Showing posts with label Vic Rosenthal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vic Rosenthal. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 22, 2021

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

In my previous blog I wrote incorrectly that 16 Israelis were murdered in the 2001 Sbarro Restaurant bombing, with one victim remaining unconscious only to die later.

The truth is that 15 died in the explosion or immediately after, and 130 were injured, some of them very seriously. A 31-year old woman named Chana Nachenberg, who was there with Sarah, her toddler daughter, suffered a traumatic brain injury from one of the pieces of shrapnel in the bomb, and entered what doctors call a “persistent vegetative state.” Chana is still alive 20 years later, and still unresponsive. Her daughter Sarah was one of the few at the location who escaped unhurt.

A person in a vegetative state has some brain function, but is not able to communicate. Sometimes they recover, but the longer they have been in this condition, the less likely it becomes. Are they in any sense aware? Nobody knows, but I hope not. Here is something Sarah wrote about her mother some years ago. Twenty years is a long time, the length of a generation. Think about what happened in your life in the past 20 years. Today Sarah has a daughter of her own.

I was informed of my error by Arnold Roth, who lost his daughter Malki in the bombing. Malki was 15, and had gone to Sbarro’s for pizza with a friend, Michal Raziel. Both girls were among the murder victims. Several years ago I met Arnold for lunch in Jerusalem, and as we walked back along Jaffa Road toward his car and the bus station, I suddenly realized that we were at the corner with King George St. where the Sbarro restaurant had been. There is a plaque at the location with the names of the victims on it. I could only imagine what Arnold was feeling.

Since Malki’s death, Arnold and his wife Frimet have taken on two tasks. One is to help provide home care alternatives for disabled children, and to this end they established the Keren Malki Foundation in her name. The other is to get justice for their daughter, one of whose murderers walks free.

The Sbarro bombing was one of the most horrifying episodes of the Second Intifada, when Palestinian suicide bombers exploded on almost a daily basis in buses, restaurants, markets, and railroad and bus stations. The attack was planned by Ahlam Tamimi, then a 20-year old journalism student who chose the location and accompanied a suicide bomber, Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri to the restaurant. Al-Masri carried a guitar case containing 5-10 kg. of explosive and hundreds of nails and other shrapnel. Tamimi left him there and returned to Ramallah, where she had a part-time job as a TV news presenter, and reported on the attack to her Palestinian audience. A remarkably cold killer, Tamimi later smiled broadly and thanked Allah when an interviewer noted that she had killed seven children, and not just three as she had thought. She has said that she is not sorry for what she did and would do it again.

Tamimi was sentenced to 16 consecutive life sentences, and the bomb-maker, Hamas commander Abdullah Barghouti, to 67 (!) of them for his role in multiple murders. But in 2011 when the Israeli government foolishly agreed to trade 1027 convicted terrorists for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, Tamimi was among them. She was released and deported to Jordan, where she was given a job on Jordanian TV and became a media celebrity. Frimet Roth wrote then that the release and hero’s welcome of Ahlam Tamimi made her feel as though her daughter were being murdered a second time.

Chana Nachenberg, Malki Roth, and another victim, Shoshana Hayman Greenbaum – who was pregnant – all had American citizenship, and the US has demanded Tamimi’s extradition, in part due to the efforts of Arnold and Frimet Roth. But Jordan refuses to honor its extradition treaty, probably because the king fears the reaction of his subjects. Apparently American officials agree with him, because they haven’t tried to force him to give her up, despite her position on the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists.

In the last few weeks there has been an uptick in Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. There have been stabbings, car rammings, an attempted mass shooting (only one death, thanks to quick police reaction), and the recent ambush of a car carrying yeshiva students, which resulted in the death of one of them. And of course, there is also the “background noise” of daily rock-throwing and firebomb attacks which don’t make the news, even in Israel, unless a terrorist gets lucky and kills someone. We get used to all of this, and perhaps don’t think about the suffering of the terror victims and their families. And we don’t dare ask ourselves what it must be like to be as full of hate as Ahlam Tamimi.

One thing that we do know is that Palestinian terrorism is more than just an expression of rage; it is a targeted act with a specific objective. Terrorists and their supporters believe that they can make life here unbearable for Jews, who will pack up and “go back where they came from.”

This is a remarkable mistake for Palestinians, who are usually relatively clever and resourceful. Very few Israeli Jews have a place to go “back” to; certainly Mizrachi Jews are not welcome in North Africa, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and so on. Nor do the descendants of Jews displaced or murdered in the Holocaust, nor the children of those who came from Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire prior to WWII. I doubt that Russia would welcome former Soviet Jews, either. But even those from Western countries, like the Roths, are not going anywhere, despite the pain, sometimes felt very personally, of terrorism.

Israel is not a colony, and it is not a temporary arrangement. The land is soaked in Jewish blood, and the Jewish people have taken root in it. The idea that they can be dislodged by Palestinian terrorism, either the organized kind coming from Hamas or the random acts of hatred by “lone wolf terrorists” is ludicrous. All the terrorists can do is provoke a reaction – one that may ultimately lead to their expulsion in a second Nakba.





Thursday, December 16, 2021

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal


A recent editorial in the Jerusalem Post views with alarm recent statements by some media and political personalities that the Post sees as advocating “ethnic cleansing.” For example, journalist/political consultant Itamar Fleischman remarked on the anti-Jewish riots that took place in several mixed Arab-Jewish cities in May, saying
The bottom line is that we have a situation in which Arabs forgot the Nakba. … And the solution is to remind them of the Nakba. We should tell them as soon as now that if they don’t start to come to their senses, and if they keep trying to murder our children, their next stop is beyond the Jordan River or in al-Yarmuk [refugee] camp in Syria.
Radio host and former MK Yinon Magal said something similar: “if you’ll keep killing Jews, we will exile you again.” And Betzalel Smotrich, MK and leader of the Religious Zionist party, spoke bluntly in response to anti-Zionist comments by Arab members of the Knesset:
I am not holding any conversations with you, you anti-Zionists. You are supporters of terror, enemies. You are [here] due to a mistake because [Israel’s first prime minister David] Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and throw you out in 1948.
The Post’s editorial writer said that such public statements “raised a red flag,” and that
The Jewish people should be particularly sensitive to such racist remarks. People who know firsthand the outcome of extreme racism should be the first to cry out when they witness or hear a form of institutionalized racism.

Arabs in Israel should not have to live in fear of possible expulsion. They are not terrorists, and the vast majority of them are ordinary law-abiding citizens who hate violence.

He added that “[t]he best way to quell Palestinian nationalism within Israel is to make Arab citizens feel that they belong.”

While I agree that the vast majority of Arab citizens of Israel are “ordinary law-abiding citizens who hate violence,” I disagree that the comments of Fleischman, Magal, and Smotrich were inappropriate. There is a real issue with the Arabs of Israel – leaving aside the Arabs of Judea/Samaria and Gaza – which is not going away, and can’t be made to go away by telling the Jews not to be “racist.”

What is the issue? First, it has nothing to do with “race,” and accusations of “racism” do not illuminate the problem. In a nutshell the conflict is a national one, over the historical question of to whom the Land of Israel belongs, and over who gets to determine the character of the state that is established here.

I’ve written enough about the competing narratives and I don’t want to go into them here. Obviously I believe that the existence of the Jewish state as the nation-state of the Jewish people is justified. That implies that Jews get to choose the flag, the national anthem, and other symbols of the state. And more practically, they can also choose immigration and citizenship policies that will lead to a continued Jewish majority.

Is this situation entirely “democratic?” That depends on your point of view. Yes, there is a Jewish majority which supports the continuation of the Law of Return for Jews, and does not want to change it to include the descendants of Arab refugees from 1948. But isn’t that law in itself anti-democratic? The Zionist answer to that question is that the Jewishness of the state takes priority over its other characteristics. The state strives to provide equal rights for all its citizens, but not at the cost of giving up its identity as a Jewish state. As a result, Jews in Israel have a different status than non-Jews: they are the owners of the state.

It’s impossible to finesse this issue. I myself wrote that there is no contradiction inherent in the formulation “a Jewish and democratic state,” because all citizens, Jews and Arabs, have full civil and political rights. That is true, as far as it goes. But it’s our country, not theirs.

The Arabs – and I think this includes virtually all Arab citizens of Israel – vehemently reject this, because in their historical narrative, they are the owners, and the Jews “stole” the land from them. Statements to this effect are regularly made by Arab members of the Knesset. So while most Arabs do not take part in violent attacks on Jews and Jewish property as happened in May, the idea that we can prevent such occurrences by “mak[ing] Arab citizens feel that they belong” is fantasy. They will not “belong” unless they are given ownership, and we are not going to do that.

Asking the Arabs to give up their narrative is a fool’s errand, and it would be wrong to try to brainwash them with our version of history, even if as a matter of fact it is correct. And if Israel’s Jews should give up their Zionism – as some on the Left would like – then the Jewish state will have failed, and will soon disappear into the mass of Arab states surrounding it.

What we should say to our Arab citizens is something like this: this is a Jewish state and you are a national and religious minority in it. You have all the civil and political rights of any citizen and will not be discriminated against. This is a free society with a free-market economy where you can live better than in any other country in the region. We will treat you with respect, and we appreciate your contribution to Israeli cultural and economic life.

But we insist that you do not try to subvert our state, help its enemies, or engage in insurrections. There are many other states in the world; some of them are defined as Arab-Muslim states, and some are “states of their citizens.” If you can’t accept the minority status that is available here, then go somewhere else.




Wednesday, December 08, 2021

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal



This morning I sat down with my newspaper, my coffee, and my cat, to read that the IDF held a ceremony on Tuesday to mark the completion of the massive and sophisticated barrier on the border (or whatever it is) with the Gaza Strip.

They call it an “iron wall,” 65 km long, with a fence that rises to a height of 6m above the ground and a concrete barrier below it whose depth is not specified, but is said to go deep enough to stop the tunnels that Hamas loves to dig. There is also a barrier that extends into the sea at its northern end. The whole system is rich in various kinds of sensors, radar, cameras, and even remotely controlled weapons. The IDF reports that numerous tunnels were discovered and destroyed during the construction of the underground barrier.

The system took three and half years to build at a cost of 3.5 billion shekels, or more than US$ 1.1 billion. That is a lot of money that could be used for many other purposes, but given the situation it was necessary.

There is nothing quite as frightening for civilians living near Gaza or on the northern border near Lebanon than the prospect of a terror tunnel opening up a few meters from their homes. In some cases, residents heard sounds of digging and voices speaking Arabic before a tunnel was discovered. Hamas had plans to kidnap civilians and execute mass casualty attacks through these tunnels, and during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, some 14 tunnels that crossed the border into Israel were destroyed, plus several more inside the strip.

You may recall that Hamas terrorists infiltrated through a tunnel back in 2006, attacked an IDF post near Kerem Shalom at the southern end of the strip, killed two IDF soldiers and wounded several others including Gilad Shalit, who was carried back through the tunnel to Gaza, where he was held for more than six years. He was ultimately released in exchange for 1,027 prisoners in Israeli prisons, many of them murderers serving long sentences. These prisoners represented both Hamas and other terrorist factions, and many returned to terror activities.

But barriers in general have not proven effective deterrents to attack, because ways are almost always found to bypass or neutralize them, as happened with the Maginot and Bar-Lev lines. And while Hamas may not be able to go over or through the new barrier, they can still launch rockets and fire mortar shells over it, as well as release incendiary and explosive balloons to be carried by the prevailing winds into nearby fields and Jewish communities. The inexpensive rockets, even when most of them are intercepted by Iron Dome, comprise an effective form of economic warfare, with each Iron Dome launch costing some $40,000 (usually at least two interceptors are fired at each incoming rocket at a cost of $40,000 each).

Just as the mounted cavalry was neutralized by the machine gun, and the machine gun made less effective by the tank, Hamas rockets are presently neutralized (except economically) by Iron Dome. But the advent of precision-guided rockets and drones can change the equation. Today we know that Hezbollah has some quantity of them, and probably Hamas has some or will get some soon.

The new barrier also doesn’t prevent Hamas from exporting subversion to sympathetic Arabs in Judea/Samaria and even among Arab citizens of Israel.

Those of you who regularly read my columns know what’s coming. Pure defensive measures, building the ghetto walls higher and stronger, can only hold an enemy at bay, not defeat him. And technological advances by the aggressor, like precision-guided rockets, can tip the balance quickly. The only way to defeat an enemy is by moving from defense to offense. So while defensive technology, like the barrier, may be necessary for survival, it is not sufficient for victory.

Everything I’ve said so far deals only with the tangible or kinetic aspects of the conflict. The psychological aspect is another story entirely. The message that we send to ourselves, our friends, and our enemies, by our reliance on defensive technology and tactics, is that it is if not acceptable, it is still understandable that savage Jew-haters will continue to bombard our country with the intent to kill as many of us as possible. And soon – this, actually, has already happened – many people begin to think that it is acceptable after all. We become the guy at the carnival who sticks his head through a canvas sheet and dodges balls thrown by the patrons.

For the sake of our national honor as well as to maintain deterrence, such a situation cannot be allowed to stand.

Hamas is a deadly infection, and it has turned Gaza into a pocket of pus on the side of our country. Walling it off is only a temporary expedient; curing the disease will require wiping out the bacteria that cause it. The danger to our citizens in the south and ultimately in the entire country can only be ended by crushing Hamas as a military and political force, which calls for an intensive campaign, including a ground incursion.

It’s sometimes suggested that if Israel destroys Hamas, then what will arise in its place will be worse. The answer is that in that case, we’ll need to destroy the replacement as well. It is also said that the expense and difficulty of ruling the strip in the event that there is no acceptable autonomous leadership will be too great.

But keep this in mind: in January of 2009 Israel was poised for a ground invasion of Gaza, which was called off after Tzipi Livni was summoned to the US and apparently given an ultimatum by officials of the incoming Obama Administration (the same one that supported Hamas’ parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt). Since then, we have found it necessary to have four small but costly wars, and to spend 3.5 billion shekels on a barrier – and the threat remains. What if we had gone ahead and conquered Gaza and killed the war criminals leading Hamas?

Or go back further, to 2005, before Hamas had control of the strip. What if Israel had not withdrawn, if we had not destroyed numerous successful Jewish communities and displaced 8,000 people? What would the situation look like today? Would it be better or worse? Would it have been more “costly and difficult” than a series of wars and the building of a massive barrier?

I think the answer is clear. Cowering behind the walls of the ghetto is a poor idea both practically and psychologically. Rather, we must bring Hamas to total defeat, like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.






Wednesday, December 01, 2021

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal




Did you ever notice how from time to time a particular theme appears simultaneously in various media? One that I’ve seen a lot of lately is “Israel doesn’t have the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, so we need to find a way to live with it.” Here is yet another example, from security analyst Yossi Melman, writing in Ha’aretz:

As the nuclear talks with Iran resume in Vienna, Israel must try to reach an agreement with Washington, by which the U.S. will extend it a nuclear umbrella and openly acknowledge it. …

The deployment of a nuclear umbrella is the ultimate guarantee of deterrence in the face of Iran’s nuclear program and, if Tehran succeeds in assembling a nuclear weapon, the possibility that Iran will threaten Israel in order to extract concessions from it. …

You don’t have to be a general or a military strategist to understand [why Israel can’t destroy Iran’s nuclear program]. It’s enough to look at the map, at the forces operating in the area and to read about the air force power from available sources. …

I’ve left out Melman’s detailed arguments about why it would be difficult. He discusses countries the IAF can and can’t fly over, the need for refueling, the fact that we would almost certainly lose some pilots, and so on. But all he can do is produce a list of constraints. Such a list only shows that he, Melman, doesn’t know how to attack Iran.

Let’s look at the consequences if Iran develops a nuclear capability (in this context it doesn’t matter if they have a bomb or just the ability to assemble one quickly). The psychological effects for Israelis of living under that kind of threat would be crushing. Because of the great imbalance in size and population between the countries, the threat of Israeli retaliation might not be sufficient to deter Iran from a first strike, especially if it were combined with a massive rocket attack from Hezbollah. And remember that the Iranian leadership acts in large part from religious motives, which may lead to irrational behavior.

Other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia or Egypt might decide that they needed bombs too, which they could purchase from several suppliers with no need for an extended development program. Israel’s Begin Doctrine would be shredded. The possibility of an accidental nuclear exchange would become exponentially greater, as would the possibility that such weapons would fall into the hands of terrorists. Outside investment in Israel would dry up, the economy would struggle, and some Israelis might even flee the country.

The issue is much simpler than Melman presents it. Israel does not have a choice but to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, because she cannot live with it. The suggestion that Israel could simply outsource her deterrence to the US, even if the US were led by someone more dependable than the man who called the rout of American forces from Afghanistan “an extraordinary success,” is more than stupid – it is suicidal.

The US, unfortunately, is a nation in decline, socially, economically, politically, and militarily. I don’t think any of her adversaries – China, Russia, and Iran – are strong enough to frontally challenge her at this point, but I expect to see them chipping away at her allies, like Taiwan and Ukraine. Israel would be very foolish to put all her eggs in America’s basket today.

Melman himself admits the “weakness of the Biden Administration and its lack of desire to confront Iran” in connection with the negotiations for a nuclear deal. But a few sentences later, he suggests that a “nuclear umbrella” placed over Israel by the same administration would protect her. And this he calls “a bold and creative move!”

It seems to me that despite what Melman and others have said, Israel does have options to attack Iran. One approach is to paralyze the regime as a whole: cut off the head by killing the leadership, and cut the spinal cord by wrecking her communications and power infrastructure (perhaps with EMP weapons). Not everything must be done by manned aircraft: drones, submarine-launched missiles, Jericho ICBMs, and even special forces on the ground could take part. In this way, Iran can be taken out of the game without the need to destroy all her nuclear facilities at once. This also entails neutralizing Hezbollah at the same time, which might be the most difficult part.

There are other approaches, but rather than the surgical removal of the nuclear program, I prefer an attack targeting the regime because it will also lead to solutions to other problems, like Hezbollah. Possibly if the regime is hurt badly enough, the domestic Iranian opposition will be free to act, which could bring about the best outcome of all.

It’s not known to me who is encouraging the voices of defeatism coming from those like Ehud Barak and Yossi Melman, but in both cases the suggested solution is that Israel beg for the protection of the US, which makes me suspicious of those circles in America – for example, former president Barack Obama and his associates – who would like to see a further erosion of Israel’s independence and freedom of action.

Israel has a history of solving difficult problems in innovative ways. This is precisely such a case. I’m confident that she will prevail – and sooner than some think.






Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal


What does the Biden Administration actually want?

One might think it is that Iran will not make nuclear weapons. But it’s more complicated than that. To try to answer the question, I looked at a recent article in America’s own Pravda, the NY Times.

Some of the arguments attributed to US officials that appear in that piece are difficult to criticize, because they are so bad that it’s impossible to take them seriously. For example,

American officials have warned their Israeli counterparts that the repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities may be tactically satisfying, but they are ultimately counterproductive, according to several officials familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussions. Israeli officials have said they have no intention of letting up, waving away warnings that they may only be encouraging a sped-up rebuilding of the program — one of many areas in which the United States and Israel disagree on the benefits of using diplomacy rather than force.

Perhaps if Iranian leaders were indifferent about the importance of their nuclear program, then they might be spurred to give it a higher priority in response to sabotage. But their actions in recent years indicate that they will do whatever they can get away with in order to succeed. It is their top priority. The pedal is already to the metal. Of course they rebuild what is damaged or destroyed, but it’s silly to suggest that the overall time to completion of the project is reduced, rather than increased, by effective sabotage.

The article suggests, again, that Donald Trump’s decision to abrogate the original 2015 JCPOA allowed Iran to leap forward, as if Trump simply canceled the deal’s restrictions on Iran and did nothing else. But the sanctions of the “maximum pressure campaign” had brought Iran’s economy to the brink of collapse. Trump and Pompeo’s diplomacy made possible the Abraham Accords, a regional cooperation pact aimed at weakening and containing Iran. Trump also wanted to employ covert operations and the use of “force short of war” against the nuclear program, Iran’s missile development, and her regional terror infrastructure. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani was an extremely heavy blow.

Unfortunately, there was little cooperation from the CIA and the Pentagon, and although plans were made for a “campaign to conduct sabotage, propaganda and other psychological and information operations in Iran,” Trump left office before it could be carried out. The Iranians, assured by all the Democratic contenders for the presidency that Trump’s policy would be reversed if he lost, knew that all they had to do was hang on until January 2021.

A combination of economic sanctions, diplomatic initiatives, subversion and support for domestic opponents of the regime, along with the use of force short of war, could have brought the regime to a breaking point. It would then have had to choose between real concessions on its nuclear program and collapse. But the Biden Administration rejected this path, and chose instead to return to the 2015 deal, and somehow seek a better one later.

That agreement was flawed in many ways, which was why Trump decided to dump it. The deal’s provisions for inspections were weak and allowed the Iranians to cheat (which they did); it weakened existing UN sanctions on missile development and did not replace them, it provided a massive influx of cash that the Iranians could and did use to finance terror against Israel and in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen; and finally, it actually legitimized Iran as a nuclear weapons state after 2030.

However, even this poor deal is now unavailable. The Times article admits that “President Biden’s vision of re-entering the agreement in his first year, then building something ‘longer and stronger,’ appears all but gone.” This is not surprising, since the administration began weakening sanctions on Iran a month after taking office, and chose one of its most pro-Iranian (and anti-Israel) appointees, Robert Malley, to be head of the Iran team. The signals have been read clearly in Tehran, whose chief negotiator at the Vienna talks refers to them not as nuclear negotiations, but rather “negotiations to remove unlawful and inhuman sanctions.”

So what, precisely, does the US expect to get out of its diplomatic efforts? Maybe this, from the same Times story, will provide a clue:

… inside the White House, there has been a scramble in recent days to explore whether some kind of interim deal might be possible to freeze Iran’s production of more enriched uranium and its conversion of that fuel to metallic form — a necessary step in fabricating a warhead. In return, the United States might ease a limited number of sanctions. That would not solve the problem. But it might buy time for negotiations, while holding off Israeli threats to bomb Iranian facilities.

As in the original JCPOA, Iran will only agree to limitations that will not materially affect their progress. But they will accept any easing of sanctions that they can get. The problem with the diplomatic process is that the Iranians do not believe that the US is prepared to go back to “maximum pressure,” and certainly not to use force. Time is entirely on their side, and they can continue to temporize for as long as it takes to finish their project, while collecting whatever benefits Biden’s impulse to appease will bring them.

Meanwhile, Biden’s people feel it’s necessary to “hold off” the Israelis, who would like to cut off the head of the snake that is not only developing nuclear weapons, but behind most of the anti-Israel terrorism in the region. Yesterday, Israel’s PM Naftali Bennett noted that

Along with the advancements in its nuclear program, Iran also consistently surrounded Israel, arming militias and placing rockets on every side … Iran can be seen from every window in Israel.

[Iran] irritates us from abroad, uses our energy, chases us; causes us harm without even leaving the house …

Israel’s biggest strategic mistake was “attacking the messenger” [Hezbollah, Hamas] instead of Iran. Chasing after the terrorist of the day who is sent by the Quds Force is no longer logical. We have to get to the one who is sending them.

If the JCPOA was inadequate to prevent Iran from getting the Bomb, then a new deal that is even weaker will do even less. But the objective – as it was for Barack Obama in 2015 – seems to be to get a deal, regardless of its effectiveness, because in Obama and Biden’s view, nothing is more important than preventing Israel from stopping Iran. Is the tail wagging the dog much?

Consider: if the objective were actually to stop Iran, and if stopping Iran required economic pressure along with a credible military threat, then wouldn’t the best way to do it be to cooperate with Israel, instead of holding her back?

No, the objective is not to stop Iran. It is to prevent Israel from stopping Iran, and to avert the consequences that would follow.

Think about the likely results of an Israeli victory over Iran: the rise of a regional power bloc – even a world power – led by Israel and Saudi Arabia, including the Gulf states and maybe even the potentially greatest power in the Arab world, Egypt; the end of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the irredentist Palestinian movement; and the final eviction of western colonialism from the Middle East.

There are multiple reasons that various constituencies in the West would prefer a new Shiite caliphate to a regional Israeli-Arab bloc, ranging from simple antisemitism and a desire to see the “mistake” of a Jewish state “corrected,” to naïve leftist third-worldism, to a belief that Iran would be easier to control than Israel.

But the can cannot be kicked down the road any longer. The inexorable progress of Iran toward nuclear weapons will surely force a decision in a matter of months – or even weeks







Wednesday, November 17, 2021

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal




In 1981, Menachem Begin presented what he thought were the most important lessons to be learned from the Holocaust. Many people remember the first lesson, “if an enemy of our people says he seeks to destroy us, believe him,” and Israel’s leaders seem to have taken this to heart, with respect to Iran at least. But what about Begin’s fourth lesson?

Jewish dignity and honor must be protected in all circumstances. The seeds of Jewish destruction lie in passively enabling the enemy to humiliate us. Only when the enemy succeeds in turning the spirit of the Jew into dust and ashes in life, can he turn the Jew into dust and ashes in death. During the Holocaust it was after the enemy had humiliated the Jews, trampled them underfoot, divided them, deceived them, afflicted them, drove brother against brother, only then could he lead them, almost without resistance, to the gates of Auschwitz. Therefore, at all times and whatever the cost, safeguard the dignity and honor of the Jewish people.

This, unfortunately, seems to have been ignored by the leadership of the Jewish state for the last several decades. Over and over, when the Jewish people, their state, or its institutions like its army or police, are humiliated, deceived, or treated as sub-human, our policy is to take the “pragmatic” course, wipe off the spittle of our enemies, and pretend that nothing serious happened.

Examples abound. Consider the Oslo Accords. Almost from the first day, after Arafat signed a document in English recognizing “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security,” he began to call for jihad against that state in Arabic. This was the beginning of a pattern, which soon included alternating diplomatic demands and terror attacks. More than 150 Israelis were murdered between 1993 and 2000 (later, the Second Intifada would claim more than 1100 additional lives). And yet, for years after Oslo, Arafat and the PLO were considered our “peace partners.” How is that possible? Was there no one in the State of Israel that understood Arabic? Was there no one able to see the connections between Arafat and the waves of terror he unleashed?

The answers are obvious. The deceptions and other blows to our honor – there is no worse humiliation than murder unavenged – were, for lack of a better word, absorbed. Absorbed and allowed to pass in the pursuit of peace, as if allowing our state and our people to be degraded would be likely to advance the cause of peace! Quite the opposite, as we shortly discovered.

Speaking of murder unavenged, in a fruitless attempt to appear enlightened to the Europeans who hate our Jewish guts in any case, and in opposition to our own biblical tradition, we do not execute terrorist murderers no matter how heinous their crimes (the one exception, Adolf Eichmann, only emphasizes the rule). Rather, we imprison them with their compatriots in some of the world’s most comfortable prisons while we allow the terrorist organization that employs them to pay generous salaries to their families.

Here is yet another example. In May of 2010, our naval commandos boarded a Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, that was carrying “activists” to try to break the blockade of Gaza. Rather than automatic weapons, the commandos carried paintball guns, which – regardless of the ultimate outcome, was ludicrous and embarrassing. Luckily for them they also had pistols, although they were instructed not to use them unless their lives were threatened. "We came to speak, they came to fight," the Foreign Ministry quoted the IDF spokesman.

They were met on the deck of the ship, not by the “peaceniks” they expected, but by terrorists armed with clubs, knives, iron bars, and other “cold” but deadly weapons. They were beaten and stabbed, and one was very seriously wounded and thrown into the sea (he survived). Only after they were taken below decks, and a pistol that was taken from a wounded soldier was turned against them, did they shoot their way out of the trap. In the process, nine of the Turkish terrorists were killed.

What’s wrong here is that Israel – the IDF – greeted an attempt to violate its (legal) blockade with a display of weakness rather than strength. In addition to the practical failure – most likely fewer would have been seriously hurt or killed on either side if the commandos had carried assault rifles rather than paintball guns – we sent the wrong message. The paintball guns say “we don’t want to hurt anybody,” but what we needed to say was “you will not get to Gaza and we will use any means necessary to stop you.”

This same incident later led to an even greater loss of honor, when Barack Obama pressured our Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to apologize to the antisemitic Turkish tyrant Erdoğan three years later. In one of the most humiliating episodes of Netanyahu’s career, he “expressed Israel's apology to the Turkish people for any mistakes that might have led to the loss of life or injury and agreed to conclude an agreement on compensation/non-liability.” In 2016, Israel did indeed pay $20 million to the families of the terrorists that had tried to kill our soldiers. Promises of improved relations between Israel and Turkey did not materialize. But then, behavior that evokes contempt rather than respect rarely pays.

Incidentally, Obama often used humiliation as a tool of policy. He deliberately personalized his disagreements with Israel’s policies, and heaped contempt upon Netanyahu. In one of the stupidest insults in history, a surrogate for the US president called the combat veteran who had defied Obama by speaking to the US Congress over his objections, “a chickenshit.”

Just as the defensive-only response to rocket attacks brings about more rocket attacks, Israel’s acquiescence to the loss of honor and her acceptance of humiliation emboldens her enemies. The same Erdoğan that humiliated Israel over the Mavi Marmara incident just took an Israeli couple hostage last week, on trumped-up espionage charges. Would he have done it to Russians? I doubt it.

In recent years, crime by Bedouins in the south of Israel has exploded. Extortion, illegal weapons and theft of weapons and ammunition from military bases, theft of cars and agricultural equipment, and harassment of women are common. There have even been rapes and murders. Enforcement has been lax, in part because of fear of retaliation by witnesses, police officers, and even judges. A few days ago, two Bedouin clans got into a pitched battle that began with rock-throwing and ended in stabbing and shooting, right outside the entrance to Soroka Hospital in Beer Sheva. This is possible because the state and its organs are held in contempt by the criminals.

Honor is lost by giving in to unreasonable demands, ignoring injuries, and allowing someone to try to hurt you (even if he doesn’t succeed). It is lost when you make threats that you don’t carry out or rules that you fail to enforce. The very fact that we allow avowed antisemitic enemies, Hamas and the PLO, to exist, rule enclaves inside Eretz Yisrael, and mount terrorist forays against our people, represents a loss of honor.

Honor can be recovered by responding to attempted extortion forcefully if possible, and never by appeasement, and by disproportionate responses to challenges from external enemies or internal criminals. Terrorist murderers should receive a death penalty; in fact, if caught in the act they should not survive apprehension.

Israel isn’t weak. Her military is arguably the most powerful in the region. Her struggle against terror for at least 100 years has given her tools that can be deployed against criminals as well as terrorists. What prevents her from doing what’s necessary to regain her lost honor?





Thursday, November 11, 2021

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal



Amichai Shikli, the dissident member of Naftali Bennett’s party and the only coalition member to vote against the budget, had an op-ed in today’s Israel Hayom newspaper that got my attention. I’ll translate the first few sentences:

At the end of a virtual tour of the back streets of the Old City, the Temple Mount appears, in all its glory; in the background, the skyline of Jerusalem with Augusta Victoria [monastery] and Mt. Scopus. Welcome to the Palestinian pavilion at Expo Dubai.

Now we enter the Israeli booth. The word “Israel” appears in all the colors of the rainbow, the headline “toward tomorrow.” Presenting the official video is Lucy Ayoub, the daughter of a Christian [Arab] father and a Jewish mother who, in an interview with Ha’aretz, boasted that “she does not surrender to occupation.”

He continues that the exhibit focuses on the great technological accomplishments of the “startup nation.” The Palestinians, on the other hand, emphasize the historical Muslim connection to Jerusalem and “Haram al-Sharif” (the Temple Mount), which is at the center of Palestinian identity. The Israeli exhibit, he notes, “concedes the national and historical aspect from the start.”

This doesn’t surprise me. Whoever designed our exhibition wants to present Israel as ultra-diverse (i.e., the rainbow and Lucy Ayoub) and hyper-modern; the part about the roots of the Jewish people in the land from Biblical times and their deep connection to it, especially to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, was played down. The designers seem to have presumed that this isn’t the Israel that works well for people in Dubai, or Europe for that matter. Only “religious” Jews care about that.

They are wrong. The Marxist and secular David Ben Gurion, made it clear in the very first paragraphs of Israel’s Declaration of Independence:

Eretz Yisrael was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

For Ben Gurion as well as his arch-enemy Menachem Begin, Zionism was not only about defending the Jewish people against antisemitism, it was (primarily) about the return of the Jewish people to their historic homeland, and, as Allen Hertz puts it, the realization of their aboriginal rights of entry and settlement. In this connection, I’m reminded of a story about Chaim Weizmann. When asked why the Zionists insisted on Palestine when there were many other places they could settle, he supposedly responded “That is like my asking you why you drove twenty miles to visit your mother last Sunday when there are so many old ladies living on your street.”

But many Israelis apparently don’t agree. What is important to them is physical security and economic success. They would have agreed with Moshe Dayan who, upon seeing the newly-conquered Old City, said, “what do we need all this Vatican for?” Perhaps they would even have agreed with Israel Zangwill, who in 1905 led a faction at the Seventh Zionist Congress favoring the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Uganda, Canada, or Australia. They don’t see a problem with the increasing number of non-Jews making “aliyah” to Israel, as long as they are loyal to the state. Certainly the idea of ceding Hevron, for example, or other parts of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians would not bother them if they were convinced that this could happen without compromising their security.

I have two objections to this point of view. One is legal, and the other is, for lack of a better word, spiritual. The legal point is this: there is a string of documents and treaties, beginning with the Balfour Declaration, continuing with the adoption of the British Mandate for Palestine at the San Remo Conference in 1920, the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine of 1924, and of course Israel’s Declaration of Independenceall of which rest their case for a Jewish homeland in Eretz Yisrael on the Jewish People’s historical connection to the land, which confers upon them the Aboriginal Rights mentioned above.

The Palestinians understand this quite well, which is why they attack every aspect of it. That is the reason they exist that we are not a “people,” but “just a religion.” One of things (in addition to our unique language, religion, and culture) that makes us a people, of course, is our long and exceedingly well-documented connection to Eretz Yisrael, so of course that is a problem for them. At the same time, they attempt to deny – and physically destroy the evidence for – the presence of the Jewish people here over the centuries. Sometimes this can be amusing, as when they insist that a place should be called by its “original” Arabic name, which then turns out to be a transliteration of an older Hebrew name.

Regarding the second objection, I used the word “spiritual” in a larger sense than just the religious one. Although the military challenge to Israel presented by the Palestinians is small, the cognitive and cultural war that is being waged against Israel from all around the world on their behalf has only become nastier, and is beginning to threaten both our relations with other nations and our own internal social health. In particular, we are beginning to give up on our self-definition as a Jewish, Zionist state.

The pogroms of May, in which Arab citizens viciously attacked Jewish residents of mixed cities, the recent attack on an Israeli police officer by private Arab security contractors, and the degree to which Bedouin criminals are running wild in the southern part of the country show that even Israel’s Arab citizens respond to perceived weakness.

There is a long list of things that we can do to push back against the abandonment of our Zionist consciousness. Most urgent is that we cannot afford to have a government that contains anti-Zionist elements, such as the Islamist Ra’am party of Mansour Abbas (not to be confused with Mahmud Abbas of the PA). I fully understand how it came about, but it is not acceptable. The presence of Ra’am in the Knesset (never mind the governing coalition!) violates section 7a of Israel’s Basic Law governing the Knesset, because the party platform “[negates] the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.” Although it isn’t necessarily wrong to allocate a large amount of funds to improve services to Arab citizens, it is scandalous to place 30 billion shekels (almost US $10 billion) in Abbas’ hands to distribute as he wishes. By our cynicism, we have anointed him King of the Arabs.

Most important is the reinstatement of the Zionist goal of settling all of Eretz Yisrael by Jews. Programs should be created that will provide inexpensive homes in Judea and Samaria to young families who are priced out of the housing market today. This will require finding the gumption to oppose the US and Europe in order to build in Judea and Samaria, but we can do that.

There’s a great deal more, but readers can fill it in. Israelis often use the word “Tzionut” (Zionism) ironically. When I first made aliyah in 1979, someone asked me why I came. Tzionut, I said. He looked at me like I was insane. But it’s the reason there is a state at all, and if we forget the importance of Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people, there won’t be one very much longer





AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive