media. In fact, as late as 1968 polls indicated that a majority of the American people supported the war despite the horrendous loss in that year and in the preceding year of more than 1,000 Americans per month!
In his book Dereliction of Duty, military historian H. R. McMaster rightly concludes that the war in Vietnam was lost in Washington, D.C., it was lost even before the first American units were deployed in Vietnam in 1963. The disaster of Vietnam was primarily the result of the failings of President Lyndon Johnson and his principal advisers, above all Robert McNamara. In this article I will speak only of their flawed mentality, leaving aside their “arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and, above all [as McMaster concludes], the[ir] abdication of responsibility to the American people.”
What is especially relevant to Israel, however, is that this flawed mentality of the Johnson administration in the Vietnam War is the key to understanding why Israel, under the Netanyahu government, is losing the war with the Palestinians.
I. Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Vietnam War
Let us go back to November 1963, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He was succeeded, of course by the Vice-President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Upon entering the presidency, Johnson inherited the Vietnam War and its competitor for fiscal appropriations the Great Society Program. If this were not enough, America was also engaged in the policy of “containment” of the Soviet Union, a basic cause of US involvement the civil war between North and South Vietnam. Johnson feared that a takeover of South Vietnam by Russia’s client North Vietnam would be followed by communist subversion of Laos and Cambodia and much more of Southeast Asia. The US-Soviet conflict and Johnson’s commitment to Kennedy’s Great Society Program prompted LBJ to pursue a “guns and butter” foreign policy.
When Kennedy was assassinated, there were 16,000 American military “advisors” in South Vietnam engaged in counterinsurgency operations against the Vietcong, North Vietnam’s proxy. After being sworn in as president, Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963. Step-by-step, the war became Americanized. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam. As mentioned, in 1967 and 1968, Americans were being killed at the rate of over 1,000 a month!
America’s objective in the war was to secure the independence of South Vietnam. It was already evident in 1964, however, that the counterinsurgency against the Vietcong was not succeeding. The Vietcong could not be defeated unless the US made an all out effort to conquer the insurgents’ military and manpower supplier North Vietnam. This was Johnson’s objective. In fact, and contrary to precedent, Johnson and McNamara excluded the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the policy-making meetings of the National Security Council. The war strategy was formulated by civilians, primarily McNamara, whose influence on LJB was decisive. The strategy was known as “graduated pressure” or gradual escalation of US Air Force bombing of North Vietnam’s infrastructure. A word about McNamara is in order.
McNamara had served on the business faculty of Harvard University, where he taught the application of statistical analysis to management problems. When LBJ appointed him Secretary of Defense, McNamara assembled a group of academic and legal minds that regarded war not from a military and ideological perspective but from the perspective of economics and game theory. They attached no great significance to the fact that North Vietnam’s leader, Ho Chi Minh, was educated in Moscow. They assumed that the leaders of North Vietnam were ordinary rational human beings who, like themselves, thought in terms of cost analysis. Thus, if North Vietnam’s infrastructure were subjected to a gradual escalation of air force bombing, sooner or later the resulting losses would convince the communists their efforts to subdue South Vietnam was not cost effective. They would then agree to a negotiated settlement of the conflict. South Vietnam’s independence would then be secured, fulfilling America’s objective in the war.
Stated another way: McNamara acted on the belief that graduated application of military force would eventually lead the Vietnamese communists to a judgment about what is the most reasonable choice to make: either suffer increasing destruction of their country’s infrastructure or negotiate an end of the war. Since McNamara believed North Vietnam would choose the negotiating track, he discarded the traditional military precept of overwhelming force as unnecessary, wasteful, and inefficient.
There was, however, at least one general who spoke out against this war strategy. McMaster quotes a complaint of Lt. General Goodpaster, who protested to McNamara in the Fall of 1964: “Sir, you are trying to program the enemy and that is one thing we must never try to do. We can’t do his thinking for him.” The general’s complaint fell on deaf ears; the cost was horrendous.
As of April 1965, approximately 400 Americans had given their lives in Vietnam. By the end of 1968, some 58,000 Americans had perished while the US persisted in the Johnson-McNamara strategy of gradual escalation! It was left to Johnson’s successor Richard Nixon to extricate the United States from that inferno in 1975—an “exit strategy” followed by the loss of South Vietnam.
But I have yet to reveal the flawed mentality of the Johnson administration. This mentality may be deduced from LBJ’s April 7, 1965 speech at Johns Hopkins University. What is more, Johnson’s speech was based on assumptions about the Communists which are virtually identical to the assumptions about the Palestinians appearing in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s June 14, 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University!
Johnson’s speech was an indication that the United States was overextended, that it was losing the war—a terrible thing to contemplate in the midst of the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. Accordingly, while emphasizing his commitment to use military force to preserve the independence of South Vietnam, Johnson held out the promise of a comprehensive economic and public works development program for all of Southeast Asia. He promised North Vietnam a Mekong River development program that would “provide food and water and power on a scale to dwarf even [the Tennessee Valley Authority]” along with “revolutionary advances in medical care, agriculture, and education.”
The present writer, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, was astonished by Johnson’s ethnocentric ignorance or arrogance. Johnson seemed to regard the communist leaders of North Vietnamese as dark skinned, bourgeois Americans. The former majority leader of the Senate thought he was dealing with Democratic and Republican politicians, coaxing them to support a controversial piece of legislation. Like a typical American capitalist, he seemed to believe that Ho Chi Minh could be bought, that Ho would forsake his communist ideology and objectives for pottage. It took less than twenty-four hours for Ho to reject LBJ’s export version of the Great Society. It must be pointed out and emphasized, however, that Johnson had succumbed to the fallacy of “mirror-imaging”—of thinking the enemy thought and felt as he did. This fallacy, to which egalitarian democracies are prone, spawned McNamara’s ideologically indifferent strategy of graduated pressure and thus led to America’s disastrous defeat in the Vietnam War.
II. Conclusion: Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli-Palestinian War
The same fallacy of mirror-imaging, the same ethno-centric arrogance or condescension, is also evident in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “economic” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War. Like other bourgeois politicians, Netanyahu thinks he can buy peace from the Palestinians by an economic development program that will prompt these Muslim Arabs to abandon their bellicose Quran for the pottage of peace and commodious living.
Like other politicians steeped in McNamara’s economic or non-ideological mode of thought, Netanyahu’s proposed economic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian War is based on the demonstrably false idea that economics trumps ideology, including religion. I see here not only a superficial but also a defeatist mentality. Indeed, this mentality, which pervades Netanyahu’s government and prompts him to endorse an Arab–Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, signifies that Israel is losing the war with the Palestinians, just as America, under the same mentality of the Johnson administration, lost the war with the communists of North Vietnam.
__________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 11, 2010.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Sun is Shining Over Israel By Naomi Ragen
As brutal winter storms paralyze Europe and America, the sun is shining all
over Israel. The unseasonable warmth has us hiking through the green hills
without sweaters, basking in the glorious light and warmth. This, after a
good many downpours that helped replenish our parched water resources. As
reported by year's end summaries, this past year saw suicide bombings in
Israel reduced to zero, thanks to the wall our enemies are so determined to
break down. Our economy seems to have weathered beautifully the tragic
economic downturns everywhere else, and our housing market continues to
flourish. New immigrants and tourists are up. And a whooping ten thousand
yordim returned home, finding that the greener pastures they were seeking
were in their own backyards after all.
Challenges, of course, still abound: The rights of women continue to be
violated, the most obvious examples in the "mehadrin" bus lines, where last
week The Jerusalem Post reported that a 60 year- old grandmother in Safad,
who refused to give in to the demands of an 18 year- old yeshiva boy to move
to the back of the bus, wound up forced to mace him. Of course, the police
arrested her. Then Anat Hoffman, who leads the Women of the Wall, whose
"crime" was to have a women's minyan at the Kotel, was also arrested and
fingerprinted for "defiance." (Can there really be such a law?)
Children too, continue to be the victims of senseless violent crimes. A
haredi father threw his wife and four year-old out of the house, locked the
door and smashed his eight month old against the floor, killing her. A
haredi father who shook his baby to death because her crying was disturbing
his 'rest' (and whose arrest caused riots in Jerusalem) appealed his
manslaughter sentence and lost.
In shul, I looked down into the men's section from my seat in the women's
balcony, watching a tall young father place a baby girl on his lap,
carefully straightening her dress, and offering her a bottle. I watched a
father caress the back of his small son's head.
We look forward to an even better year.
over Israel. The unseasonable warmth has us hiking through the green hills
without sweaters, basking in the glorious light and warmth. This, after a
good many downpours that helped replenish our parched water resources. As
reported by year's end summaries, this past year saw suicide bombings in
Israel reduced to zero, thanks to the wall our enemies are so determined to
break down. Our economy seems to have weathered beautifully the tragic
economic downturns everywhere else, and our housing market continues to
flourish. New immigrants and tourists are up. And a whooping ten thousand
yordim returned home, finding that the greener pastures they were seeking
were in their own backyards after all.
Challenges, of course, still abound: The rights of women continue to be
violated, the most obvious examples in the "mehadrin" bus lines, where last
week The Jerusalem Post reported that a 60 year- old grandmother in Safad,
who refused to give in to the demands of an 18 year- old yeshiva boy to move
to the back of the bus, wound up forced to mace him. Of course, the police
arrested her. Then Anat Hoffman, who leads the Women of the Wall, whose
"crime" was to have a women's minyan at the Kotel, was also arrested and
fingerprinted for "defiance." (Can there really be such a law?)
Children too, continue to be the victims of senseless violent crimes. A
haredi father threw his wife and four year-old out of the house, locked the
door and smashed his eight month old against the floor, killing her. A
haredi father who shook his baby to death because her crying was disturbing
his 'rest' (and whose arrest caused riots in Jerusalem) appealed his
manslaughter sentence and lost.
In shul, I looked down into the men's section from my seat in the women's
balcony, watching a tall young father place a baby girl on his lap,
carefully straightening her dress, and offering her a bottle. I watched a
father caress the back of his small son's head.
We look forward to an even better year.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Arabs Slowly but Steadily Reveal The True Agenda
The Kach Party of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane HY”D was outlawed in Israel, and one may or may not have agreed with the late MKs views, but it is becoming increasingly evident that much of what he preached is proving correct, and unfortunately, his less than optimistic prediction regarding Israel’s Arab citizens are also playing out in a number of areas.
YWN-Israel reported that Arab MK Jamal Zahalka was expelled from the Erev Chadash Israel TV news magazine program after shouting Ehud Barak enjoys listening to classical music and killing the children of Gaza. Veteran journalist and Erev Chadash host for the past 27 years Dan Margalit expelled the Arab MK, requesting that he leave the studio.
As the exchange of words between Margalit and Zahalka became increasingly vocal, the Arab MK as he was leaving the station lost his cool, insisting nothing can change the fact that the “blood of the Palestinian children cries from the ground” due to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, rejecting any attempt by Margalit to place the blame on Hamas and over 8,000 rockets fired by the terrorist regime during the past years.
While off stage but still in the studio, and his voice heard, the Arab MK shouted “Tel Aviv is Sheikh Munis”, making reference to the former Arab village in the northern Tel Aviv area, the very same area on which the Erev Chadash studio is situated. R’ Kahane warned years ago that the battle is not over Yehuda and Shomron, but once the so-called loyal Israeli Arabs realize they are winning the battle, they will move ahead towards conquering the entire package, demanding Tel Aviv and Haifa, insisting they were ousted from their homes in 1948, seeking the total dismantling of the State of Israel. Ironically, the rabbi was shunned when he shouted a blue Israeli identity card, teudat zehut, will not buy the loyalty of Arab citizens, and their singing of the “Yearning of being a free people on our land” as is stated in the Hatikvah national anthem is nothing short of absurd.
When Margalit accused him of seeking to conquer this too, he replied, “No! I was born here. You are the immigrant”, again in line with the philosophy that Israel has ousted him and others from their homes and all or much of the State of Israel is “occupied”.
The Movement for Quality Government on Sunday joined the voices calling on the state attorney general to investigate the Arab MKs remarks, which at the very least may be a violation of the law prohibiting incitement.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
YWN-Israel reported that Arab MK Jamal Zahalka was expelled from the Erev Chadash Israel TV news magazine program after shouting Ehud Barak enjoys listening to classical music and killing the children of Gaza. Veteran journalist and Erev Chadash host for the past 27 years Dan Margalit expelled the Arab MK, requesting that he leave the studio.
As the exchange of words between Margalit and Zahalka became increasingly vocal, the Arab MK as he was leaving the station lost his cool, insisting nothing can change the fact that the “blood of the Palestinian children cries from the ground” due to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, rejecting any attempt by Margalit to place the blame on Hamas and over 8,000 rockets fired by the terrorist regime during the past years.
While off stage but still in the studio, and his voice heard, the Arab MK shouted “Tel Aviv is Sheikh Munis”, making reference to the former Arab village in the northern Tel Aviv area, the very same area on which the Erev Chadash studio is situated. R’ Kahane warned years ago that the battle is not over Yehuda and Shomron, but once the so-called loyal Israeli Arabs realize they are winning the battle, they will move ahead towards conquering the entire package, demanding Tel Aviv and Haifa, insisting they were ousted from their homes in 1948, seeking the total dismantling of the State of Israel. Ironically, the rabbi was shunned when he shouted a blue Israeli identity card, teudat zehut, will not buy the loyalty of Arab citizens, and their singing of the “Yearning of being a free people on our land” as is stated in the Hatikvah national anthem is nothing short of absurd.
When Margalit accused him of seeking to conquer this too, he replied, “No! I was born here. You are the immigrant”, again in line with the philosophy that Israel has ousted him and others from their homes and all or much of the State of Israel is “occupied”.
The Movement for Quality Government on Sunday joined the voices calling on the state attorney general to investigate the Arab MKs remarks, which at the very least may be a violation of the law prohibiting incitement.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
A Realistic Assessment and a Fantasy for the New Year* - Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
What is to be done about Iran?—
(1) its development of nuclear weapons;
(2) its potential control of Persian Gulf oil on which the world’s economy depends;
(3) its regional power via proxies and alliances;
(4) its global Islamic ambitions;
(5) its imminent threat to Israel’s existence.
While appeasement is entrenched in Washington, defeatism holds sway in Jerusalem, where the Netanyahu government has endorsed a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland.
Consider some simple facts. Estimates of the number of Muslims worldwide that support Jihad vary from 15 to 50 percent (and higher). Given 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth, this means that between 225 and 750 million Muslims have been conditioned by the Quran, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah” (Sura 9:111). It’s hardly reassuring to say “not all Muslims are terrorists.”
The prospects are worse than you have been told. Even if most Muslims were “moderates,” virtually all harbor the ethos of Islam. Hence the vast majority of Muslims are at hand to be recruited by “extremists” So what is to be done?
As long as the White House is occupied by Barack Obama, who bowed to Saudi King Abdullah, and purrs to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—the two principal patrons of Jihad—no serious policy will be taken by the United States to put an end to Islam’s threat to the free world. This was the paramount failing of the Bush administration.
Can it be that only Israel stands between civilization and barbarism, as Israel did almost 2,000 years ago when it planted the seed of Christianity in pagan Rome?
Today Europe, the home of Christianity, is dying of neo-paganism. Having replaced the God of Israel, the creator of life, Europe is succumbing to the Islamic god of death. Is this Europe’s punishment for the death camps of the Holocaust?
All talk of fostering a moderate Islam is spineless obfuscation of Islam’s essence: necrophilia. Islam’s religious nihilism is more deeply engrained in Muslims than Nazism was engrained in Germans. Mein Kampf is tepid compared to Islam’s turgid hatred of “infidels.” Some 56 states exalt of the Quran, which Winston Churchill called “the Mein Kampf of war.” Germany under Hitler did not use German children as human bombs. And unlike, Ahmadinejad, the sadistic beasts of Nazi Germany did not use thousands of German children to walk through enemy mine fields. The fools in Washington and Jerusalem have learned nothing from the enormity of evil manifested in the Nazi Holocaust; that evil now manifested in Islamic chants: “Death to America!”—“Death to Israel!”
The cult of hatred and death is everywhere. Can anything be done to save civilization? Here let me mention a proposal I published after 9/11—when George W. Bush was President, a proposal rendered obsolete by the election of Obama. Since Islam is not localized in a single nation state:
The President, I suggested, should call in all Muslim ambassadors. He should warn them—for starters—that the US will submit a resolution in the UN General Assembly stipulating that all Islamic states have 30 days to renounce militant Jihad, a doctrine that violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Failure to do so will result in expulsion from the UN.
Of course this proposal was not realistic. It’s not realistic to educate the American people about the nature of the enemy that destroyed the World Trade Center and almost 3,000 innocent human beings. Realism has taken a vacation from Washington.
President Bush did not tell the American people that 9/11 was nothing less than an Islamic declaration of war on the United States, evidence of which goes back to November 1979, when Iranian militants stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took some seventy Americans captive for 444 days. Nor did he mention the Islamic bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or the Islamic bombing of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Nor did he mention the Islamic attack on the USS Destroyer Cole that killed 17 American sailors in 2000.
These were acts of war, ignored as such by a decayed American government more concerned about Arab oil than American blood. The deadly significance of the 9/11 has yet to be grasped. This direct attack on the American homeland was cheered by the Islamic street. This worldwide Islamic hatred of America should be related to research conducted by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which concluded that Muslims have slaughtered some 270 million Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims since Muhammad added the veneer of monotheism to paganism. The unvarnished truth obscured by Western elites—politicians, academics, and journalists—is that Islam is at war with Western Civilization, or what’s left of it.
Lee Harris, the “philosopher of 9/11,” describes Islam as today’s “enemy of civilization.” By civilization he means a standard that can be applied across cultures and history. Civilization requires three basic ingredients: (1) the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, (2) the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and (3) a hatred of violence. Islam lacks these ingredients. Syrian-born Wafa Sultan, a psychiatrist now living in the United States, denies that Islam is a civilization.
Even those who refer to Jihadists as merely a radical element of Islam are tainted by “political correctness” or timidity. The issue is Islam per se from Muhammad to Ahmadinejad. World War III is all around us. Don’t worry: the United States is not about to declare war on Islam, let alone devastate Mecca or Medina to shatter faith in this creed.
It’s more realistic to be silent about evil, to remain on the defensive, to worry about airline safety while Jihadists plan their next attack—like exploding a “dirty” nuclear bomb in New York to bring the United States to its knees. This is Israel’s policy of “self-restraint.”
Israel and the United States are following the road map to self-destruction, regardless of the differences between their respective leaders. The addiction of Israeli prime ministers to the policy of “territory for peace” is independent of which party or party leader rules the nation. On this vital issue there is no basic difference between Shimon Peres and Netanyahu. Both endorse a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland, and no one should be deceived by Netanyahu’s spin about demilitarization. The Palestinian Authority is armed beyond the limits of the Oslo Agreement—a quicksand of lies that has ensnared Israel.
The government under Netanyahu has no more intention of disarming the PA than the Obama administration has of disarming Iran. Neither has the stamina to adopt a policy of victory. While Obama apologizes to the world for American greatness and is anxious to humble America vis-à-vis despotic Iran on the basis of moral equality, Netanyahu retreats from the idea of a “greater Israel,” and is anxious to humble his country vis-à-vis the despotic Palestinian Authority on the basis of “reciprocity.” But just as Ahmadinejad has ignored Obama’s self-effacing policy of “outreach,” so Mahmoud Abbas has ignored the self-effacing “outreach” policy of Netanyahu. Muslim pride trumps Western humility.
But wait! Isn’t Obama by Islamic law a Muslim? Didn’t he speak with Muslim pride in Cairo last year? Hasn’t he taken an imperious position toward Israel?
These discomfiting remarks provide a realistic assessment for the New Year. So let’s amuse ourselves with a fantasy. Imagine a future Israel going on the offensive like this:
(1) Israel demands that all Islamic states be given 30 days to renounce Jihad or be expelled from the United Nations.
(2) Israel demands that President Ahmadinejad be indicted for violating international law by vowing to “wipe Israel off the map.”
(3) Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority be dissolved on the grounds that it is nothing but an alliance of terrorist groups whose constitution calls for the annihilation of Israel, a member of the United Nations.
(4) Israel demands that the Government of the United States abide by international law, including the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine, which was ratified by the US Senate and subsequently proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5, 1925. This treaty, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, remains in force to this day as the supreme law of the land. Hence, the letter and spirit of this treaty, along with the US Constitution, are violated when American officials insist on creating a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel.
(5) Finally, Israel declares that any state that threatens Israel’s existence is signing its own death warrant, like Ahmadinejad’s predecessor in the Book of Esther.
Happy New Year!
————————————————
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 4 January 2010.
What is to be done about Iran?—
(1) its development of nuclear weapons;
(2) its potential control of Persian Gulf oil on which the world’s economy depends;
(3) its regional power via proxies and alliances;
(4) its global Islamic ambitions;
(5) its imminent threat to Israel’s existence.
While appeasement is entrenched in Washington, defeatism holds sway in Jerusalem, where the Netanyahu government has endorsed a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland.
Consider some simple facts. Estimates of the number of Muslims worldwide that support Jihad vary from 15 to 50 percent (and higher). Given 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth, this means that between 225 and 750 million Muslims have been conditioned by the Quran, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah” (Sura 9:111). It’s hardly reassuring to say “not all Muslims are terrorists.”
The prospects are worse than you have been told. Even if most Muslims were “moderates,” virtually all harbor the ethos of Islam. Hence the vast majority of Muslims are at hand to be recruited by “extremists” So what is to be done?
As long as the White House is occupied by Barack Obama, who bowed to Saudi King Abdullah, and purrs to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—the two principal patrons of Jihad—no serious policy will be taken by the United States to put an end to Islam’s threat to the free world. This was the paramount failing of the Bush administration.
Can it be that only Israel stands between civilization and barbarism, as Israel did almost 2,000 years ago when it planted the seed of Christianity in pagan Rome?
Today Europe, the home of Christianity, is dying of neo-paganism. Having replaced the God of Israel, the creator of life, Europe is succumbing to the Islamic god of death. Is this Europe’s punishment for the death camps of the Holocaust?
All talk of fostering a moderate Islam is spineless obfuscation of Islam’s essence: necrophilia. Islam’s religious nihilism is more deeply engrained in Muslims than Nazism was engrained in Germans. Mein Kampf is tepid compared to Islam’s turgid hatred of “infidels.” Some 56 states exalt of the Quran, which Winston Churchill called “the Mein Kampf of war.” Germany under Hitler did not use German children as human bombs. And unlike, Ahmadinejad, the sadistic beasts of Nazi Germany did not use thousands of German children to walk through enemy mine fields. The fools in Washington and Jerusalem have learned nothing from the enormity of evil manifested in the Nazi Holocaust; that evil now manifested in Islamic chants: “Death to America!”—“Death to Israel!”
The cult of hatred and death is everywhere. Can anything be done to save civilization? Here let me mention a proposal I published after 9/11—when George W. Bush was President, a proposal rendered obsolete by the election of Obama. Since Islam is not localized in a single nation state:
The President, I suggested, should call in all Muslim ambassadors. He should warn them—for starters—that the US will submit a resolution in the UN General Assembly stipulating that all Islamic states have 30 days to renounce militant Jihad, a doctrine that violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Failure to do so will result in expulsion from the UN.
Of course this proposal was not realistic. It’s not realistic to educate the American people about the nature of the enemy that destroyed the World Trade Center and almost 3,000 innocent human beings. Realism has taken a vacation from Washington.
President Bush did not tell the American people that 9/11 was nothing less than an Islamic declaration of war on the United States, evidence of which goes back to November 1979, when Iranian militants stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took some seventy Americans captive for 444 days. Nor did he mention the Islamic bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or the Islamic bombing of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Nor did he mention the Islamic attack on the USS Destroyer Cole that killed 17 American sailors in 2000.
These were acts of war, ignored as such by a decayed American government more concerned about Arab oil than American blood. The deadly significance of the 9/11 has yet to be grasped. This direct attack on the American homeland was cheered by the Islamic street. This worldwide Islamic hatred of America should be related to research conducted by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which concluded that Muslims have slaughtered some 270 million Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims since Muhammad added the veneer of monotheism to paganism. The unvarnished truth obscured by Western elites—politicians, academics, and journalists—is that Islam is at war with Western Civilization, or what’s left of it.
Lee Harris, the “philosopher of 9/11,” describes Islam as today’s “enemy of civilization.” By civilization he means a standard that can be applied across cultures and history. Civilization requires three basic ingredients: (1) the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, (2) the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and (3) a hatred of violence. Islam lacks these ingredients. Syrian-born Wafa Sultan, a psychiatrist now living in the United States, denies that Islam is a civilization.
Even those who refer to Jihadists as merely a radical element of Islam are tainted by “political correctness” or timidity. The issue is Islam per se from Muhammad to Ahmadinejad. World War III is all around us. Don’t worry: the United States is not about to declare war on Islam, let alone devastate Mecca or Medina to shatter faith in this creed.
It’s more realistic to be silent about evil, to remain on the defensive, to worry about airline safety while Jihadists plan their next attack—like exploding a “dirty” nuclear bomb in New York to bring the United States to its knees. This is Israel’s policy of “self-restraint.”
Israel and the United States are following the road map to self-destruction, regardless of the differences between their respective leaders. The addiction of Israeli prime ministers to the policy of “territory for peace” is independent of which party or party leader rules the nation. On this vital issue there is no basic difference between Shimon Peres and Netanyahu. Both endorse a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland, and no one should be deceived by Netanyahu’s spin about demilitarization. The Palestinian Authority is armed beyond the limits of the Oslo Agreement—a quicksand of lies that has ensnared Israel.
The government under Netanyahu has no more intention of disarming the PA than the Obama administration has of disarming Iran. Neither has the stamina to adopt a policy of victory. While Obama apologizes to the world for American greatness and is anxious to humble America vis-à-vis despotic Iran on the basis of moral equality, Netanyahu retreats from the idea of a “greater Israel,” and is anxious to humble his country vis-à-vis the despotic Palestinian Authority on the basis of “reciprocity.” But just as Ahmadinejad has ignored Obama’s self-effacing policy of “outreach,” so Mahmoud Abbas has ignored the self-effacing “outreach” policy of Netanyahu. Muslim pride trumps Western humility.
But wait! Isn’t Obama by Islamic law a Muslim? Didn’t he speak with Muslim pride in Cairo last year? Hasn’t he taken an imperious position toward Israel?
These discomfiting remarks provide a realistic assessment for the New Year. So let’s amuse ourselves with a fantasy. Imagine a future Israel going on the offensive like this:
(1) Israel demands that all Islamic states be given 30 days to renounce Jihad or be expelled from the United Nations.
(2) Israel demands that President Ahmadinejad be indicted for violating international law by vowing to “wipe Israel off the map.”
(3) Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority be dissolved on the grounds that it is nothing but an alliance of terrorist groups whose constitution calls for the annihilation of Israel, a member of the United Nations.
(4) Israel demands that the Government of the United States abide by international law, including the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine, which was ratified by the US Senate and subsequently proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5, 1925. This treaty, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, remains in force to this day as the supreme law of the land. Hence, the letter and spirit of this treaty, along with the US Constitution, are violated when American officials insist on creating a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel.
(5) Finally, Israel declares that any state that threatens Israel’s existence is signing its own death warrant, like Ahmadinejad’s predecessor in the Book of Esther.
Happy New Year!
————————————————
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 4 January 2010.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where Terrorist Boarded Airport - Barry Chamish
Within days of my last report on Ehud Barak and 9-11, an American passenger plane almost exploded in mid-air. The terrorist was one of 14,500 select people on international airport computers as a flight risk, yet the airport screeners missed him and allowed him onto the plane without even a passport. Read report one followed by my report from the previous article. You decide if it was an accident or the excuse, now given, of "systemic failure." OR, did I get something awful, right?
Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where
Terrorist Boarded Airport
An Israeli firm is responsible for security inspections in the
airport in Schiphol, Holland, the airport where Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab boarded the Airbus 330 heading for Detroit (USA). The
Israeli company, ICTS, is reportedly one of the leaders in security,
& operates in Amsterdam and a number of other European countries.
ICTS was established in 1982 and today employs 11,000 security
personnel in 22 countries. Many airports and airlines seek the
Israeli expertise and opt for ICTS to provide security for passengers
and employees.
According to Rom Langer, the director of the company, who granted
Channel 2 News an interview on motzei shabbos, the terrorist did
undergo a security inspection in Amsterdam, but he does not have the
information pertaining to the inspection.
When asked about the fact that the suspect attempted to set fire to
the aircraft, Langer responded, "You too can set the seat on fire,
using a lighter".
Schiphol is among the busiest airports in Europe, with many
passengers from Africa and Asia passing through, making their way to
North America. Security is reportedly stringent, and passengers are
limited regarding quantities of liquids and other substances
permitted on a flight.
A "total systemic failure" or PLAYING WITH THE DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR A FEW MINUTES:
And now Ehud Barak, PM of Israel in 1999. In the late 80s, the two chief accountants of the Likud Party, Ehud Olmert and Menachem Atzmon, were tried for graft and corruption but only Atzmon served prison time. When he was released in 1999, during the term of Ehud Barak as PM, he got a reward for his silence:
Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company ICTS bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. This convicted Likud criminal's firm was in charge of security at Logan Airport inspecting the validity of passports and visas, searching cargo, screening passengers when two airliners were hijacked from there on Sept. 11, 2001, and demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York.
Without Atzmon in charge of Newark and Logan Airports, 9-11 could NOT HAVE HAPPENED. The same goes for Schiphol this week.
**
I just put out a two disc DVD, Media Madness In The Middle East. It costs only $20 with postage. Read the following review, then ask yourself; why don't I have it?
http://second-amendment.tripod.com/d2a/
chamish@netvision.net.il
To my readers:
I don't know what you want to hear. That warm, loving Jewish Israel would never gain American sympathy by identifying a Muslim radical, letting him slip through airport security, and permitting him to pop a firecracker on a plane.
I used to be that naive until I wrote a book on the Rabin murder, and met witnesses to the setup of Baruch Goldstein, the mass kidnapping of Yemenite babies, the even more mass irradiation of all Sephardic children, all thoroughly documented; and I shared many a conversation with the historians and the witnesses.
Then I interviewed witnesses to the Holocaust and the deliberate Godawful Transfer Agreement between the Labor Zionists and the Nazis. I was invited to speak with a hospital technician who saw Rudolf Kastner murdered in his bed by the Shabak to make sure the sellout of 800,000 Jews trapped in Hungary by the Labor Zionists was not told.
And I wrote about the betrayal in my books.
So we come to today when you think Dr. Hiss, still of the Abu Kabir Institute, spends a decade illegally robbing corpses of their organs, with the help of a worldwide Israeli marketing arm, and you think this can't be. When 2/3 of the public vote Right and you get a repressive construction freeze policed by Israeli armed thugs.
The Israeli security forces are not religious Jews. They are at war with religious Jews. But it's a two front war with Arabs manning the other line. Because you support the war against the Arabs, you're forgetting your own battles.
I wish it wasn't true but unless you understand that you've met the enemy and he pretends to be us, 1939 is just around the corner.
Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where
Terrorist Boarded Airport
An Israeli firm is responsible for security inspections in the
airport in Schiphol, Holland, the airport where Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab boarded the Airbus 330 heading for Detroit (USA). The
Israeli company, ICTS, is reportedly one of the leaders in security,
& operates in Amsterdam and a number of other European countries.
ICTS was established in 1982 and today employs 11,000 security
personnel in 22 countries. Many airports and airlines seek the
Israeli expertise and opt for ICTS to provide security for passengers
and employees.
According to Rom Langer, the director of the company, who granted
Channel 2 News an interview on motzei shabbos, the terrorist did
undergo a security inspection in Amsterdam, but he does not have the
information pertaining to the inspection.
When asked about the fact that the suspect attempted to set fire to
the aircraft, Langer responded, "You too can set the seat on fire,
using a lighter".
Schiphol is among the busiest airports in Europe, with many
passengers from Africa and Asia passing through, making their way to
North America. Security is reportedly stringent, and passengers are
limited regarding quantities of liquids and other substances
permitted on a flight.
A "total systemic failure" or PLAYING WITH THE DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR A FEW MINUTES:
And now Ehud Barak, PM of Israel in 1999. In the late 80s, the two chief accountants of the Likud Party, Ehud Olmert and Menachem Atzmon, were tried for graft and corruption but only Atzmon served prison time. When he was released in 1999, during the term of Ehud Barak as PM, he got a reward for his silence:
Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company ICTS bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. This convicted Likud criminal's firm was in charge of security at Logan Airport inspecting the validity of passports and visas, searching cargo, screening passengers when two airliners were hijacked from there on Sept. 11, 2001, and demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York.
Without Atzmon in charge of Newark and Logan Airports, 9-11 could NOT HAVE HAPPENED. The same goes for Schiphol this week.
**
I just put out a two disc DVD, Media Madness In The Middle East. It costs only $20 with postage. Read the following review, then ask yourself; why don't I have it?
http://second-amendment.tripod.com/d2a/
chamish@netvision.net.il
To my readers:
I don't know what you want to hear. That warm, loving Jewish Israel would never gain American sympathy by identifying a Muslim radical, letting him slip through airport security, and permitting him to pop a firecracker on a plane.
I used to be that naive until I wrote a book on the Rabin murder, and met witnesses to the setup of Baruch Goldstein, the mass kidnapping of Yemenite babies, the even more mass irradiation of all Sephardic children, all thoroughly documented; and I shared many a conversation with the historians and the witnesses.
Then I interviewed witnesses to the Holocaust and the deliberate Godawful Transfer Agreement between the Labor Zionists and the Nazis. I was invited to speak with a hospital technician who saw Rudolf Kastner murdered in his bed by the Shabak to make sure the sellout of 800,000 Jews trapped in Hungary by the Labor Zionists was not told.
And I wrote about the betrayal in my books.
So we come to today when you think Dr. Hiss, still of the Abu Kabir Institute, spends a decade illegally robbing corpses of their organs, with the help of a worldwide Israeli marketing arm, and you think this can't be. When 2/3 of the public vote Right and you get a repressive construction freeze policed by Israeli armed thugs.
The Israeli security forces are not religious Jews. They are at war with religious Jews. But it's a two front war with Arabs manning the other line. Because you support the war against the Arabs, you're forgetting your own battles.
I wish it wasn't true but unless you understand that you've met the enemy and he pretends to be us, 1939 is just around the corner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)