News Analysis: Adopting the American Mentality

May 23, 2007
News Analysis
Israelis Don’t Want Gaza to Be Their Next Lebanon
By STEVEN ERLANGER NYT
JERUSALEM, May 22 — For the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, badly battered by last summer’s inconclusive war against the rockets of Hezbollah, launched from Lebanon, the rocket fire from the Gaza Strip seems a similarly intractable problem with no easy, popular response.
While the Hamas militants in Gaza seem to have taken a lesson from that war — how to use rockets against Israeli civilians to eat away at Israeli self-confidence and frustrate the Israeli military — Israel’s own lesson is less clear, because its ground assault on southern Lebanon did not end in a clear victory, let alone destroy its adversary.
The Israeli government is feeling constrained by its own weakness and damaged credibility. If it goes into Gaza too hard, it will be criticized for trying to overcompensate for its failures last summer against Hezbollah. If it acts with too much restraint and caution, it will be criticized for being intimidated by its failures last summer against Hezbollah.
“We don’t want to invade Gaza in a big way,” a senior official said. “But stalemate is impossible. We hope that a political process will prevail because we don’t want to be dragged into what Hamas wants us to be dragged into. But events will dictate. If a Qassam rocket lands on an Israeli kindergarten, all bets are off.”
Israeli helicopters and fighter planes, using their most precise weapons, are hitting Hamas camps, buildings, fighters and teams of militants charged with firing rockets toward Israel. On Tuesday, the Israeli Air Force struck a compound of the Hamas police militia known as the Executive Force in Jabaliya, in northern Gaza. No casualties were reported in the strike, the third against targets in Gaza since a rocket attack on Monday that killed eight.
Israeli politicians are talking of harsher measures, including the assassination of senior Hamas military leaders who order the attacks, and warning that senior Hamas political leaders may also be at risk.
But trying to calibrate the amount of military pressure that might persuade Hamas and the Palestinians to stop the rocket fire and recreate a working cease-fire over Gaza is not an easy calculation.
And there are significant voices inside the Israeli security establishment who warn that, rockets aside, Hamas is organizing a buildup of weapons, reinforced tunnels and explosive matériel in Gaza that resembles Hezbollah’s efforts in southern Lebanon in recent years.
Sooner or later, those voices argue, Israel will have to confront Hamas in a serious way inside Gaza, especially since Fatah is failing to do so.
But with the Palestinian unity government of Hamas and Fatah in tatters after fierce factional infighting, there is no obvious Palestinian address for Israel to apply pressure. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, to whom the Israelis and Americans speak, appears weaker after the infighting.
Even Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas, a popular political figure, is being overshadowed and undermined by the actions and oratory of Hamas’s military wing, the Qassam Brigades.
In general, Gaza’s gunmen — who come in many different stripes, with affiliations that cut across factional, institutional and family loyalties — appear to be listening less now than before to political leaders.
Hamas in particular appears riven politically, senior Israeli government and security officials say, with important figures like Mahmoud Zahar, the former foreign minister, and Said Siam, the former interior minister, opposed to the group’s participation in the unity government.
The Qassam Brigades have made it clear that they took the lead in the latest round of fighting, attacking the Presidential Guard of Mr. Abbas and the Fatah-dominated Preventive Security Force. They continued those attacks even when Mr. Haniya came out in favor of a truce.
Burned, Mr. Haniya took a harder line on Monday in his sermon at the funeral of the family of a Hamas legislator, Khalil al-Hayya, praising the fighters and saying, “We will keep to the same path until we win one of two goals: victory or martyrdom.”
Mr. Olmert is being careful, aides say, to keep on Washington’s good side. The Bush administration has openly supported Israel’s right to defend itself against rockets fired by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups, and has praised what it calls Israel’s restraint. But Mr. Olmert is also conscious that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is committed to pushing Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts forward in her time left in the job, as is President Bush.
A major incursion deep into Gaza would take at least a month, a senior Israeli officer said, and would inevitably cause significant civilian casualties. There would be nothing like a major Israeli ground offensive to unite all Palestinian fighters, and it would do further damage to the more moderate Mr. Abbas and the chances for peace. More than 30 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli raids in the past week.
Even the leader of the rightist Likud Party, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is riding high in opinion polls, is speaking carefully about the options and suggesting graduated responses.
Last week he proposed “a wide range of actions that we can do to apply pressure.”
“And the actions begin with a general closure of Gaza,” he said, “through a controlled stoppage of services such as electricity and water, up to targeted killings and actions from the area on infrastructure targets, or limited ground incursion to the radius of the Qassam range or a larger ground incursion.”
Asked if he favored a large-scale infantry incursion, Mr. Netanyahu said: “I think the problem here is to return to the balance of deterrence that was so very eroded in the last year. As a result of the last war, Gaza has turned into Lebanon Two with bunkers.”
For now, the Israelis are barely using tank fire in Gaza and are not firing artillery, which is less accurate and has hit Palestinian houses and families in the past. Instead, they are relying on the most precise airborne weaponry they have, trying to send a message to militant leaders, especially of Hamas, that every rocket will entail a painful price.
Those around Mr. Olmert say that they, too, are concerned about how Israel and its will to defend its people are perceived — not just by the militants of Gaza, but by the Syria of President Bashar al-Assad.
The Syrians are training defensively, “but it’s easy to move from defense to offense,” a senior Israeli official said. “We’ve made it clear to him through credible channels that Israel has no offensive intentions. But we’re very worried about miscalculation.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This report is a bit old - it came from earlier this week, when Olmert and Peretz were giving interviews about how hard it is to restrain themselves from using force in Gaza.

The statement I emphasized above really stood out to me as something spectacular. One can make many arguments about pre-emptive striking. You can say that it is unfair to those being attacked; that like in the feuds over America's role in Iraq are saying now, the opponent may actually be in a neutral zone, not infringing on any laws or treaties. You can say that it is starting a war, unnecessarily. You can say that it is used as an excuse to go and execute innocent people - or warlords/terrorists - or to reoccupy Gaza. The true value of pre-emptive attacks lies in the success of their successions, but that's besides the point.

What amazes me is that Israel - not a nation notorious for paying too much mind to these arguments - is now playing with the press, trying to appease it with statements like the one above.
There are so many things wrong with it, I don't even know where to start.

First: Qassam rockets have been falling on the south of Israel without end for the past year. Thousands upon thousands of rockets have fallen upon Sderot in particular. This has caused dozens of deaths, injuries, destruction of land and property, and perhaps worst of all the feeling that at any moment a rocket may fall upon any person and any place; a feeling that is psychologically dismantling. The people of Sderot have been crying for a long time for their government to save them.
All this goes to say that there is nothing pre-emptive in a strike against Gaza. Despite UN mandates and internal treaties, rockets have kept flying onto Israeli soil, and they still continue to do so. In fact, just yesterday, a 36 year old man from Hod Hasharon was killed in his car when a Qassam hit him in Sderot (he was there on business). He left behind a 2 year old daughter and a pregnant wife.
There has been an incessantly continued war against Israel, and there is nothing pre-emptive about a strike in return.

Second: Pretending that keeping quiet will prevent anything from happening is not only ludicrous, but is the very Ostrich-in-sand approach that Israel has prided herself on avoiding - since doing otherwise could easily result in destruction.

Third: The very idea of the words - when an Israeli kindergarten - a place full of little Israeli children, guilty only of living in the country that their forefathers built to protect them (not at all comparable to children who provoke violence by throwing rocks and the like) - could get bombed under the watch of the Israeli government is stunning beyond words. How much are we willing to take before our the government will move its finger? It has to get to our children being murdered? That's what this man is saying.
He's saying let's wait till the kids die, and then we'll do something - granted that it will not be a question amongst the officials whether or not to move then (the public would be so loud by then that it wouldn't really be left up to them to decide, but hey, he can always say that he intended to before the riots).

A government's initial and most imperative role is to protect its citizens. This is the most fundamental of governmental facets, and it has been around since the most primitive societal structures. When it admittedly puts its citizens in empirical danger, it is not just a sign of total failure and corruption, but a sign of utter disarray.


There are arguments on the reverse, of course. It could be said that Israeli policy has abetted the continuation of this never-ending cycle: violence, meeting violence, meeting more violence, and so on.
It could be said that a strike in return would do nothing but provoke more anger and bloodshed.

However, diplomacy isn't doing anything, and we cannot leave our citizens out to die.
The political situation in Gaza right now is past deterioration, and on to full on chaos. There is periodic factional violence, where more palestinians die than in the Israeli operations for weeks to come (I didn't check the numbers, but comparing reports, this is often true. Dozens die in Hamas/Fatah clashes within two or three days, and then maybe one or two people - generally militants, and sometimes a standbyer - die in an attack by the IDF at some point later on in the week). The ceasefire that had been reached after the second Lebanon War has proven useless, as rockets haven't ceased (journalists discussing this generally say 'rockets have stopped for the most part...' If the rockets stopped, we wouldn't have this conflict. If there are rockets flying, then they haven't stopped. 'Most part', therefore means as much as not at all).
Hamas, who is in power right now, denies Israel's existence, and avidly supports 'resistance' against it - meaning terrorism.


---
What is being done, and what should be done:

Luckily, not everyone in the Israeli government is willing to wait for Isreali children to be killed in order to act. Operations in Gaza have been stepped up.
Which in particular, it remains uncertain, but something at least. It is my hope that there is some military strategy behind this, rather than just bloodshed and chaos.
Like some ynet articles have said: Despite it all, Gaza is in smoke as of now.
The IDF arrested a Khaled Shawis, a 'terror mastermind' responsible for dozens of Isreali deaths today: good.
The IDF attacked a Hamas training base today: good.

The problems will come when the dealings get to civilians, but it is often difficult to distinguish who is innocent and who isn't.
If a 14 year old boy is throwing rocks at an 18 year old soldier, he is not justified, nor guaranteed safety. He is no innocent civilian. What Israel needs to do is forget the press for a while. It is true that Israel is in desperate need of PR work, and even that a campaign has been launched for this, but PR is not the most important thing; least of all now.

What Israel needs is to extract a real war from this. Only real wars can be won.

An Economist article (two actually) from this week argued that Israel's 6-Day War in 1967 was futile all in all, since it only ended in increased problems for Israel (and further chaos for the Palestinians - though really, it made things much clearer and easier for them in terms of struggle, and the Economist acknowledges this). Sever Plocker of Ynet argued back today, and they both have good points, but a main point to be extracted has a lot less to do with the effect of the war, and a lot more to do with the war itself.

The Economist noted that since 1973, Israel has not faced a 'real' war. This is true, and it is key.
There was no winner in Lebanon - not the first time, and not last summer. There was no winner in any of the Intifadas, or whatever it is that people call the terrorism in between. There was no winner as there was in 1948, as there was in 1967, as there was in 1973.

And because there was no winner, there was no real conclusion, and no real result; just further chaos and propensity for the next conflict (though really it's just the same one, perpetually). Nothing is resolved and nothing is alleviated. The reason for this is simple enough: there are no concessions - something that is vital to post-war negotiations (for example, Pollack rightly points out that it is thanks to the 6-Day War and its occupations that Israel was able to forge peace with Egypt over Sinai, and almost peace with Syria over the Golan Heights). There are no concessions because there is no war.

There is no high-ground, and no way to lead the type of complete, and cohesive operatives that Israel needs to have some sort of effect to these attacks while it is within the realms of 'guerrilla warfare'; while it is in the midst of civilians, and while everyone is turning their heads to listen to the cries of liberals around the world who are too preoccupied with their infatuation with anything that proves their point about calling Israel names to pay attention to what is going on. Israel needs full-on soldier-on-soldier warfare in which there are no inhibitions and no strategy other than to win and to secure the nation (clearly random infiltrations of Gaza don't provide security. This doesn't mean that physical force isn't the answer - diplomacy has proven just as impotent - it just means that both physical force and diplomacy have to be tried in a different way)


But we can't get real war right now, what can we do?

A Ynet article posted yesterday caught my eye. I'm not one to lean too much with those who favor keeping isolated villages with some 40 people being protected meticulously by 100 soldiers in the midst of Arab land. However, this article had a good point. The article (Right-wing campaign: Returning to Homesh is answer to Qassams) speaks of the extreme-right religious group: Homesh First, who launched a campaign to resettle the settlements ordered out by Sharon last year. It sounds like nothing but stubbornness, but if you listen to their innate argument, you see they are right in one thing in particular.

If you follow the track of recent events you will see that Hamas has all the reason in the world to be encouraged to continue what it is doing. It is, in essence, winning.
What has happened? First, Sharon pulled out settlements from Arab territory. Now, under extreme pressure from Qassams, Israelis from Sderot are seeking refuge, and aided by rich Jews, are leaving- whether on vacation or to tenement camps around the country. What is happening, is that Hamas puts pressure on Israel, and Israelis leave land. This is the exact stimulating green light that they are seeking to continue.
It doesn't even matter so much that there is smoke and ash in Gaza, or that some Palestinians may be being attacked. This is of little consequence to Hamas, who has shown little to no remorse as to the sacrifice of its own people (whereas the Western media has shown great deals more).
What is most important is that strategically it seems to be working.

In this sense, it is exactly correct to seek a reprisal on terms that Hamas will understand; land.
It is precisely the point to go and overtake more Arab land. This has shown to be the only leverage of negotiation that they have really responded to in the past, firstly, and secondly, it is a direct signal that they are not going to acheive their ambitions by attacking Israel - something that is not being shown now.

When the Palestinians see that the consequence of their attacks is not Israelis fleeing, but Israelis coming to take more of their land, they will have a different conception of what they are doing, despite personal inhibitions against this. They will have no choice.

There are a lot of problems with this plan.

Firstly, planning to keep more settlements brings about numerous questions, to which the answer 'no' is most commonly to be found in terms of reason. Sharon had good reason to remove the settlements last year, despite the consequences amongst the masses, and these reasons of finance and logic, more than politics, stand.
Secondly, if these settlements are to be built as pawns, what about the people who are willing to risk their lives to go build them - they are not about to do this as a temporary project of political stategy. They intend to reclaim the land and live there.

If Homesh First (Rishon?) is going to go and inhabit more settlements, I say, let them. It is their choice, and they are aware that the government can remove them. The risks, pros and cons must be carefully evaluated by Israeli leadership. They must figure out the most beneficial approach to this - both short term and long term. They must sit down, with a clear head, and think, because hot-headedness won't get us anywhere. We need to get out of this endless era of perpetual guerrilla warfare and into some sort of new stage. A stage that can be resolved and concluded one way or another. For this we need to think.

For now, we need to protect the citizens of Sderot and the rest of Israel.
Hopefully there are enough smart people in Israel to be able to do both at the same time.

Pragmatism

An interview with Middle Easy specialist Amir Taheri ('Iranian reknown journalist') with the Jerusalem Post produced some very interesting analyses of what is going on in the Middle East. His rational is very pragmatic, and though it ommits the intricate forces of 'political correctness' and such, it explains some facets of the current balagan in a way that makes me doubt the usefullness of political correctness in situations that clearly maintain it mostly for PR.

The whole interviewis available at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1178096596427&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Some particular questions and answers:

Hasn't Hizbullah emerged strengthened as a result of the war?

No, it has been destroyed. You know, Hizbullah was a major player in the Lebanese and Israel-Lebanon configurations in a certain context. That context has changed. As long as it controlled southern Lebanon, it could exert "proximity pressure" on Israel. That situation has changed; that status quo no longer exists. Now, whether Hizbullah is stronger or better armed today is a different question - one of speculation. Even if it has better arms, it doesn't have an area from which to launch new attacks without doing so from southern Beirut. But if it does that, the rest of the Lebanese population will say, "What is this business? You want to provoke us into a war from the middle of our city!"
That Hizbullah tried to camouflage its defeat by provoking a political crisis in Lebanon is also an indication of its understanding that the situation has changed and of its trying to find a new place in this new situation. It may become stronger in the future - I don't know; I'm not a prophet. But look, the Israelis killed 637 Hizbullah warriors out of a full-time fighting force of about 2,000. Usually in war, you talk of "decimation" - an army's losing one-tenth of its manpower. In this case, Hizbullah lost about a quarter of its fighters. It also lost literally all of its missile launching pads in the south, many missiles and arsenals. In other words, it lost manpower, territory and weaponry. What else do you want? But, you know [he laughs], Jews always want something more.

Could Hizbullah even exist without Iran?

Once it could have. But now, no. Finished. Nasrallah's big betrayal of Hizbullah was to transform it into an exclusively Iranian instrument of power, and become involved in a fight which doesn't have anything to do with it.

Anyway, while asking myself, "Why all this doom and gloom on the part of the Israelis?," I realized that a lot of it is imported from the West. Israel should guard against the danger of becoming too Westernized - too American - because the Americans are so powerful, nothing will happen to them, even if they are gloomy and doom-ridden. They can afford this luxury. You can't

Isn't the fact that we "have adopted more from the Western world" the reason we have a booming economy - as well as so many "gloomy" intellectuals? How would Israel look if it imitated its neighbors and not the United States?

Well, I don't want you to imitate your neighbors entirely, but rather to learn aspects from them. Israel, first and foremost, must be very Israeli, otherwise it's useless. It must be very Jewish, as well - otherwise, what's the point of it? So, the idea of having a cosmopolitan, Western, democratic, pluralist, hi-tech society, as such, is useless. I mean, you could have this anywhere in the world. The important thing is that the Israelis should not lose touch with their mythology, with their narrative. But, above all, they can't afford the luxury of self-loathing. You know, the Westerners can do that "we-are-guilty-everything-is-our-fault" routine. You are too small for this kind of luxury.

Should Israel, then, not have disengaged from Gaza?

No, I think you should not have disengaged from Gaza, unless in a broader context which becomes evident in the future. If you look at the history of the past 50 years or so, you see something very interesting. Israel has fought several wars with the Arabs and has won all of them. But these are the only wars in history where the winner was not allowed to impose the postwar status quo, because they all happened after the United Nations came into being. Every war in history has had a loser and a winner - which is the purpose of war. Otherwise it is useless. Its task is to change a situation through the use of force. If I have the force, I change the situation I don't like.

If I don't, I accept the situation. In the case of Israel's wars, the strange thing is that this principle didn't apply, because a third party intervened. You had others interfering in something that has nothing to do with them. They pass resolutions, and they say, "You should do this; you should do that."

Like this, there will never be peace. I mean, there is no example of this kind of peace-making. Once war is taken out of its natural role, people start speaking of a "just peace."

The concept of "just peace" is stupid, because peace cannot be "just" when somebody thinks it is unjust. Then they speak of "comprehensive peace."
Peace is peace. If you modify it with an adjective, it's like saying somebody is half pregnant or fully pregnant. You're either pregnant or you're not.
Then there's the "peace of the brave" - another ridiculous expression, because the brave don't make peace, they fight. Cowards make peace after they are defeated. The specificity of war is the clarity it creates. And you obfuscate that by adding all these modifiers. The only way that there can be peace in this region is to go back to the normal routes of war. So withdrawal from Gaza has no meaning unless Israel decides where it is and what it wants.

...Yet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has placed focus on the Jews by denying the Holocaust and by threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

The reason for this is that there are two Irans, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. You have Iran as an expression of the Islamic Revolution, and you have Iran as a nation-state. As a nation-state, Iran has no basis for enmity with Israel. The two countries are not fighting over borders or access to markets or natural resources.

But Iran as an expression of the Islamic Revolution must hate Israel and vow to destroy it. This way, the regime can tell the Arabs, "Forget about the fact that we are Shi'ites; accept our leadership politically, and we will realize your dream of liberating Jerusalem and doing all the other nice things that you can't do yourself."

So, as an Islamic Republic, Iran is a mortal threat to Israel, but as a nation-state, it is a strong friend. There is no anti-Israeli sentiment or anti-Semitism in Iranian society. There's no Iranian writer or poet or filmmaker or playwright or artist who is an anti-Semite. It is something completely concocted by the regime.

Furthermore, you here may think that Iranians are knowledgeable about Israel. But they're not. Most Iranians don't even know where Israel is. Iran is a huge country with 70 million people, many of whom don't know where Pakistan is, or where Egypt is - let alone Israel. Nor do they care. Nor do the masses even know what the word "Holocaust" means.

Even if [the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran and commander-in-chief of the Iranian Armed Forces Ayatollah Sayyid Ali] Khamenei says no? Isn't Khamenei the one calling the shots? [in relation to declaring war]

It doesn't work this way - with Ahmadinejad saying, "Let's go to war," and Khamenei saying, "No."
This is not only the wrong way to look at it, but it is imprudent. Prudence dictates taking Ahmadinejad seriously and assuming that he has the power - even if he doesn't. It's like when Hitler came to power, and the British and the French said, "But there's still [president Paul von] Hindenburg."
Systems like that don't work according to the law. The most recent example is the showdown over the captured British sailors. Ahmadinejad seized control of the issue and handled it how he wanted before the others could maneuver. The same goes for the nuclear issue. The natural tendency of Khamenei and the others was to fudge a bit, to call [EU Secretary-General] Javier Solana and say, "Let's have some kebab together," then give him a carpet as a present and say, "Let's negotiate in three months," and "Keep hope alive." This was the phrase. But then Ahmadinejad came along and said, "You know what? This train doesn't have a rear gear; it doesn't have a brake - it's going to go straight ahead."
Now, how could Khamenei come and say, "No, you're wrong. You're going to stop this train"?
In a revolutionary situation, the person who pushes for the most radical policies usually has the upper hand, because a revolution is like riding a bicycle. As long as you pedal, you keep going. If you stop pedaling, you collapse. Ahmadinejad understands this and is using it to his advantage.

The New Addition to the Olmert Spectacle: Livni Enters Public Rebuke

I’ll admit that when the news uprising from the Winograd Report first came out, I had the archetypal response that led to the email I received the following day calling me to pass on the call for Olmert’s resignation, and the NYT article from that same morning reporting on the protest outside Olmert’s house, calling for the same thing. Following up, considering Olmert’s feeble responses and defenses, as well as talkbacks on Israeli news-sites, and the general atmosphere, I was beginning to believe he might be pushed out after all…and if not, it’s just another 3 months, right? Then again the next part of the Lebanon war sage is expected this summer.
Olmert’s approval ratings are even more ridiculous than his statements: 2-3% according to the NYT (whereas the margin of error is 3%...well about the same), and the possibilities for replacements have indubitably been pacing through Israeli minds for a long time. The Winograd report laid a clear, firm responsibility on him for the many failures and discrepancies of the war last summer, and he has accepted them (not that he really had a choice). However, despite the grandiose dissatisfaction that the Israeli people have with the current prime minister, the question of who’s next is perhaps more pertinent than that of when Olmert will step down.
That’s where today’s addition to theבלגן (balagan) comes to place. In a conference today, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced that she had asked Olmert to resign. No problem right? That’s what you might think on first site, but when you see the complementary statement, it all changes.
Ms. Livni suggests that since public opinion and the Winograd report have spoken (really more the report than the people, by her speech) Ehud Olmert must oblige everyone and step down from his post, to be replaced by a newly elected member of theקדימה (Kadima) party [elected by vote within the party].
It should bear no surprise that Tzipi is planning to run.

It’s pretty funny how undesirable situations unite a nation. It seems to me that there is a crystal clear consensus as to Israel’s answer to its humble ministress.
“HOLD YOUR HORSES!”
Granted, the attention was shifted to Olmert at the report’s release – maybe Peretz, who is so far beyond simple disapproval that it would be futile to discuss his myriad flaws [though it is inevitable to mention the ridiculous picture in which he posed, peering at a military scene with closed binoculars].
What has been omitted from major conversation, and is now once again surfacing is the plain fact that the war’s failure (as the Winograd report showed) was not Olmert’s fault. It was Kadima’s fault. Even Olmert’s actions were not individual decisions made and carried out from Olmert to the army. Practically everything that happened, happened through the entire party, Livni and Peretz, particularly included, as they both hold powerful positions. Even though Olmert was the acting Prime Minister, Livni is not less to blame than Olmert for the unpreparedness of the army, for the poor judgments in strategy, and most of all for the UN-coordinated cease-fire (with Hezbollah, as well as with Palestinians), which led to a continuation of thousands of rockets being shot at Israel (mostly Sderot), a suicide bombing in Eilat, and many attempts for more. In fact, it is largely Livni’s responsibility that the three kidnapped Israeli soldiers are not yet returned – another big complaint against Olmert (and his administration).
More so, talkbacks on Ynet, Haaretz, and J Post strike at Livni, (rightly) charging her with opportunism, incompetence, equivalency to Olmert, idiocy, lack of ethics/morals, being easily manipulated/swinging with the wind, and much more – some kinder, and others, rather ribald.
The situation is really best defined as one Ynet talk-backer said, “If anyone says it [that Olmert must resign], its okay. But, from Livni, its arrogance.”
I strongly recommend taking a look, for sheer entertainment, if for no other purpose. However, since the vast majority of them are uniformed in concept, a particularly riveting sample or two from each site will suffice.

16. It would be nobel on her part
If it were not for her own true goals and obvious incompetence

Reality Check ,
BaGolan
(05.02.07)

18. Livni ,Show him how it's done !
You are just another puppet politician who is easliy manipulated. You are out of your league. Just another yes,yes maam of Condi Rice and George Bush ! Go back home and bake cookies for the children.

Marcel ,
Florida
(05.02.07)

(YNET : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3394970,00.html)

LIVNI JUST AS RESPONSIBLE!!!!!!
Ben Uziel
Livni thinks she can rewrite history and whitewash herself of responsibility. Israel leadership must be completely replaced. New elections and nothing else!!! until then there will be spin, lie and superficiality to the resolution to many Israeli problems. Livni is as responsible as olmert, to deny this is to deny the whole point of political responsibility within a govt.


Livni Kicks Olmert When He Is Down
Ben Israel
Israel
Tzippi Livni is a complete zero..a political nihilist, post-Zionist with no program other than self-advancement, in other words, like all the rest of the Kadima gang. The government has COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY and she is just as responsible for the disaster. Now she thinks she is only a short step from being Prime Minister...it is truly frightening that someone like her could reach the top job.Her parents were revered fighters in the ETZEL (Irgun) in the pre-state period, so she cashed in on this to get ahead in the Likud even though like most of its "princes" she abandoned their nationalist/Zionist line. She attached herself to Sharon and as he moved to the Left, so did she. Like I said, she is a real nothing.


(Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/854673.html)

69. The Mighty & The Greedy Surely Will Fall.NO One In This Crew Is Speaking About National Interest. This Is A True Crime Against The PeopleAdina Kutnicki - US 05/02/2007 23:36
The sharks are circling within Kadima - Kadima, over the cliff. Justice dictates that ALL of these miscreants get tossed overboard. I am NOT in a forgiving mood and do not feel they even deserve life rafts!

34. Where it was sealedCry 05/02/2007 19:55
If the war planning and execution was a disaster, and it was, nothing was over until the end result was sealed at the UN. That was Livni's responsibility. She craves to be liked by Rice more then to advocate Israel's true interests. If you think Olmert is bad, he will seem to have been a great leader if Livni ever becomes PM.

16. Livni: Gutless, Not "The Right Stuff"Ovadiah ben Avraham - Israel 05/02/2007 17:43
If she had made a move against Olmert, I would have called her a Kadima hack opportunist. If she had resigned I would have thought, hmmm, maybe she is in Israeli politics for the long run and the right reasons (to serve). But this gutless flop on her belly before Olmert is repulsive. She *is* the "princess" that the analysts say -- without a patron to promote her, she is nothing on her own. Next.

55. Livni - No Ethics, Honor, or CompetenceJerome Soller 05/02/2007 22:06
If she does not resign, I hope Olmert fires her. She and Peres should resign themselves, before Olmert resigns. Maybe, if Israel is lucky, it can include her in the trade for the kidnapped Israelis. I pray for an Israel with Peres, Livni, and Olmert in no position of responsibility greater than cleaning toilets. Jerome
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1178020750384)

OVERALL: There were a few supporting comments towards Livni, but they were miniscule compared to the opposition. There was little talk of a solution to the situation, or steps towards it except for the immediate removal of Kadima (one or two comments advocated keeping Kadima and Olmert). The vast majority of substitute suggestions were for Benjamin (Bibi) Natanyahu – a name I’ve come across often in terms of calls for primacy in Israel. If there were elections held now, I’d guess Bibi would be the likeliest to win (and probably the best to win), but Israelis don’t have much faith in their government right now. Sad as that is, there is very much room for a new generation of politicians of a different class. As Sharon withers away, Peres not far from, and the rest of them hanging from the ledges, the founders of Israel, who had been with it from birth, and who have seen it through it’s first 60 or so years are just about done. A recent article on ynet spoke of signs of a new Zionism and patriotism amongst Israeli youth as uprising, and I can only hope that this is true and prevalent. It is up to the next generation to come up with some leaders who will be credible and who will pull Israel out of the rut it has been in for the past decade. Who are these people? We don’t know yet.
All we can hope is that they will show up soon, because Israel’s transition time is running out.

EDIT: Report: Livni Will Quit
(IsraelNN.com) Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni will announce her resignation from the government if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert does not resign, Israeli media reported Wednesday morning. She is scheduled to meet with the Prime Minister at 4 p.m. (9 a.m. EDT) and then will hold a press conference. The Foreign Minister was catapulted into the top political echelon when she backed former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's program to destroy Jewish communities in the Gaza and northern Samaria regions.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/125682

Kidnapping

'Mashaal: If Israel doesn't yield we will kidnap again

Hamas politburo chief says Hamas will kidnap more IDF soldiers if Israel does not yield to Palestinian demands, meanwhile Abbas briefs Saudi King Abdullah on deteriorating security situation in Gaza
By: Ali Waked


"Hamas is determined to free all the Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails, be it by kidnapping more soldiers or other methods," said Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal on Monday at a rally for Palestinian prisoners in a Damascus refugee camp.
Mashaal said that kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit will not be released until Israel yields to Palestinian demands. "If the enemy insists on continuing to refuse to free our prisoners, I am saying here that we have every capability to do again what we have done before," said Mashaal.

The exiled Hamas leader condemned the international silence in the face of "Israel's policy of terror, killing, arrests and siege against the Palestinian people.
"While the leaders of the world already know the name Gilad Shalit by heart, the name of Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker Dr. Aziz Dwaik is of no interest to anyone."

Mashaal reiterated that Hamas' list of demands, including the names of the prisoners they want released, has already been handed over to Israel. "The Israelis initially accepted the list," he said, "but then later they started playing games with various excuses. The enemy is trying to manipulate and use extortion tactics, but I emphasize: Shalit will only be released if our demands are met and only in exchange for the price we have stipulated. We will not give in to their extortions."

Abbas in surprise Saudi visit
Meanwhile on Sunday Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah held an unannounced meeting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to discuss recent developments in the region.

The meeting in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, came a day after Abbas met with Mashaal in Cairo. Their talks were the first since their blocs formed a coalition government in March under Saudi Arabian mediation.

A Palestinian official said that during Sunday's meeting Abbas briefed Abdullah on the deteriorating security situation in the Gaza Strip and the two discussed ''how to re-establish security (in Gaza) and reactivate the cease-fire."

Within the Palestinian Authority officials said that following Abbas' visit to Riyadh it is expected that the king will either extend a similar invitation to Mashaal or dispatch Saudi envoys to meet with him in Syria.'

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3393559,00.html

...........................................................................................................................................

Israel is put in a very difficult position. The Palestinians have called a lose-lose game, where everything is in Israel's face; everything is 100% clear, but there may not be a way out.
One of the largest critiques of exchanging prisoners has always been that a successful trade always encourages Israel's enemies to turn to kidnapping everytime they want something. If anyone had any doubts, now this is being publicized by the Hamas leadership.
Further, Hamas has put Israel down in the sense that if Israel agrees to a trade-off, Israel is left vulnerable (to further attacks, kidnappings, etc.), Israel is the loser (who gave in), and Israel just released hundreds of potential terrorists.

From the other side, there is much pressure within Israel to abide by Israel's famous policy of retrieving its soldiers in any circumstance, at any cost. That is, Israel needs to get its three boys back, but how?
While the vast majority of Israel would agree that the soldiers must be returned, safely to their homes and families, the same majority would agree that concessions of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners is simply not a fair trade. Looking at the situation, it becomes clear that abiding by a trade is not an option to Israel anyhow, if for no other reason, then for the image that it sends out; exactly the signal that the Arab/Muslim (anti-Israel) world is looking for- the signal that Israel is weak and vulnerable.

Clearly, a different strategy will have to be enacted here by Israel. Hopefully our creativity will not fail us; this is no time for failure.

Why we can't let Naziism go.

:YNET:

France: Woman attacked for wearing Star of David
22-year-old French woman says youths of Middle Eastern origin snatched her Star of David necklace, lifted her shirt and drew a swastika on her stomach
by: Yael Branovsky

A 22-year-old French woman said Thursday she was the victim of an anti-Semitic attack by two youths at an underground train station in Marseille.
The youths, who the woman said were of Middle Eastern origin, snatched her Star of David necklace, then lifted her shirt and drew a swastika on her stomach before fleeing the scene.
According to the Jewish Agency, the French police have refrained from releasing the details of the incident before it was proven that the attack was motivated by anti-Semitism.
The head of the Jewish Agency delegation in France, David Roche, told Ynet that representatives of the local Jewish community would continue to follow the investigation.
“We will be in touch with the woman and provide her with all the help she needs,” he said, adding that the attack was the most severe anti-Semitic incident in France since the murder of Ilan Halimi in February 2006.
Jewish Agency Chairman Ze'ev Bielski released a statement saying that “specifically during the course of the largest display of democracy France has known in many years this barbaric act is carried out.
"We are doing our utmost so that the issue of the fight against anti-Semitism will top the agenda of the candidates for the presidency and of the candidate who is elected," he said.
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3392614,00.html


It's not the point that over 60 years have passed since the ending of the Hollocaust (though not if you ask Ahmedinejad and his treasonous neturei karta friends).
It's not even the point that Germany has numerous anti-racist/anti-anti-semitism laws (although anti-semitism is flourishing in many places and ways anyway).

It's that regardless of whether the anti-semitism is coming from Germans, French, Arabs, whoever, the swastika is their symbol. What does it represent?
The swastika represents a doctorine of hatred towards Jews; it says, 'Get out, we don't want you here.'
It says, 'We want you dead.'
It says, 'Don't forget, it's not that hard to get you the point of the Hollocaust.'

The last of the generation who bore witness to the Hollocaust is nearing death, and the younger generations seem to be living in a disillusioned saftey. The only question is, how real is it?
In recent news, we've seen anti-semetic acts world-wide increasing in double-digit percentiles, and anti-zionist sentiments spreading.
It appears to me that people are losing their understanding of Israel and its purpose - and not because of the corruption or the terrorism. Decades after escaping the harsh realities of anti-semetic surroundings have left everyone feeling as if the world is a safe-haven left only for them to judge. They had never felt fear for being who they are, therefore they see no reason to seek refuge from it.

Israel has seen progressivly rising rates of immigrants from France lately. I wonder why that is.

Sex, Drugs, and REALITY CHECKS.

I'm so tired of the excuse: "I know it's bad, but I want to experiment so I can find myself."

I have two main critiques:

Firstly, what the hell do you expect to find? You'll know that you'll either like it or dislike it. If you dislike it, you'll either keep doing it until it grows on you (coughcoughADDICTIONMUCH?coughcough), or stop; or you'll like it and you'll keep doing and doing it.
If you know it's 'bad', why would you search for justification to do it? I've heard the 'it feels good' and the 'i've started, now i can't stop' shit a hundred times, but this doesn't exist before you tried it. By doing it, you're hoping to get some sort of benefit from it, obviously. No one (except sadists and masachists) does something they expect a negative result from. Therefore what you're doing is, doing something you 'know is bad' in hopes of liking it, and therefore getting caught in the 'it feels good'.
So you're trying to 'find yourself' a druggie or a consistant smoker or whatever. Goal accomplished? I bet that's not what you drew for 'what I want to be when I grow up' in 3rd grade.

Secondly, the excuse can be interpreted as being skeptical of activity x being 'bad', and wanting to experiment to find out for yourself.
Have you ever killed a person? Have you had a close one be killed?
You know killing is 'bad' though, right? When you read that someone was killed in the paper, you sympathize, don't you?
Your mommy and daddy told you it's bad when you were still wearing pajamas with feet coverings. Your teacher told you so in second grade. If you're religious, the ten commandments told you so. The constitution says so. The TV and movies that you watched growing up, the books you've read, the negative conotations towards murder in the news media, all told you that murder is bad, and that it is prohibited.
You understand that it is bad and sinful to perpetrate, and you don't even have a drop of blood on your hands.
This can go for thousands of things.
It is an undisputed, statistical fact that drug habits lead to not only health complications and risks (not only in direct damage), but in social hemorage.
There are constantly stories of hookers so desperate that they will take a client for 5 dollars worth of cocaine. Much of the 80's was characterized by gang wars, mass violence, health crises, destroyed lives - it was called 'The Cocaine Wars' for a reason.There are stories of how LSD users tear their apartments apart tile by tile, brick by brick - all because they saw something soul-searchingly evil in the walls. These are just a few, miniscule examples of the hundreds, and thousands of stories and facts we know, showing how absolutely detrimental they are - and btw some of the strong drugs, especially, are addictive in as little as two uses.

We hear all the time about cancers, hepatitis, HIV - all kinds of diseases - that seam directly to (cigarettes are drugs) drug use and/or permiscuity.

There are few people who are stupid enough to say that these things are not 'bad', and if you have the audacity to question that, you are fooling no one but yourself.


Let's wrap it all up together - there is nothing good you are searching for in persuing drugs/smoking/permiscuity/xyz. Stop making excuses that fool you, but surely not me., and just own up to it; if you do it, it's for the sake of doing it of it. There's no deep and meaningful rationale.

Kids born to Cocain addicts have a physical addiction from birth--------------------------->

Fate and Destiny

I saw this as a comment on the Drybones blog and thought it was rather phenomenal, and deserved better exposure for people to see.

All due credit goes to Daniel Feiglin (dilogsys@inter.net.il), and I sincerely thank him for allowing me to publish it.

I'd like to know what everyone thinks about it...

"The quotation below is from an old Midrash, Psikta Rabati, Parshat Kumi Ori.The Psikta is a Midrash of uncertain date, but from the style and language, was written somewhere between 1800 and 1000 years ago. It is quoted in the Yalkut Shimoni of about the 13th century. There are those who hold that the Psikta is late Tana'itic document of the same period of the Midrash Rabba.

In the middle of an almost surrealistic vision of the redemption process, we find a hard-headed geopolitical analysis by an anonymous Rabbi Yitzchak, which if written 1800 years ago or "only" 1000 years ago shows a profound understanding of the major players in our region. In essence neither they nor their mentalities have changed. The only change over the last 1000-1800 years in the Middle East is the availability of cheap means of mass murder. The reasons for conflict whether water, territory, oil or religious fanaticism do not make any difference. Rabbi Yitzchak tells us that the outcome will be the same one way or another.

Let's take a look at it in more detail: (I have chosen a variant that is tense-consistent.)

אמר רבי יצחק שנה שמלך המשיח נגלה בו כל מלכי האומות העולם מתגרים זה בזה מלך פרס מתגרה במלך ערבי והולך מלך ערבי לאדום ליטול עצה מהם. וחוזר מלך פרס ומחריב את כל העולם כולו וכל אומות העולם מתרעשים ומתבהלים ונופלים על פניהם ויאחוז אותם צירים כצירי יולדה. וישראל מתרעשים ומתבהלים ואומרים להיכן נלך ולהיכן נבוא. ואומר להם בניי אל תתייראו כל מה שעשיתי לא עשיתי אלא בשבילכם מפני מה אתם מתייראים אלתיראו! הגיע זמן גאולתכם ולא כגאולה ראשונה כך גאולה אחרונה כי גאולה ראשונה היה לכם צער ושיעבוד מלכיותאחריה אבל גאולה אחרונה אין לכם צער ושיעבוד מלכיות

אחריה

For Israeli Hebrew speaking correspondents, the item speaks for itself needing little comment from me.

-----------------------------------------------------

I have translated the piece for English speaking corespondents. The translation is intended to be readable rather than literally accurate. My comments are in [square brackets].

Rabbi Yitchak said: In the year that the King-Mashiach is revealed, all of the kings of the nations of the world will be provoking one another. The king of Persia provokes the king of the Arabs, and the king of the Arabs goes to take counsel with the king of Edom. The king of Persia responds by laying waste the whole world. All of the nation of the world shake and panic and fall upon their faces and they are gripped in pains [as if] of childbirth. And Israel shakes and panics saying, "Where can we come, we can we go?" And I [G-d] say to them, "My children, do not fear; all that I have done I have done only for you sake. Of what are you afraid? Do not be afraid! The time of your redemption [Geula] has come. The final redemption will not be like the first redemption [from Egypt] for the first redemption was followed by suffering and subjugation to [foreign] kings, but the final redemption will not be followed by suffering and subjugation to [foreign] kings.

The wording is somewhat clumsy but otherwise quite clear.

Let's look at it In modern terminology:

The coming of the Mashiach, or our redemption (in whatever political system of leadership we have) is presaged by a state of mutual conflict and provocation between the nations of the world - they cannot agree about anything. The king of Persia is now the ruler of Iran (the modern day successor of the Persians, territorially, in language and probably in race). The ruler of Persia "provokes" the Arabs by trying to "Iranize" the Islamic Jihad against the non-Islamic world. The largely dictatorial reactionary Arab leaders feel directly threatened by the advance of Iranian Shiite fanaticism. Starting with the Saudis, probably the Emirates and very soon Jordan and Egypt (if they do not fall first) are or will be seeking agreements and alliance with the king of Edom i.e. the leaders of the Western world dominated by a European (Edom) based culture. They are currently the Quartet, dominated by the Americans lead by President Bush. The ruler of Iran tries to counter this by "laying waste" the world. This includes both military adventures (perhaps nuclear) and steps to collapse the world economy such as preventing oil production or transportation. Oil production can be curtailed by encouraging civil war in Iraq, blockading the straights of Hormuz and a variety of other mischief in Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, the Kashmir and anywhere else that a strong Islamic presence can be "hijacked" for the purpose. The Arabs have plenty to worry about: Recall the Iraq-Iranian war of the 80's.

In the throes of a worldwide economic failure (like the Great Depression), escalating military strife dominated by Shiite terrorism all sponsored by (a possibly nuclear armed) Iran in Hitler-like bid for empire, the nations of the world descend into a frenzy of panic probably starting with economic protectionism and then political isolationism followed by shortages leading even to famine in otherwise prosperous (G8) countries.

Israel is no exception, being lead by a timid immoral incompetent government devoid of faith, vision or courage.

The section of the text commencing, "ואומר" ("And I say ...") is the key to the let out:

Our anonymous Rabbi Yitzchak takes a deep breath and dares to speak for G-d in first person. In essence he says to Israel, "Don't worry, I'm in charge of this one! This time it is not going to finish up like the old Egyptian experience."

The foregoing Midrash leaves open two serious questions:

The first one, is how does Israel get the message to calm down and take it easy. The last prophet of stature in Israel was Malachi who lived about 2,500 years ago. Since then, pretenders to prophetic powers have generally proved to be fakes, or "proved right after the event" like a certain well known not long deceased Chassidic Rabbi. Is there another Rabbi Yitzchak around, and if there is, would anybody listen to him? Or maybe something totally unexpected will happen that will make Israel (if nobody else) sit up and take notice.

The second question is to my mind far more serious: When all this is over and done with, what do we, Israel, do next? Let no one think that we will be left to rest in our laurels, each under his grape-vine and each under his fig-tree."

NOTE: The cartoon is by http://www.coxandforkum.com/ and all rights to it belong to them.

הללויה

בעולם הזה יש הרבה בעיות ועוד יותר שאלות.
נראה שכלעם נורא מבולבלים אבל כנראה שאפילו זה בסדר.
אז איפו המסכנה? יש לאנו מציות שאלות בלי תשובות ויש ויש לאנו תקווה שבתוך כל שניע מצומצמת עד שלא יוותר באנו יותר.
מוכנים לוותר? אנו אף פעם לא אהיה מוכנה.
סתכלו:
יש לאנו עולם אחד, נכון? כן
ויש לאנו תמוד בררות ומחליטות שאותם בא לאנו לקחת. יש לאנו תמוד בררה על איך לתגוב לכל דבר שקורא לאנו.
בכל החלתה הזות יש לאנו עוד היזדמנות לשנות את העולם. בכל דבר שאנו מחליטים לעשות אנוחנו מחליטים את העתיד של עולם.
לעט לעט יש בענו כוח לעשות את זה.
אז מה שצועם אותנו זו בדיוק האבדת התקווה. אם אף אחד לא מעמין שמשהוא עושה שמשפיע את כל העולם ואם הוא לא מעמין שהוא יכול לעשות טוב לעולם אז שום דבר לא ישתנה.

גם לי אין תשובןת אבל משגבקה גן ברור זה שאסור לאבד את ההקווה ואסור לוותר. זה בידנו לעשות
שנוי

פרודיה

Welcome to the era of revolution! It is the era of breaking through all barriers, and finally reaching a sense of 'good' for all humanity. It is the era of 'all good' and the era of revival for the trash we humans have succumbed to being. Welcome! Welcome!

You there! Yes, you; Peasant! You've been subjected and subdued to such tremors by the apathetic. You've been so exploited and exposed!

Do you remember? Think of how they made you run by the horse, then wash it and care for it too. Think of how annoyed you were, next to the horse, but rarely mounting it. And think, friend! No one put you on that horse! There were only straddles and saddles. No one lifted you up on them!

Well friend, it's all over now. There will be no more grief construed upon you. No more. No more.

Because today, friend...

Today's the day of revolution.

Today friend; today's the day we'll shoot the horse.

Now you can walk on your own.

Guess what's not making the NYT front page?

"Pakistan to fence part of Afghan border
Fri Feb 2, 6:39 AM ET
Pakistan is to fence 35 kilometres (22 miles) of its northwestern border with Afghanistan to restrict the movement of Taliban militants, President Pervez Musharraf has said.
Musharraf said he had ordered the action after western allies had failed to offer solutions to the problem, but added that Pakistan had deferred a plan to mine the frontier due to international concerns.
"We are doing it (fencing), we have decided, the movement of logistics has taken place," Musharraf told a press conference at Camp House Friday, his official military residence in the garrison city of Rawalpindi.
The president said the erection of the fence "will take a few months to execute."
"The area we are fencing at the moment is about 35.2 kilometres in all, they are in seven or eight different pieces," Musharraf said.
Pakistan also planned to fence 250 kilometres (155 miles) of the frontier in the southwestern province of Baluchistan at a later date, he added.
Mining the border -- as Pakistan has threatened to do -- was still under consideration, Musharraf said.
"A minefield is easier, fencing is more difficult," he said. "But we are conscious of the sensitivity of the international community, therefore we thought in phase one let's only fence it."
The NATO-led force in Afghanistan said last month that it had "strong reservations" about the plan to mine and fence parts of the frontier.
Musharraf said "this is my solution" and accused NATO and US-led forces in Afghanistan of failing to come up with any other ideas.
He said Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay, who visited Pakistan last month, had promised to bring up the matter with the Canadian military "but he didn't offer anything. We are waiting but nothing has come."
Afghanistan says it has written to the new United Nations chief to express "deep concern" over the plan as it disputes the current border with Pakistan, known as the Durand Line, saying it cuts off part of its territory.
The Durand Line was drawn up in 1893 by British India, which once included Pakistan, to divide the powerful Pashtun tribes.
Musharraf rejected Afghanistan's complaints.
"If we get involved in these petty differences there will be no action (against militants), we will never succeed," he said.
"Having said that, the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan is very very clear and let no one doubt that.
"Pakistan will never, never allow any change of that border."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/wl_asia_afp/pakistanafghanistanunrestfence_070202113912;_ylt=AmgdT_UBFgb0os2arpbgsBrOVooA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

And guess what Jimmy Carter isn't going to write about...
HM.

I absolutely love the apartheid claim. I love how people apply totally irrelevant diagonals and analogies to dramatize their pleas.
I've read a lot of critiques about Carter's book - and many defenses (and when I say a lot/many, I mean so many I don't want to hear about it anymore).
What I haven't heard being disputed much, however, was the term apartheid in itself.
Here are some parallels I just don't get:
1) When using the term 'apartheid' the common association is that of the South African apartheid, this is undisputed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the the black Africans who were discriminated against and poverty-stricken in their isolation were actually part of South Africa.
Palestinians have not, are not, and will not be part of Israel so long as it exists. Israel has no desire for this (neither do they according to popular consensus and maybe the fact that they continuously cry for the destruction of Israel), therefore making a border between Palestinian territories and Israel is not in any way isolating and excluding a part of the nation.
RATHER, since the Palestinians are so keen on building their nation, the wall serves as a separation of what ideally would be two separate nations.
Obviously, there are problems with this, because having a solid border provides a feeling of permanence, and a separation from the land of Israel itself. That is to say, it means that the Palestinians must suck it up and create their state on the land they have, rather than keep crying that Israel stole their land (not that the wall has caused a reduction in either this or aggression and violence against Israel). More so, a substantial separation implies that Israel is not theirs, which as both the Fatah and Hamas charters both state (ask me for sources if interested).

According to all internationally acclaimed documents, Israel is a real existent state. If it is wrong for Israel to put up a wall at its borders, it is just so for Pakistan to put up a wall at its borders, no?

Arguments can fly in a million directions. You can say that the problem isn't as much in the wall as it is in the borders, which are 'illegitimate'. I'm not going to waste my time arguing this claim. If you're interested, I can recommend dozens of written responses.

There was an interesting article in the NYT the other day http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?ref=arts) about an essay by Alvin H. Rosenfeld of Indiana University upon the topic of how in castigating Israel, liberal "Progressive" Jews are in fact aiding and progressing what is a neo-anti-semitism. This is articulated in not only criticism but denouncing of Israel in its very existence.
The article itself, offered by the American Jewish Committee (ajc.org), is quite intriguing. The beginning of it goes to address the perception of Jews by the Muslim world.
Apparently, Hitler's Mein Kamp is a best seller in Istanbul (and other places in Turkey), as well as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Needless to say that the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been rather popular across a "wide circulation today in Arabic-speaking countries." Of course, that isn't to disclude Iran, in which, "the Protocols was prominently displayed next to a Torah scroll as one of Judaism's "sacred texts."' (2)

There is mention of television series based on this, and on scenarios of Israelis/Jews are mutilating and abusing Muslim children. This may sound farfetched, but it mentions a video that I, myself have seen, in which a Palestinian girl had her eyes taken out ("stolen") by Israeli doctors, who were to use them for Israeli sick. I'll try to find the video itself, but I'm fairly certain it was offered by the Memri foundation (http://memri.org/)

Anyway, that's not even touching upon the main point of the article (which can be accessed at:http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.2463005/k.FBCD/Progressive_Jewish_Thought_and_the_New_AntiSemitism/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=2463005&en=5dKHLMNgHaLHIHNfEaKNJMMhHbLOLSMkG7KILSNuEmJTI4J)
What the article mainly does is target left-wing Jews who have the irrevocable notion that Israel does not have a right to exist.
Any pro-Israel advocate will tell you that there is a blunt distinction between being critical of Israel's (individual) policies and being critical of Israel itself, as a being.
Quite frankly, though I won't go into an in-depth analysis of the particular anti-zionists mentioned, including Judt, Rose, Farber, Chomsky, etc. I must say that I find some of the things they said rather appalling.
In fact, the most optomistic words mentioned in the entire article were probably Chomsky's (aginst whom I have a moral stance), which accepted the right of Jews to have an Israel, but as a binary state with Arabs.
Let's be practical here - that means no Israel.
I showed in a previous post the attitude of Arabs in Israel now - and they make up about 20% of the country now. Palestinians are known to have birth rates that dramatically overtake those of Israelis (ultra-orthodox excluded), and within a (fairly short) period of time, the Judaism of the country would disappear. So much for Israel.
Chomsky would rather have Palestine anyway. A binational state would just be the quiet way to get rid of the Jews, as opposed to damanding they simply evacuate.

I understand that there are a lot of questions and accusations and logistics and whatever, but there are a few elementary things that I still can't get.
There are 22 Islamic countries in the world. Many of them are enormous, many of them are affluent to hell. Not one of these 22 countries is willing to take the Palestinian people in.
Not one. It is more profitable and beneficial for them to upkeep a regime of anti-western, anti-israeli terror and hate. It is safer politically.
Yet the world doesn't say a word to Syria, a part of whom the Palestinians claimed to be in 1947, though rejected. It is easier to blame Israel for all the problems that exist; blame Israel for Palestinian suffering, for the civil war on Iraq. According to Rosenfeld's article, Israel/Jews are even blamed for the Tsunami in Asia last year by the Islamic prapogandist media.
If it is a matter of land, there is so much land elsewhere. It's not as if these people would return to their old houses anyway - those probably don't exist anymore. Moreso, Jews (many Israelis) were driven from their homes as well, and I'm not just talking about Europe. Jews in Muslim countries all over north Africa and the Middle East were succombed to abandoning their homes just as much as the Palestinians, and left with nothing but their lives. We don't hear a word about wanting that back, do we? Part of it is certainly that people simply wouldn't want to return. I wouldn't want to go and live in Iraq now, that's for sure. But note also that most of Israel was empty and grazen land leased by abandonee landowners before Israel.
In fact, in a brief argument upon this term with my history teacher, I mentioned that when in the 70's Israel had approximately the same financial position as the Palestinians, Israel had a good deal of international support. He agreed without question.

It's just like a fictional drama.
People like victims.

Even with all this set aside, there have certainly been grievences towards Native Americans. We sympathize, but are we really going to give New York back?

Like I said, I really just don't get it. It seems to me people get so sucked into a detail or an idea that all reason leaves

I don't know. There's been a lot in the news lately. A few things I found interesting:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3361369,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3361228,00.html
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/the-readers-respond-with-a-library-of-ideas/
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/

Eh. I promise I'll write a good post soon. Iran seems to be newsbreaking lately...at least in their claims.
-שוש

SEX

On my way to school today I managed to come by three front-page news stories regarding sexual misconduct. There was an article about Minister Ramon in the ידעיות אחרונות of that Israeli guy on the subway. (english coverage articles at: http://www.ynetnews.com/home/1,7340,L-3341,00.html?SearchType=TopNav&criteria=&sog=&keyword=&txtSearchString=ramon&txtChanID=3083&select1=Site)

There was an absolutely ridiculous article in the NYT, about some 27 year old creep who has been using razors and make up to forge the appearance of a seventh grader who is enrolled in a local public school. Apparently this guy lives in a house with a bunch of other prison-record rapists in some town in Arizona, and according to video,has raped at least one little boy...at least. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/us/01predator.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin)

Finally, there was some sex scandal on the front page of Metro or New York or some newspaper of that sort, regarding something with video, internet, and rape...I was rushing, so I didn't quite grasp the headline.

That's just for this morning. If you've been paying the slightest attention to the news lately, you know that sex scandals are anything but scarce these days. There's the big rape scandal that Moshe Katsav is infamous for. In America, there was that whole ridiculous thing with Mark Foley and his page friend. The list goes on and on, and if Americans are feeling too up and proud of themselves, let's just remember that the record has been repeatedly scratched by those even as popular as Clinton and JFK. But that's not the point, the point is what's happening right now, right?

I'm not quite sure, but let's have a look anyway.

In the case of Katsav and Ramon, criticism has been incredibly vast, and the popular consensus is: "Leave, you're embarrassing the country."

So my question is, is it the politicians, who are embarrassing the country with this obscure, repremendable behavior?

Is it Katsav having sex, and Ramon kissing some girl; is it Mark Foley sending some teenager a flirty text message, that represent the corruption in society?

If it is, why does it keep happening? Why aren't we seemingly able to rid ourselves of this disgusting social decay?

You know, despite whatever these anti-government tykes say, I hold firmly to the belief that government electives are really quite representative of the general public. What I'm trying to say with this, is that the problem isn't in a few guys caught in misconduct, and thus misrepresenting the innocent people.

They are representing the people quite exactly, and what they're showing isn't some personal moral decay, but a large-scale moral and cultural corruption that is increasingly precedent all around the techno-fied world.

It is a culture of materialism; it is a culture of substance dependence. It is a culture of casual and permiscuous sex that is thrown around like a plaything. You wonder about sexual misconduct...

Enraged parents, hold on a second. Is it Mark Foley, is it Haim Ramon who is teaching and encouraging your children to act loosly upon their sexual desires, regardless who is 'victimized' by it?

Femenists in Israel, is it Ramon who is putting down female equality?

Or is it that rap video they just saw, in which the half-naked woman bends down all the way and shakes her ass vigorously, rubbing against some buffed up guy's pants as he sings about how much the girls like him and how much sex he gets from the ones worthy enough to be liked by him?

Is it those great songs that find themselves on popular American radio stations like z100, and that somehow make their way into the ears and succeedingly, the mouths of the 10 year old campers in the JCH I work in? The songs that these kids listen to uncensored, so that phrases like "Lick my ----" can be fulfilled?

When I went online hours after noting to myself the riduculous abundance of sex-related stories in the media, I found a most suiting article by ידיעות אחרונות in English (ynetnews.com). This article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3359744,00.html) tells of how unsafe children internet use is; how incredible numbers of kids give away their information, and even go to meet random people they meet on the internet. This brings me back to a story that happened years ago, in which some israeli kid got trapped by a gang of Palestinians (or maybe just Arabs) who pretended to be a woman online, lured him to come to meet them, and then murdered the kid. Anyway, what is more to point is in the very headline of this article:

"Do children surf to porn sites? 'Absolutely not' say 84 percent of parents. 'Of course' say 60 percent of their kids."

According to a study done by the Tel Aviv Department of Communication and Haifa University, about 60% of Israeli children have been customers of internet porn.

Is it really Ramon's fault? I'll bet half of those interviewed don't have a clue about who he is.

They'll surely tell you who Subliminal is though (as much as I do love him).

The funnier thing, is that when I showed this article to a friend of mine (in NY), he commented that the percentage in America is probaby closer to 95%. I don't think it's quite that much of an embellishment, too.

From my experience alone, and I don't generally stray too much into mainstream pop media, modern culture is a continuous drilling of everything a moral person would go against. There are the personalities, the TV shows, etc. that show that everything can be good if only you have that ipod, those brand new 200$ NIKE sneakers, that gold chain, etc. Their message is that 'it's all good as long as you look fresh'

There's the prominent sex. Turn on the all-too-popular show, Desperate Housewives, for example. Now once again, I think it's a great show, I do, but think about it. The plot involves a married woman sleeping with a high school boy, a man who suffers for his murdered mistress, though his ex-wife is trying to empregnate herself by him against his will (by drugging him, nonetheless), and the fun just grows from there.

These are the values the society handles; this is what is being passed on generation to generation. Is it really Mark Foley's fault?

I'll take it a step farther. Our society is so corrupt; our culture so sex-obsessed, substance-dependent, and out of control, that it's spun totally out of control.

Approximately 1/4 of American teenagers are said to have been infected by a Sexually Transmitted Disease already (http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/Hayley_DiMarco072006.aspx)

Over half of teenagers 15-19 have had oral sex (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091500915.html?nav=hcmodule)

and 73% teen girls, 55% boys have already had the chance to regret beginning sexual activity at an early age. (CBN).

It is a situation that is clearly chaotic, and out of control.

But to go as far as to blame politicaians?

No, it's far beyond all of them, as ridiculous and deservingly scrutinized for their actions as they are. My point is, our culture is poisoned, and we must not let the details for scandals blind us to that. If we are all really so embarrassed by these corruptees that are said to represent us, won't we go and try to make it all not apply to us? Otherwise, what's the point?

Blame Israel!

That picture on the sidebar is from a terrific facebook group I joined earlier called "Blame Israel" (http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2223538689). On it's wall it has all kinds of lunacies like "I fell and broke my arm today. Blame Israel!" and, "I failed my biology test today. Damn Israel!"

Today on the wall, I was going to post something like "I've had to stare into this screen for two days straight trying to import this slower-than-snails (sorry for the cliche) data. Damn you Israel!" but then this comment was at the bottom of the page, and I just couldn't bring myself to remove it from site:

"Blame Israel for global warming!!- their nuclear weapons are making the temperature increase and the Canadian polar bears' life expectancy to decrease by 0.3% over the last decade! Act now before it's too late! savecutebearsfromzionists.com"

For the sake of your sanity, I hope you're laughing - because that was good.

ANYWAY.

So here's the cliffnotes version of what happened in Eilat yesterday. I won't include my references because I must have read from twenty or so different sources, but in case you are interested, ask me and I'll be happy to provide you with some.

So here goes:

a) I won't dignify the bomber by posting its name. According to its family, it had just recently turned religious (Muslim as opposed to secular) and apparently, fanatically religious at that.

b)Something like three-five months after 'becoming religious' it wound up on an Israeli road (I understand, having crossed the barely protected Egypt/Israel border) dressed in red, with a backpack.

c) The now infamous Yossi Voltinsky picked the hitch-hiker on, assuming that it is a hotel worker, as many people he helped drive around (of his good will) were

d) Growing suspicious as the character was very uncomfortable, kept its hands in its pockets, and always kept the red jacket and backpack tightly strapped on, Yossi drove away from the city, preparing to flip the car over, or take some kind of similar measure. He wanted to stop the terrorist, of whom he was almost positive, but wanted to avoid 1) the slight, sliver of a chance that this wasn't a terrorist and 2) the bomber to just blow up

e) Yossi repeadetly asked the terrorist about his destination. After many silences, the response: "Haifa"

f) Yossi kicked it out about a km from Eilat, and informd the police, trying to also keep track, unsuccessfuly

g) Three people inside a bakery in Eilat were killed, and five injured by an explosion by the suicide bomber within a short period of time.

h) There is a plan to build a wall along the extensive Egypt/Israel border. Finally.

What were some reactions to the attack? Officals say, "DUH!"

The Egypt/Israel border remains an incredibly vulnerable, a tremendous territory, with minimal protection. Obviously, leave a spot, add a bunch of people who are screaming "why are we fighting each other, we're being distracted from attacking Israel!", and some funding from Iran and Hizbulla...molotov cocktails are less deadly.

Look, we can talk all we like, but throughout, the country is in danger. We are in danger.

Reacting after attacks is ok, but you know what is really needed is the action that's going to prevent the next attempt. We already know there will be many more attempts.

I must accredit the following to having been posted by the much admired Boker Tov, Boulder! blog, whose link can be found on the sidebar:

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report that the next wave of suicide attacks is expected to be mounted from Gaza and Sinai by the Palestinian Jihad Islami in conjunction with local al Qaeda cells with funding from Tehran and Damascus.
Although two Palestinian groups – Jihad Islami and Fatah-al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed the attack, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources disclosed it was in fact the first joint operation of the third group, the Army of Believers – an al Qaeda cover name – and Jihad Islami of the new anti-Israel terror offensive.
A senior Israeli officer familiar with the Israeli-Egyptian Sinai border region told DEBKAfile after the Eilat attack: “Olmert and Peretz have missed the train. Their policy of military restraint in the face of Qassam missile attacks and a terrorist build-up has given the most violent elements free rein to get set for a fresh, well-organized assault.” Some attacks may also come from the sea.
He stressed: “It’s no use expecting the Egyptians to secure the Sinai border. Since Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip 15 months ago, the Egyptian-Gazan-Israeli borders are a highway for smugglers of terrorists, missiles, explosives and traffickers of every kind. The IDF is the only force capable of putting a stop to this traffic and suppressing the collaboration between Hamas, Jihad Islami, Fatah-al Aqsa Brigades and al Qaeda. Unfortunately, its hands are tied by the government.”

P.S. About the picture - EEEEK.

Why does the world insist on being deaf and blind?

I'm not even going to say anything about the suicide bombing that just took place in Eilat, most likely because of weak border control along the border with Egypt, and claimed by two Palestinian org's although it is thought to be the partly work of 'The Army of Believer's aka Al Queda. There's a lot to say, but suicide bombings - פגועים -are just an effect. Just like that extra lightning or real-looking blood in a good movie. They are the heads cut off in a dramatic scene, but they are not the murder.

The thing with פגועים is that even though people condemn terrorism, they find ways to justify it or to deny it, or resent it, or put it on perspective scales and all kinds of bullshit. Anything to avoid dealing with it, and to interfere with the people who do want to deal with it.

What all these 'deniers' are still missing in their vast humanitarian speeches is the real and conspicuous spectrum of perspesctives, motivations, and plans that refute all of their beautiful, heart-warming arguments. OOPS.

Here's what our wonderful peace-loving liberal friends aren't putting on the front page (unlike stories of how the Israeli gov't built infrastructure on illegal land, and much more importantly, how the President had affairs with a bunch of women [because at least Clinton stuck to one]) :

a) In regard to Israeli arabs:
"We went to the Galilee to meet with representatives of three of the largest, most mainstream Arab Israeli political parties. Despite minor differences among them, they all shared the following: (a) they do not acknowledge any difference between themselves and the Palestinians and now want to be called Israeli Palestinians, not Israeli Arabs; (b) they insist that their ''brothers'' be given a state with East Jerusalem as its capital; (c) they insist on the right of return for the refugees (a huge political issue here that gets little play in the West, probably because everyone knows that it will never happen); (d) they insist that if the state genuinely wants to respect them as citizens, then the national anthem and its references to 2,000 years of Jewish yearning for Zion has to go. So far, no real surprises.
...
'The most articulate of the three speakers, the leader of a major Arab party represented in the Knesset, responded more or less as follows: ''Your question shows that you don't really understand the Middle East. The Middle East is a Muslim part of the world, and this country will ultimately be Muslim, too. It may happen next year, or in 50 years, or in a hundred years. But it's going to happen. The sooner you accept the inevitable, the sooner the region will know peace, and then we can all get on with life.'"

-Dispatches of David Gordis Dec '00
Gordis, David. "E-Mail From An Anxious State". NYT. (published) 09.30.01
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F7091EFB3F5E0C738FDDA0

Europe and its future:
"A British television documentary, 'Dispatches: Undercover Mosque,' broadcast on Sunday evening on the UK's Channel 4 has uncovered hate-filled speeches and rhetoric delivered in a number of British mosques, and directed against 'unbelievers,' Jews, Christians, and gays, among others, as well as religious justifications of marriages between prepubescent girls and adult men.

'Some of the mosques targeted by the program were previously considered to be centers of moderate Islam in Britain. One mosque featured in the video was associated with a Muslim leader working with the British government to strengthen ties between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

'The program's female narrator warned of "an ideology of intolerance and bigotry spreading throughout Britain, with its roots in Saudi Arabia," as images of the mosques and worshippers flashed across the screen.

'One preacher was seen saying: "We Muslims have been ordered to do brainwashing."

'The main English-language speaker of a Birmingham mosque, Abu Usama, who is an American convert to Islam, spread hatred of Christian and Jews in the footage.
...
'In the film, British Muslims at a mosque were told that that Islam will eventually gain "the uppermost strength" and form an Islamic state. They were instructed to "form a state within a state, until we take over."

'In the Islamic state, Abu Usama said if a Muslim tried to leave Islam, he would be killed. "If the imam wants to crucify him he should crucify him. The person is put up on the wood and he's left there to bleed to death for three days," he said."

Lappin, Yaakov. "UK TV uncovers 'Islamic supremacism':Documentary goes undercover in British mosques, finds 'ideology of bigotry' " . Y-net News. 01.16.07
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3353122,00.html





"One senior German politician warned this week of an Islamic cell he called "fanatic," planning more attacks in hiding.
"In Germany there are 3,000-5,000 Islamist activists who are planning to use violence, possibly even suicide attacks," said Guenther Beckstein, a likely candidate to become Germany's next interior minister

...

[Ernst Orlau, a senior official in Germany's intelligence community] said the attacks in London and Madrid were local initiatives carried out by local activist cells, with no foreign planning aid or instruction"

Bodoni, Ronen. "Is Europe waking up to terrorism?: European Muslims who travel to Iraq to fight the infidel are returning 'home' experienced, determined, and evermore extreme " Y-net News. 09.16.05.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3143006,00.html

"40 percent of British Muslims surveyed in a Sunday Times poll after 9-11 believed Osama bin Laden was “justified” in his war against America. They even supported those of their coreligionists from Britain who volunteered to fight with the Taliban against the Western allies.

...

'Sheikh Bakri himself has warned Jews in Britain to avoid any support for Israel lest they “become targets for Muslims.”

...

'This highly inflammable cocktail embracing Palestine, jihad, the dream of a worldwide caliphate, Koranic indoctrination, and classical Judeophobia, was exposed by the Old Bailey trial of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal, in February 2003.
The cleric, a Jamaican convert to Islam educated in Saudi Arabia, was found guilty of inciting to murder and racial hatred on the basis of his lectures and videocassettes - some of them on sale at specialty bookshops in Britain - and sentenced to nine years in prison.
Overwhelming evidence was produced at the trial to demonstrate his encouragement for a violent jihad to kill non-believers. Particular venom was reserved for the “filthy Jews.” In a spine-chilling speech which seemed to anticipate the May 2003 suicide mission of Hanif to Tel Aviv, el-Faisal ranted:
People with British passports, if you fly into Israel it is easy…. Fly into Israel and do whatever you can. If you die, you are up in Paradise. How do you fight a Jew? You kill a Jew. "

Wistrich, Robert S., Azure. "Center of hatred: London increasingly emerging as radical Islamic, anti-Semitic hub". Y-net News. 07.07.05
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3109589,00.html


There's really much, much more. I didn't really get into the foundation prapoganda, like the text books that teach about how Jews and Westerners are decendents of pigs, nor did I include stuff that has made it into mainstream newspaper headlines, like the infinite calls for the destruction of Israel by the likes of Ahmedinejad, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, blah blah blah.

It's not even the point that they hate us and want to kill us. We already knew that. It's that the very same youth that the West likes to defend as helpless and opressed; the youth that if simply exposed to the kindness, humanity, and good will of the West, as opposed to 'grievences', will abandon their desperate resistance movements and attacks - won't. It's really rather simple.
There is an overreaching group of people, who is taught everyday that they are superior to the West, and that they should triumph over it. It's not a quest for freedom, it's a quest for dominance.

Simple.

We're deeply into World War III, the 'Clash of Civilizations', the war for survival, near Apocalypse, whatever.
Point and case, grievences aren't the problem - our survival is getting there, though.