Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, August 15, 2005

The peaceful democratic Palestinians and evenhanded Reuters

Palestinians, and Reuters, in a nutshell:

Dozens of members of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction, some of them armed, stormed into a government building in the West Bank on Saturday to demand jobs, witnesses said.

The incident in the town of Qalqilyah was another sign of growing lawlessness and frustration at lack of economic opportunities in the Palestinian territories.

'We belong to Fatah. We ask you to leave your offices. The offices will be closed until our demands for employment are met. Our protest is peaceful so far,' one of the Fatah members told the employees, who complied immediately.

The Fatah men then closed the offices with chains and locks and departed, leaving several members of the group behind to guard the building. Police did not intervene.

[Abbas] promised during the presidential campaign to boost employment and recruit into PA institutions gunmen who have confronted Israeli forces during a four-and-a-half year uprising. Promised jobs are yet to materialize.

OK, in five very short paragraphs, we see:

* Palestinians use violence and threats of more violence to extort what they want.
* Palestinian officials and police willingly give in to blackmail from any thugs who walk in the door.
* Reuters will excuse criminal behavior as simple "frustration" on the part of the criminals.
* Abbas promised to reward with jobs anyone who ever shot a bullet at a Jew.

What Reuters fails to mention in its background information is the small fact that most of the Palestinian "police" are just paid terrorists themselves who don't bother to go to work. For some reason, Reuters also fails to mention the likelihood that these "members of Fatah" would probably be considered terrorists by any sane definition of the term.

But you can only fit so much background information in an article, right? Might as well stress the information that shows the terrorists' points of view.

A sad anniversary

Today is Tisha B'Av, the saddest day of the year that commemorates countless national tragedies, foremost being the destruction of both Temples but it has expanded to also include tragedies that didn't happen on this day, such as the Crusades and the Holocaust.

Right now in Israel the "disengagement" (or, as the Arabs view it, unilateral Jewish surrender) is starting.

And tomorrow is the first year anniversary of this blog.

I remain saddened by the incredible amount of sin'at chinam in the Jewish blogosphere. The sin of Loshon Hora is bad enough when applied to an individual, but when used against a group of people it is literally unforgivable.

How many times have we seen JBlogs issue screeds, sometimes in the guise of humor, against Lubavitchers or Haredim or Modern Orthodox Jews or Likudniks or Roshei Yeshiva or Jews from Brooklyn or Jews from Teaneck or Gaza settlers or religious politicians in Israel or America? These attacks happen daily, and unfortunately the attacks are not usually aimed at the ideas that may be objectionable but to the people that believe them.

Sometimes, one sees a blog seriously discuss ideas, defending and attacking opinions. Of course this is admirable and in a loose sense it is essentially democratizing the halachic and hashkafic methodologies from previous centuries.

But, shamefully, these posts and blogs seem to be in the minority. It is easier to disparage people, especially when one has a willing audience who is happy to laugh at the jokes - and provoke a more extreme attack next time.

In general, as my readers know, my political views tend towards the conservative. But I believe something that is shockingly liberal. I believe that almost all Jewish and Israeli leaders usually do things because they honestly believe that their decisions are the best for the nation as a whole. I believe that Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres passionately believe that disengagement is the right thing to do now, I believe that those who want to ban certain books believe they are doing the right thing, I believe that people fighting for or against metzitzah b'peh truly believe their arguments. I may strongly disagree with various opinions, but I hope I do not disparage the people who hold them. Conspiracy theories make little sense to me. It makes much more sense to be "dan l'chaf zechut", to give these leaders the benefit of the doubt, and argue against their ideas rather than try to come up with bizarre theories as to how they are really trying to do X.

I believe in achdut, unity. It hurts to see such petty and absurd infighting in the JBlogosphere. A sizable part of the world would like to see us dead, and it seems to me that we should be concentrating on what we have in common rather than what separates us.

Arms race means something different in asymmetrical warfare

Not surprisingly, Israeli scientists are in the forefront of developing high-tech defenses against terror. A case in point:

Researchers have developed a pocket-sized device for detecting sub-milligram quantities of peroxide-based explosives such as those reportedly used in the recent bomb attacks in London.

‘We’ve prototyped and tested the peroxide explosives detector (PET) in our laboratories, as well as in field experiments, and it works,’ said PET’s patent holder, Ehud Keinan of Israel’s Haifa Technion. ‘Now it’s ready for commercialisation and use by all law enforcement agencies and anyone dealing with security.’

There is strong interest from some of the world’s top security organisations, Keinan told Chemistry World, although London’s Metropolitan Police counter terrorism unit declined to comment. The new device is the size of a large fountain pen and costs less than £15 per unit.

The PET ‘pen’ shows a strong colour change when any peroxide-based explosive is detected. Suspect material is collected or swiped with a silicone-rubber test pad and inserted into the pen. Three test chemicals are then sequentially injected into the transparent chamber: a suitable organic solvent; followed by an aqueous solution of strong acid, which decomposes any putative explosive and releases hydrogen peroxide; and finally a mixture of a dye and a peroxidase enzyme.

If a peroxide-based explosive is present in the original sample, the solution turns a deep blue-green in about three seconds. Sub-milligram quantities of an explosive can be detected by this pronounced colour change.

‘The simplicity of the chemistry...is beautiful,’ said Andrea Sella, of University College London. He warns, though, that it is probably not suited to the high throughput screening needed by airport security.

Dr. Keinon spent years working on this device, because Palestinian bombs are often built using TATP, using the same cheap ingredients used in the London bombs.

Here is a perfect example of the asymmetric war that Israel has been in, and that the Western world is waking up to: spending millions to develop defenses against weapons that can be built for $150.

The terror-supporters never tire of saying that the "freedom fighters" are at a disadvantage, because the industrialized nations have tanks and planes. But in fact, it is the terrorists who have the advantage - because they have no morals.

To the West, human life is extremely valuable; to the Palestinian and other terrorists, it is almost worthless. So the West needs to spend time and money figuring out how to counter the crude but deadly weapons of the depraved - to save our lives. Hamas and Fatah don't want their people's lives saved - in fact, they are worth more dead because of the great PR that results.

Guns are cheap. Bulletproof vests are expensive. And they can't stop the shooter from aiming a little higher or lower next time.

And the trend favors the terrorists - there will always be new ways to build deadly weapons from easily-available materials, and it will always take years to build an imperfect defense against those weapons.

So while defensive measures are of critical importance, and it shows our humanity in stark contrast to those of our enemies, ultimately the only thing that will end the war is to make the warfare symmetrical again - to show the same disregard for their lives as they show to ours. Including real collateral damage.

Their desire is genocide; they just don't have the weapons yet. All the negotiations and compromises in the world will not appease them. Pulling our punches is not the way to win this war.

The sooner it happens, the more lives will be saved.

Presbyterians give great investment advice

A column by Vincent Carroll:

Last week the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. announced it would pursue "progressive engagement" with five companies whose activities, in the church's view, contribute "to the ongoing violence that plagues Israel and Palestine." So let's see how evenhanded the church is in its ramped-up activism toward the Middle East.

Four of the companies - United Technologies, Motorola, Caterpillar and ITT Industries - sell equipment or technology to Israel. The fifth, Citigroup, reportedly transferred money from charities that turned out to be fronts for terrorist groups, a charge Citigroup describes as an "outrage."

In short, the Presbyterian Church will address Palestinian violence by demanding that one company stop doing something it may not even be doing, and which it certainly wouldn't want to do, while it will address Israeli behavior by seeking to strip that country of material essential to fighting and defeating terrorists.

By the church's own description, United Technologies provides helicopters "used in attacks in the occupied territories against suspected Palestinian terrorists." Suspected? Was the Hamas leader Shaikh Ahmad Yasin only "suspected" of engineering terrorism, for example, when Israeli gunships caught up with him last year in Gaza?

The church's anti-Israel position is grounded in the belief that the font of violence in that region is the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, together with Jewish settlements. A 2003 resolution by the church general assembly actually says that "Since the war of June 1967 . . . (the Israeli-Palestinian) conflict has generally been characterized by violence" - as if the period from 1948 to '67 weren't just as bloody.

In the wake of 9/11, there's simply no excuse for misconceiving the ambitions of the Islamic extremists who compose a nontrivial portion of Israel's sworn enemies. It's time for Presbyterian congregations around the country to pull their leadership back from the edge of this moral crater.

He is of course right, but he misses the fantastic investment opportunities being handed to us by the PCUSA. Based on the Presbyterians' track record, you may want to invest in these four Israel-linked stocks. PCUSA originally targeted Caterpillar in June of 2004, and check out what happened since then (compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average):

Not too shabby!

Bush is not immune to the wishful thinking disease

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -
President Bush says a planned pullout of Jewish settlers from occupied Gaza "will be good for
Israel."

Bush's remarks, in an interview given to Israel's Channel One television and aired on Thursday, appeared to be an attempt to boost Prime Minister Ariel Sharon against Jewish rightists seeking to thwart the withdrawal due to start on Aug. 17.

"I believe the decision that Prime Minister Sharon has made and is going to follow through on will be good for Israel," Bush said, interviewed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Asked why he thought Israel's "disengagement" from the occupied land would help Israeli security, Bush replied:

"First of all the previous system wasn't working. There was an intifada (Palestinian uprising), there was death, there was killing. And if you notice, there's been a calm in attacks."

Palestinian militants have generally observed a ceasefire since February.

The Israeli reporter asked Bush whether he understood critics who argue the withdrawal will bring more Palestinian violence rather than calm it.

"Oh absolutely, I understand. And I can understand why people think this decision is one that will create a vacuum into which terrorism will flow," Bush replied.

"I happen to disagree. I think this will create an opportunity for democracy to emerge and democracies are peaceful."

And if this Gaza experiment doesn't work - what will the US do then?

That is the question that needs to be answered now. Will we say that clearly these Palestinians are more interested in destroying Israel than building a state and the roadmap is a sham, or will we pressure Israel to give up more land and further reward terror?

And Bush's naivete isn't stopping there. Democracies aren't peaceful; free societies are peaceful. Freedom is the key, and as can be seen now in the formation of the Iraqi constitution, a democratic Islamic state without true freedom is little better than a dictatorship. There is no magic in "democracy" that ensures that people grow up tolerant and peaceful - Iran's elections were democratic - but a free society is far more likely to be peaceful.

WorldNetDaily: Who's victimizing whom in Mideast?

Joseph Farah again cuts through the bull.

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

For a moment, just put aside all of your preconceived ideas about the Middle East.

The conventional wisdom of the U.S. State Department, the European Union, the United Nations, the international media and, of course, the Arab oil potentates suggests the root problem is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is suggested that Israel is not doing enough to help the poor, homeless Palestinian Arabs.

The truth is just the opposite.

Israel has done more for Palestinians than all the other countries in the world combined. It has built schools, infrastructure, provided jobs and extended full citizenship rights.

What have the Arab powers done?

* provided money for terrorism against Israel;

* paid bounties for martyrdom;

* instilled anti-Jewish hatred and incitement;

In Lebanon, now freed from Syrian military occupation, officials are still debating whether Palestinians living there should be permitted to practice the job of their choice. In the recent past, they have been denied the most basic civil rights, including the right to own property. Even today, to perform the most menial jobs, Palestinians in Lebanon must pay exorbitant fees for work permits.

Yet, the U.S. State Department, the European Union, the United Nations, the international media and, of course, the Arab oil potentates are all silent on these human-rights abuses.

It is apparently OK for Arabs to deny other Arabs their most basic civil rights. In fact, Arabs are denied their most basic human rights in every Arab country.

It is apparently also OK for Christians to be persecuted in the Middle East by the Muslim majority.

It happens in every Arab country, including the Palestinian Authority. The Christian population is dwindling throughout the Middle East. More than 2 million have fled the region in the last 20 years – and many more in the 80 years before that.

Yet, the U.S. State Department, the European Union, the United Nations, the international media and, of course, the Arab oil potentates are all silent on these human-rights abuses.

Meanwhile, in the next two weeks, several thousand Jews, many of whom have lived for a generation in thriving communities, showcases of prosperity and freedom for their neighbors, will be uprooted from their homes and businesses for no other reason than they are Jews.

And, of course, the U.S. State Department, the European Union, the United Nations, the international media and, of course, the Arab oil potentates are not only silent on these human-rights abuses, they are actively promoting this ethnic and religious cleansing as part of a "roadmap to peace."

It is so hard for me to understand why people are unable distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, up and down, right and left, when it comes to the Middle East. It is as if this part of the world is actually in some parallel universe where everything is backward or upside down.

As an Arab-American journalist who has covered this region of the world, I tell you what is happening in the Gaza Strip this month is a human-rights horror, a catastrophe of monumental proportions. It is akin to Robert Mugabe's mass demolition of homes in Zimbabwe, but worse – because this is not the work of some lone madman, it is part of a blueprint drawn up by the so-called "enlightened" nations of the world.

The so-called "disengagement plan" in Gaza represents an acknowledgement by the "civilized" world that it is all right to turn Jews out of their homes for some "greater good." Only 60 years after the Holocaust, once again, Jews are being forced at gunpoint to move because they are Jews.

Mark my words, it will not end here.

The reason these Jews are being forced out is to make way for a Palestinian state, a new country founded on a precept that no Jews are permitted to live within its borders.

This "disengagement" is an invitation for more expulsions of Jews, more restrictions on Jews, more ethnic cleansing of Jews.

It's time for a reality check: Who's victimizing whom in the Middle East?

I've mentioned before that I cannot see a long-term future for the Jewish communities in Gaza. But to retreat unilaterally is exactly what makes this appear to be a victory for terror. This is far worse than leaving Lebanon, an area on which Israel had no claim and no citizens living there. Appearances are everything in the Middle East, and a unilateral withdrawal is identical to a military surrender with the victor imposing the terms. A negotiated agreement (have Arab countries pay the expenses to move Jews elsewhere, for example; or Israel keeping a few square miles of Northern Gaza and annexing it, a non-aggression pact, a statement that Palestinians limit their "right to return", having the Arabs say "please" - anything!) would make it much harder for this to be perceived as a military victory by Hamas, and as such a reward for rocket attacks - and a clear invitation for more.

Palestinians do not want a state (Ehud Ya'ari)

An Israeli centrist looks at reality.

Do the Palestinians genuinely want a little state of their own? And if so, can they stand up on their own two feet, muster their strength, and shape up for the necessary effort? The answers will soon be in - straight after the disengagement is completed - and they may well turn out to be different than those expected. The Palestinian leadership, it may transpire, is not so keen on the independence that's being offered it, and either way, it may lack the energy required to reach that goal.

Only then will we know whether the call for a Palestinian state within the lands captured by Israel in 1967 is merely a slogan, a battle cry or a real political platform, just a banner to be waved in defiance and to rally support, or a national agenda.

Posing these questions is sure to infuriate many. Is it conceivable that the Palestinians do not yearn, as any other nation would, for a sovereign state? After all, the demand for the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza has been the core of their struggle against Israel, at least for the last 30 years, and the justification for the tremendous sacrifices they have made - thousands killed, tens of thousands wounded and imprisoned, economic disaster, social
collapse.

That all makes sense, but the conclusion does not necessarily fit the facts. And the truth is that under the abundance of familiar rhetoric, not much heartfelt enthusiasm is discernible. There's no doubt that the Palestinians have had more than enough of Israel and the occupation, the hated roadblocks and the economic exploitation. Yes, they want to free themselves from all that. But they are not sure, or at least more and more of them are not convinced, that establishing a little state is the right way to go about it. If the price of the independence of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, even if East Jerusalem is thrown in to the package, is to be fenced out of Israel, with the gates to be opened only when the Jews want them opened, Palestinian feet begin getting cold.

There is no great faith on the other side that there is much chance that a state can be established in the foreseeable future in which one would feel good to be a citizen, or more appropriately, a subject. Despite the flow of foreign aid, average Palestinians cannot look forward to prosperity. They are aware of the great difficulty entailed in overcoming the prolonged anarchy that has become a way of life, they are frightened of the internecine bloodbath that may take place, they are anxious that not only Israel will distance itself from them, in line with its strategy of unilateralism, but that their Arab neighbors too will keep them at arm's length, as Egypt and Jordan have been doing for years.

Therefore, many of my Palestinian acquaintances are asking themselves, what's the use of a state of their own that will become, in their own eyes, a sovereign cage? What's more, they may well ask, wouldn't continuing confrontation with Israel - with all the heavy, daily price to be paid - also offer substantial advantages? Wouldn't burying the hatchet signify reconciliation with too little? If this is so, would it not be better not to disengage from Israel,
and instead to continue holding on to it in a bloody embrace, to fall into its unwilling arms in exhaustion? And the state? The state can wait.

This train of thought has not yet been expressed publicly. Indeed, even Hamas, for whom the little state has never been its heart's desire, declares that it is ready to accept it, although of course not to pay for it with peace or - perish the thought - recognition of the State of Israel. This is also the mood in the ranks of important parts of the Fatah movement. A state? Surely, but only under terms that leave open the option of resuming the conflict - no security barrier, no waiving of the "right of return," no agreement to Israel's retention of "settlement blocs." And, Palestinian leaders of the highest rank say in private conversations, if such a state is not immediately attainable, why, there's no reason to rush.

The bottom line is that there are more Israelis eager to see a Palestinian state than Palestinians who want to part from the Israelis. There are many Israelis, and I am among them, who believe that a two-state solution is much better than the Oslo system of two governments in one country, but the Palestinians prefer the latter system, which gives them a regime and armed forces, but without an agreed-upon permanent border.

This is why in the Gaza Strip - whatever the circumstances of the withdrawal - the Palestinians will strive to preserve a close link to Israel. Instead of trying to turn their backs on the erstwhile occupiers, they will do their best to tie themselves to them. The de facto independence that they will achieve without paying any price will not be used to construct a model of successful sovereignty, but rather a base for the struggle for the West Bank and Jerusalem. They will refuse to see the withdrawal as an end either to the occupation of the Strip or to the terrorist activity emanating from it. Listen to Abu Mazen himself: Israel, he says, is "getting out" of Gaza, definitely not "withdrawing."

Israel's aim is to make the Gaza Strip a foreign country, to cut itself off from it, and to have little to do with it. The Palestinians will resist this, insisting that it is not a separate entity, but merely a mutation of the system of two governments within the same country.

As Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid." The entire reason there are a significant number of Palestinian Arabs today are because most of their grandparents moved into the area in the early 1900s to take advantage of the booming economy in Palestine caused by the Zionists who moved there. Thousands more illegally moved from Jordan to the West Bank in the 1990s in anticipation of the economic fruits of Oslo. Arabs throughout history have shown very little allegiance to nations, moving freely between areas of the Middle East as necessary, wherever they could get jobs to provide for their families.

And it is clear to the ordinary Palestinian Arab that they stand to be in better economic shape while they are under "occupation." Not to mention the medical and educational services provided to them by the "hated" Jews.

This article, however, goes beyond that to the psyche of the "leaders." I would argue that Ya'ari is downplaying some other reasons that Palestinian leaders do not want a state - the fact that Israel still exists and is still a cultural/economic/military powerhouse is always going to bother Arabs who see the dhimmis succeed wildly in areas that they themselves could not. It is a painful blow to Arab pride, and nothing short of Israel's destruction can make them feel better. He touches on the fact that the Arab leaders want to continue fighting Israel but he does not make it clear why it makes sense - economics doesn't explain it, because obviously while a terror campaign is happening, Arabs are not going to be employed by Israelis.

The only thing that explains the absurdity of the Palestinian leaders' seeming cluelessness is the fact that, simply, they hate Jews in positions of power.

Chaim Weizmann said "We'd accept a state the size of a tablecloth." That is how a statesman acts, that is how someone who desires freedom and independence acts. This is not even close to how the Palestinian leadership acts.

Unfortunately, while Gaza will prove that Palestinians do not want a state, the world will take away a completely different conclusion - that the failure of Gaza will be due for some reason to Israel rather than the Palestinians.

August 9, 1938: The High Commisioner appeals for peace

I was looking at the Palestine Post from August 9 and 10, 1938, and saw the usual number of attacks against Jews (perhaps 8 mentioned in those two days), mention of a rare incident against Arabs by Jews (that happened a month and a half earlier), and a few incidents of Arab-on-Arab violence, and at least one case where Arabs attacked the British. But this is no different than a recent post I had done, about a violent 24 hours earlier in 1938.

What was slightly noteworthy was that the British High Commissioner addressed the Jews and Arabs of Palestine:

A couple of things are interesting about this three-minute speech:

One is that political correctness and "evenhandedness" was as absurd in 1938 as it is today. The vast majority of terror incidents were (and are) done by Arabs, and the ones done by Jews may be reprehensible but they are insignificant in context - in fact, their restraint seems positively admirable. But the British leader addresses both communities as if they were both equally responsible for the violence, as if the Arab claims that the very existence of Jews on what they think of as Arab lands is an affront that is worse than any number of Arab attacks on Jewish civilians.

The second point is the irony of his statement that violence is counterproductive: clearly that is wishful thinking and far from the truth. Violence is very productive. The entire reason that the Palestinian cause ever got the world's attention is because of the terror attacks in the 1970s. The entire reason Muslims can recruit terrorists so easily is because of the "success" of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad and Black September and all the other terror organizations that can claim victory in the deaths of innocent civilians.

Appeasement is counterproductive. "Measured responses" are counterproductive. Trying to negotiate with those whose only interest in negotiations are as a stalling tactic is counterproductive. Defining a problem incorrectly is counterproductive. Relying on wishful thinking is counterproductive. But violence, unfortunately, is very, very productive.

And usually, the only way to fight violence is with much more violence. It is a shame, but it is also reality.

The Strange Hypocrisy of Dr. Habib Siddiqui

Dr. Habib Siddiqui is an "anti-war activist" and terror apologist who writes regularly for the Israel-bashing Media Monitor's Network as well as other websites.

I just found this hypocritical gem in an article bashing Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter now in jail:

Miller talked about Jews and their suffering but failed to mention Jewish beliefs and laws against the goyim, the rabbinical sanctioned practices of killing, demolitions, deportations, land confiscations, annexation, etc. [See, e.g., Book of Numbers; Joshua; Mishnah Torah; Sanhedrin 57a, 58b; Baba Kamma 37b, 113b; Soferim 15, Rule 10; Abhodah Zarah (26b); Zohar (I, 25a), (I, 38b, and 39a); Ialkut Simoni (245c. n. 772); Hilhoth Akum (X, 1)] She epitomized a jaundiced view of Israel and the Occupied Territories of Palestine!

In her summary on the life of the Prophet of Islam, she did not quote one Muslim source - none of the classical biographies of the prophet. I wonder if Simon & Schuster, her publisher, would allow a book on Jesus or Moses that does not make a single mention of Christian or Judaic authority. [Unfortunately, such pseudo-scholarship, hate literatures are now kosher, when it comes to Islam.]

In one breath, he pretends to quote Judaic legal sources complete with mis-transilterations straight out of neo-Nazi websites to "prove" that Judaism sanctions wanton murder of non-Jews, sources he has clearly never seen himself and some that are too ambiguous to even look up, and in the next paragraph he decries Miller for "pseudo-scholarship"! He bashes Jews in the name of supposedly defending Islam from people like Miller (who are hardly pro-Israel.)

A web search of "Ialkut Simoni" shows nothing but a litany of Jew-hating sites, all with variations of the same fictional quote: "the blood of the impious is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God" or even "A Jew shedding the blood of a Christian is offering a Sacrifice to god."

Just another run-of-the-mill example of how Muslim "scholarship" goes hand-in-hand with Jew hatred. And this is not the only time he "quotes" from these same bogus sources.

I'd love to know what he is a "doctor" of!

Minneapolis Star-Tribune looks at the word "terrorism"

Bravo to the Star-Tribune for at least addressing the issue of the double-standard that applies to terror attacks when they are against Israelis versus anyone else. Note particularly how the editors of the paper hide behind the wire services in explaining their policy, rather than actually address the issue like adults.

Let's hope that this gets rectified in Minneapolis and that other newspapers start to address this issue as well.

The Star Tribune has taken considerable heat over this language. "This issue has come up countless times over the past several years, and we've had an ongoing conversation with our staff about the use of language in sensitive stories involving acts of violence, war and terrorism. We believe our policy is consistent with all other major newspapers and wire services," said managing editor Scott Gillespie.

But the current approach ultimately doesn't treat all countries equally when they are victims of virtually identical terrorist violence. I disagree with Gillespie and think the newspaper needs to go another round in this debate to strive for a style and policy that is fairer and more consistent.

The inconsistent language in wire service stories the Star Tribune publishes about terrorism has left some readers believing a double standard exists for certain countries or parts of the world. The Star Tribune should challenge that uneven language, editing wire stories for consistency no matter where terrorists strike. Editors make changes in wire stories for many other reasons.

But not when it comes to stories on suicide bombers. "We follow the style of the major wire services and most other newspapers, and our editors said that they do not as a matter of policy or routine change the wire services' descriptions of various groups connected with terror attacks," said Roger Buoen, deputy managing editor for news.

In July, a month riddled with terrorism, examples abounded on how inconsistent this approach makes the language in this newspaper. The bombings July 7 in London were quickly labeled terrorist attacks by the wire services. But a July 12 suicide bombing outside a Netanya, Israel, shopping mall was attributed to "Islamic Jihad militants," a group on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. On July 13 in Baghdad, a suicide bomber drove into a crowd of children clustered around U.S. soldiers handing out candy, killing 27 and wounding 50. In the first story this was referred to as "insurgency." The first story after the July 22 attack near a Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, resort hotel where three car bombs killed 88 and injured 119 never described this act as terrorism or anything else, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. Subsequent coverage called it terror.

In particular, these different words have fueled a long-standing debate over how terrorism against Israel is described by this newspaper. Often the word "militant" appears in wire stories about attacks on Israeli civilians. Readers have objected to this for years in letters to the editor, op-ed pieces and a full-page ad in 2002 signed by community leaders demanding the Star Tribune call a terrorist a terrorist when suicide bombers attack Israelis.

The Star Tribune stylebook's entry on "terrorism" and "terrorists" says those terms can be used to describe any deliberate attack on civilians and lists no exceptions. But because the wire services regularly use "militant" in stories about terrorism against Israelis and tend to use "insurgents" in many stories about Iraq, that's how the language often ends up by default in the Star Tribune.

Reinforcing the tendency to treat Israel differently is another entry in the Star Tribune stylebook, which says Hamas is to be referred to in shorthand as "a militant Islamic group" and if it is a major part of a story it should be added that it "has been designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization." The wires treat Islamic Jihad the same way. The stylebook and wires use no such qualifier with Al-Qaida, simply labeling it a "terrorist network" with no reference to the U.S. government's designation.

To my mind, when a person intent on a cause straps explosives to his body and detonates himself to harm nearby civilians, he and his supporters become terrorists. Period. This is a scourge civilized people of all faiths condemned during July in blunt language.

Harry Bojman, 57, contacted me after the Netanya terrorist attack to express his frustration at seeing the term "militant" used to describe Islamic Jihad. Editors here note that Hamas and Islamic Jihad may have a history of sponsoring terror, but also run schools, hospitals, charities and political organizations. Buoen suspects that is why wire services tend to describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad as "militant" rather than "terrorist."

Bojman responded that, "I'm sure Bin Laden and his groups have charitable networks." Indeed, this newspaper has reported on the web of charities Al-Qaida has used to launder its finances and the schools funded by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan that fomented extremism.

Whether suicide bombers and others deliberately blow up children and their parents in Oklahoma City, New York, Baghdad, London, Netanya in Israel or Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt, at that horrific moment the perpetrators become terrorists, wiping away all complexity and nuance regarding their cause.

In situations that unambiguous, the newspaper shouldn't shy away from the truth of plain language or hide behind the policies of the wire services.

Red Cross attacked in Gaza

Here's a nice little story that almost completely escaped the attention of the world media. Apparently, highlighting the fact that the Palestinians in Gaza are lawless thugs who have no problem abducting and shooting at aid workers goes against the conventional wisdom that "occupation" is the driving force behind Palestinian depravity. So since it doesn't fit the script, it gets cut out of the story.

It seems that truth is not the driving factor in choosing what news stories to report - only whether the story fits the preconceived notions of the editor.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Monday suspended all its field operations in the Gaza Strip in protest of the deterioration in security.

The ICRC closed its offices in Khan Yunis indefinitely Monday, after gunmen fired dozens of bullets at them. A number of United Nations aid people have been abducted in the Gaza Strip in recent days.

ICRC sources confirmed Monday that it has instructed its people to reduce activity to a minimum - office work only - until the situation stabilizes. Other international sources, including several UN agencies, said the security deterioration may lead the UN to take similar measures.

The series of abductions and the shooting at ICRC offices cast doubt over the Palestinian Authority's ability to handle the security problems in the Gaza Strip, enforce quiet during the pullout and prevent chaos afterward.

August 9, 1934: Current tragedy, future tragedy

A sad headline and a chilling headline in the Augist 9, 1934 Palestine Post that ring alarm bells today.

First is a report of a massacre of Jews in Algeria that was eerily similar to the riots in Hebron in 1929:

While the newspaper blamed "fascists" it is clear that the murderers were Moslems who turned violent on a flimsy pretext, attacking Jews for no reason.

As sad as that was, the following story is scarier:

Once again an "expert" puts millions of lives in jeopardy based on his own hubris and wishful thinking. It shows how we should always take politicians' predictions with a huge grain of salt, as well as how dangerous wishful thinking is in a world where the enemy desires nothing less than genocide and world domination.

Cross-posted to Palestine Post-ings.

Investors' Business Daily profiles CAIR

For some reason, Investors' Business Daily decided to look at one of our favorite terror-supporting "human rights" groups, and it isn't pretty: (Hat tip to LGF.)

An American Muslim pressure group has come out strongly against police profiling of young Muslim men behaving suspiciously at train stations. But the group doesn't have our best interests at heart.

The terror-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, says two New York officials' push for such targeted profiling on city subways is offensive and ignorant.

"Terror comes in all shapes and sizes," insists Wissam Nasr, director of CAIR's New York branch.

Never mind that eight young Muslim men bombed London's tube. Or that 19 young Muslim men attacked New York in 2001. Or that every suspect on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists is a Muslim man, with nearly half going by the name Mohammed.

CAIR's national spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, says police should ignore such obvious terror traits and search riders at random, while paying close attention only to people "sweating." Never mind that during New York's balmy summer months, that would include folks who don't remotely fit the terrorist profile.

CAIR should know better than anyone who does fit the terrorist profile. Three of its own officials were recently convicted of terror-related crimes. One even worked for Hooper. He's now in prison for conspiring to kill Americans.

A lawsuit filed against CAIR by the family of former FBI official John P. O'Neill, who was killed on 9-11, charges that the group, which evolved from a known Hamas front, is "a key player in international terrorism."

Congress is investigating CAIR and has repeatedly invited its executive director to deny the mounting terror charges under oath. But Nihad Awad, a Palestinian American, refuses. If CAIR is not tied to terrorism, why not clear the air at a televised hearing?

Tellingly, CAIR after 9-11 refused to single out al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden for condemnation. After the London bombings, it endorsed an anti-terror edict so broad it was meaningless — and one that was loaded with qualifiers.

Instead of condemning attacks against British or American or Israeli non-Muslims, it hedged by denouncing "all acts of terrorism targeting civilians" and "innocent lives" — leaving non-Muslims to wonder if they fall into those categories, knowing that jihadists don't necessarily consider them innocent or civilian.

(The vaguely worded edict was written by Hooper pal Taha Jaber al-Alwani, who happens to be an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing terror case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged U.S. leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.)

We wonder who and what CAIR, which calls itself a civil-rights defender, is really protecting when it fights targeted profiling at train stations and airports.

CAIR may talk a good patriotic and moderate game. But it has a secret agenda to Islamize America.

Before 9-11, its founder and chairman, Omar Ahmad, also a Palestinian American, told a Muslim audience: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Before coming to Washington, Hooper himself is on record stating: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic."

Hooper is also on record claiming CAIR receives no "support from any overseas group or government." But land records revealed in the book "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington" put the lie to that claim.

It turns out that an anti-Israeli foundation run by the crown prince of Dubai owns the very deed to CAIR's headquarters located almost in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol. The foundation has held telethons to support families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Against these facts, it's hard to trust anything CAIR says regarding the fight against terror.

It's plain the group has ulterior motives.

Politicians from Washington to New York should ignore its aggressive lobbying against targeted profiling, a move that could save thousands of constituents' lives.

If anyone should be profiled, it's CAIR.

For more information on CAIR, check out anti-CAIR.

In response to divestment

In response to another idiotic post defending the Presbyterian Church's desire to divest from any companies that do business with Israel, I put together a small list of places that it would be worthwhile to invest in:

Bull Moose Growth Fund does not invest in any companies that make money off of terror-supporting nations.

The Amidex family of funds invest in Israeli companies.

The Blue and White Fund.

Here's a list of mutual funds that invest in Israel from Globes, not sure what the criteria are.

Disengagement blues (JPost Op-Ed) - were there alternatives?

I have mentioned before that I am having a hard time finding rational arguments for disengagement. This editorial comes closest. My response follows.

By ELLIOT JAGER

What part of me would give to be orange right now, 14 days before disengagement. I'd be able to turn around – probably no more than 14 days after the last Israeli had been pulled out of Gaza and northern Samaria – and scream: "I told you so! I told you this would not bring peace; that the Palestinians would interpret Israel's withdrawal as a victory for terrorism; that far from buying us diplomatic breathing space, pressure from the EU and the US to make further, even riskier, concessions would promptly materialize."

And yet, with a heavy heart, I embrace Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's argument that the Jewish state must not rule over Gaza's 1 million hostile Palestinian Arabs in perpetuity; that Gush Katif is no longer a military asset; and that to salvage as much of Judea, Samaria – and Jerusalem – as possible, precious communities must be uprooted.

Am I getting cold feet? You bet. Being on the "winning" side brings no pleasure. Disengagement will likely be what we're all anticipating: emotionally gut-wrenching.

Not since Oslo have I observed such widespread alienation from the political system. His embittered opponents say Sharon is uprooting the Jews so the media will forget, and left-leaning judicial powers ignore, his family's corruption. Sharon, they say, has sold his soul for a few more months of power; and so has the Knesset majority.

And you know something? Sharon really has used every (technically legal) dirty trick in the book to bulldoze his policies through. He has fired principled cabinet ministers who challenged him; he's gone back on his word time and again. He lacked the wisdom to ask for new elections; rejected the option of a national referendum; permitted the civil liberties of anti-disengagement protesters to be trampled.

WHICH IS why, if disengagement opponents came up with a Plan B – some scheme that obviated the need for disengagement – I'd join their ranks in a snap. But Sharon's critics have nothing to offer in place of disengagement; no realistic way of coping with a burgeoning, antagonistic enemy population; no reasonable arrangement that addresses the radically inferior – compared to just five years ago – strategic, diplomatic and internal situation we find ourselves in.

The orange camp behaves as if the enemy command were still sitting in North Africa, as if the war Yasser Arafat launched five years ago hasn't brought the Palestinians tangible military achievements. Sharon's opponents behave as if Israel weren't right now constructing a security barrier that's demarking our lines of defense for years to come.

In short, foes of disengagement are right that it's a policy from hell – but they have nothing better to offer when doing nothing is untenable.

The alternative to disengagement isn't a return to the blissful days of the early settlement movement, it's full speed ahead toward Yossi Beilin's widely-supported (by powerful international forces) Geneva Initiative, which would throw us back to the 1949 Armistice Lines. That's the choice. There is no other. And most Israelis know it – which is why, if elections were held today, Sharon would win again and those parties solidly tied to the anti-disengagement movement would capture, maybe, 11 Knesset seats.

"Disinformation," I hear some of my orange friends claim.

Because if you live in a world that claims exclusivity to the Truth, if you know God's will, if the politics of paranoia is your reality; if delusions make you see Nazis or Cossacks in the guise of Israeli soldiers or police, your psychosis is blocking out reality.

WHATEVER ITS many pitfalls, disengagement just might buy Israel some diplomatic breathing space. The orange camp seems oblivious to just how close we are to being tarred as the Rhodesia of the 21st century. Google "boycott Israel" and you'll see what I mean.

The irrational Right may not worry about what "the goyim think," but pragmatic security hawks need to. In an era of global interdependence, autarky is not an option. Like it or not, we need Washington and Brussels more than they need us.

From Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton, every US administration unbendingly insisted on a total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Sharon's policy has caused the first crack in this once-unalterable stance. Disengagement parks Israel in a place that demands Germany, France, Britain and the US ask the Palestinians, finally, what they're willing to trade for peace.

I admit that Sharon and his advisers may have oversold disengagement with rosy scenarios of a beneficent Bush administration embracing the principle of the Palestinians cracking down on terrorism before Washington backs their demands for additional Israeli concessions. Indeed, the State Department has already gone wobbly on the concept that terrorism must be eradicated before there can be "progress" on the road map, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to the region showed.

But let's not expect Washington to be more pro-Israel than the Israeli cabinet. I'm perplexed by Sharon's decision to entrust the Philadelphi Corridor to Egyptian policing, given that without Egyptian acquiescence there'd hardly be any arms trafficking from Sinai into Gaza in the first place.

Sharon claims that once the Gaza withdrawal is behind us there will be no "gestures" and no "progress" on the road map until the terrorism infrastructure is dismantled. If he holds firm, if the US pro-Israel community unites behind this stance, Israel will be diplomatically better off than it is today.

As for the Palestinians, no one ever lost money by betting they'd do something stupid. Don't expect them to turn the Gaza Strip into a Hong Kong on the Mediterranean. The IDF will still periodically have to enter the area to stop enemy attacks of one kind or another. But once it is relieved of responsibility for Israeli civilians inside the Strip, the army's burden will lessen.

YET FOR me the strongest case for disengagement isn't diplomatic or military, but societal. Thirty-eight years after the liberation of the Jewish heartland, support within the body politic for the settlement enterprise is at a nadir. Some of Israel's best and brightest – the secular youngsters who become IAF pilots or elite commandos – are as alienated from the settlers as the Yesha Council is from Tel Aviv anarchists who sleep with the enemy. Opponents of disengagement seem unmindful of the extraordinary rift in our society.

With our home front so divided can we really triumph over a determined Palestinian foe? Real love of Israel – ahavat yisrael – demands we feel the pain not just of the hesder boys but of their Ramat Aviv Gimmel contemporaries, too.

Disengagement allows Israel to consolidate its defensive lines. It demonstrates understanding of international public opinion, and stabilizes the home front.

My orange friends may well have occasion to say, "I told you so." But they never presented a better alternative. There comes a point when doing nothing just isn't a rational option.

jager@jpost.com

Mr. Jager misses the point, in my opinion. I agree that holding on to Gaza forever is untenable, mostly for the reason he doesn't state - that it is not a good idea to have a minority rule a large majority in Gaza. I am not convinced that it will ease the burden on the IDF; I am not convinced that there will be any lasting diplomatic advantage from the Gaza retreat; and the hatred that the secularists have for the religious is more bigotry and less based on the settlements (again, it was Labor governments that encouraged the settlement enterprise to begin with.)

He also mentions but glosses over the reasons against disengagement - it will strengthen terror, not only in Israel but worldwide.

In addition, contrary to what he states and Sharon believes, it weakens Israel's moral and legal claims to Judea and Samaria, rather then strengthens them. Once it appears to the world that Israel agrees that occupation is illegal (which is what this looks like), then it is also illegal in the West Bank.

His point seems to be that there is no alternative. I am not an advocate of a Kach-like solution of shipping millions of Palestinians out of the territories, but there were alternatives, that were ignored for some reason by Sharon, and that could have made this a lot more palatable.

One that I would have supported, even though chances are it would not have worked, would be to go beyond a unilateral withdrawal - to put the Palestinians on the defensive by not only withdrawing, but by declaring Israel's intentions to recognize Gaza as a Palestinian state, and urging the world to agree. Palestinians who are yearning for independence would be allowed to move to the Gaza state while those who remain in the West Bank would accept Camp David-style autonomy. There are a number of advantages to this: it shows how bogus Palestinian claims of desiring an independent state are (because they would reject it), it allows Israel to defend itself against a sovereign nation if they attack, and it would also show how little desire the Arab Palestinian people truly have to live in Hamas-stan. At the very least it could serve as a living example of what would happen if the Palestinians created a state in the West Bank - namely, disaster.

(Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that Iraq would offer the Kurds their own area to become an independent state. Can you imagine them rejecting it because Turkey doesn't do the same?)

But there was another alternative: it didn't have to be unilateral! Why on Earth is Israel giving up the most valuable commodity in the area - land - for nothing in return? No promises, no agreements, no oaths - nothing to reduce terror, to end incitement, to control Hamas, to gather weapons, to agree on industrial zones, to keep the Gaza hothouses in business, to allow Jews to live there, agreements to destroy Kassam factories or tunnels, international observers on Palestinian compliance with written agreements - any of a few dozen things Israel could have gotten in return for something as valuable as Gaza. As a bilateral agreement it does not appear to be a retreat.

One does not negotiate with one's cards face up. The tragedy of Gaza, beyond the human cost, is the many opportunities missed that could have positioned Israel much more strongly going forward.