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.
Monday, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)