Sunday, June 19, 2005
Elder of ZiyonExample #2659 of Reuters' explicit pro-terror bias in this article in Mediacrity.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Friday, June 17, 2005
Friday, June 17, 2005
Elder of Ziyon
In April 1948, in one of the battles that preceded Israel's War of Independence, the Haganah decisively defeated the Arab fighters for control of Haifa. The Palestine Post has a few articles that describe the Arab refugees from Haifa during this time period that shed a little light upon the basic question of who created the Arab refugee problem?
This is only about Arabs in Haifa (and Jaffa) in a very small timeframe, but it shows the mindsets of the Jews and of the Arabs at the time and that it would be reasonable to expect that these mindsets remained somewhat consistent throughout the duration of the war.
The first article describes the Arab dilemma of whether they should leave a Jewish-controlled Haifa. Notice that these decisions are being made after the major fighting is over, while the truce is being negotiated. These Arabs, at least, were clearly not leaving because of war.
Notice also how the Haganah is bending over backwards to try to respect the rights of the Arab citizens of Haifa, pledging to protect their property and clearly expecting them to return. This is not the behavior of people who are trying to ethnically cleanse an area.
Meanwhile, Arabs were streaming out from Jaffa. A telling detail emerges in this account of the flight to Egypt: that Arabs were the ones encouraging other Arabs to leave, and other Arabs were upset by this. But no where do they say that Jews are expelling Arabs.
The general sense of panic among the Palestinian Arabs at the time can be seen from the tiny article at the end about the run on banks.
The next week, in a recap of the events that happened in Haifa, we see that it was clearly the Arab leadership who encouraged their people to leave. Interestingly, shortly thereafter most of Haifa's Arabs have returned to their intact homes, safe and sound. This is not the first time that the Arab leadership's treatment of the Palestinian Arabs were at cross-purposes with what the people wanted.
Again note how explicitly the Haganah is trying to keep the Arabs in their homes.
This is only a snapshot in time from a single source, and this is all before the outside Arab armies invaded (although this was considered a fait accompli), but it does show a couple of inescapable facts:
* The Haganah was acting in a way totally inconsistent with the desire to create a Jews-only state.
* The Jews were bending over backwards to respect Arab property and lives.
* The Palestinian Arab people were feeling that their leadership was not acting in their best interests. This feeling was amplified in an article the following week, right before Israel declared her independence:
The analogy to today is clear. Today the Palestinian people remain pawns in the hands of their supposed "leaders" - while the people just want to live and be able to raise their families, their leaders are obsessed with the destruction of Israel and are willing to sacrifice as many of their people as necessary to reach that goal. While the Arabs show no respect for the religion or property of others, the Jews retain respect for the human rights of their declared enemies. While the Arabs create nations that are Judenrein, the vast majority of Israelis have no desire to kick out the Arabs from Israel.
Crossposted to Palestine Post-ings.
UPDATE: SoccerDad adds this article with more details about that time period.
This is only about Arabs in Haifa (and Jaffa) in a very small timeframe, but it shows the mindsets of the Jews and of the Arabs at the time and that it would be reasonable to expect that these mindsets remained somewhat consistent throughout the duration of the war.
The first article describes the Arab dilemma of whether they should leave a Jewish-controlled Haifa. Notice that these decisions are being made after the major fighting is over, while the truce is being negotiated. These Arabs, at least, were clearly not leaving because of war.
Notice also how the Haganah is bending over backwards to try to respect the rights of the Arab citizens of Haifa, pledging to protect their property and clearly expecting them to return. This is not the behavior of people who are trying to ethnically cleanse an area.
Meanwhile, Arabs were streaming out from Jaffa. A telling detail emerges in this account of the flight to Egypt: that Arabs were the ones encouraging other Arabs to leave, and other Arabs were upset by this. But no where do they say that Jews are expelling Arabs.
The general sense of panic among the Palestinian Arabs at the time can be seen from the tiny article at the end about the run on banks.
The next week, in a recap of the events that happened in Haifa, we see that it was clearly the Arab leadership who encouraged their people to leave. Interestingly, shortly thereafter most of Haifa's Arabs have returned to their intact homes, safe and sound. This is not the first time that the Arab leadership's treatment of the Palestinian Arabs were at cross-purposes with what the people wanted.
Again note how explicitly the Haganah is trying to keep the Arabs in their homes.
This is only a snapshot in time from a single source, and this is all before the outside Arab armies invaded (although this was considered a fait accompli), but it does show a couple of inescapable facts:
* The Haganah was acting in a way totally inconsistent with the desire to create a Jews-only state.
* The Jews were bending over backwards to respect Arab property and lives.
* The Palestinian Arab people were feeling that their leadership was not acting in their best interests. This feeling was amplified in an article the following week, right before Israel declared her independence:
The analogy to today is clear. Today the Palestinian people remain pawns in the hands of their supposed "leaders" - while the people just want to live and be able to raise their families, their leaders are obsessed with the destruction of Israel and are willing to sacrifice as many of their people as necessary to reach that goal. While the Arabs show no respect for the religion or property of others, the Jews retain respect for the human rights of their declared enemies. While the Arabs create nations that are Judenrein, the vast majority of Israelis have no desire to kick out the Arabs from Israel.
Crossposted to Palestine Post-ings.
UPDATE: SoccerDad adds this article with more details about that time period.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
- Thursday, June 16, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
I continuously look for reasons for the disengagement that makes sense. In a Jerusalem Post op-ed, one reason is given (although this is not the point of the article:
If this is the reason for the pullout, it makes no sense. While Sharon and Bush do have a close relationship, what good does that do Israel when either of them are out of office? To think that this will help things 50 years down the road, or even ten years from now, is foolish as well as foolhardy.
One explanation for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's about-face on the settlements, his willingness to uproot what he himself planted, is that in his mind as a statesman – rather than in his view as a general – a close strategic relationship with the US will do more to protect Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Netanya 50 years down the line than a hilltop settlement.
When Sharon is asked what he is getting for disengagement from Gaza, he – or his aides – reply that they are not getting anything from the Palestinian Authority, but are getting something very substantial from Washington: commitments that the US will back Israel's position on the Palestinian refugee issue and on retaining the large settlement blocs. This is far more important than a billion-dollar arms deal with Beijing.
Sharon has built up an unprecedented relationship with US President George W. Bush, but at the same time he has also stacked Israel's eggs in one basket to an unprecedented degree.
If this is the reason for the pullout, it makes no sense. While Sharon and Bush do have a close relationship, what good does that do Israel when either of them are out of office? To think that this will help things 50 years down the road, or even ten years from now, is foolish as well as foolhardy.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
- Wednesday, June 15, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
It is always interesting to hear the deafening silence from the world about daily Palestinian child abuse. And this isn't Hamas; it is Fatah Tanzim, whose salaries are paid by our favorite terrorist in a suit, Mahmoud Abbas.
The Shin Bet and IDF have arrested in recent weeks four Palestinian minors, aged 15 and 16, who were recruited by the Fatah Tanzim to blow up in Israel, details released for publication on Wednesday afternoon revealed.
Arrests conducted by security forces in the Balata and Askar refugee camps in Nablus thwarted the attacks that had been in advanced planning stages.
One of the minors admitted to being recruited by Muhammad Nakib, 21, who was arrested in January this year for involvement in terrorist activities.
The minor told officials that he expressed intentions to follow in the footsteps of his friend, Omar al-For, who blew up in the Carmel Market in Tel Aviv in November 2004 – an attack that claimed the lives of three Israelis.
Two other minors from the Askar camp said they were recruited in April by Tanzim activists in the Balata camp to blow up at an IDF checkpoint near Nablus. The fourth minor said he had been recruited by operatives in Balata to blow up in Israel.
Four suspected recruiters that belonged to the infrastructure were also arrested. According to officials, they had received instructions and funds from Hizbulalh in Lebanon.
- Wednesday, June 15, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
I decided that the articles that I write based on historical Palestine Post clippings would be more effective on their own blog, so I created one called Palestine Post-ings.
All of those articles will continue to be posted here as well, and I am not turning on comments on the other site, but it looked to me that having them all gathered in one place is more effective than searching through the other assorted stuff here.
All of those articles will continue to be posted here as well, and I am not turning on comments on the other site, but it looked to me that having them all gathered in one place is more effective than searching through the other assorted stuff here.
- Wednesday, June 15, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
Remember how the Jews used to be accused of poisoning the wells during the Bubonic Plague?
Palestinians seem to be students of history.
It is saccharine.
For some reason, no one is saying that the PA is inciting terror when it makes classic anti-semitic claims like this with a straight face.
Palestinians seem to be students of history.
RAMALLAH, June 13 (Xinhuanet) -- Palestinian chief of Environment Authority Yousef Abu Safeya accused Israel Monday of glutting the Palestinian markets with carcinogenic canned juice.UPDATE: The specific carcinogenic substance that Israel is inflicting on unsuspecting Palestinians has been identified:
'Such kind of drinks are specifically produced for the Palestinian consumers in the Gaza Strip.' Abu Safeya told a weekly session of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).
He pointed out that the Palestinian security services had recently seized a number of shipments, including canned juice containing a carcinogenic substance.
He added that the Egyptian authorities impounded two Israeli trucks carrying child toys polluted with carcinogenic and radioactive substances at the Rafah commercial crossing on the borders with Israel in March.
It is saccharine.
For some reason, no one is saying that the PA is inciting terror when it makes classic anti-semitic claims like this with a straight face.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
- Sunday, June 12, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
But it is a very good issue even without yours truly being linked.
I will not be blogging during the yom tov. Chag kosher v'sameach!
I will not be blogging during the yom tov. Chag kosher v'sameach!
Friday, June 10, 2005
- Friday, June 10, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
Arab countries in 1948 realized that they had natural allies in fighting Jews: Germans who were in British POW camps in the Middle East during World War II.
The Germans had the advantage of real-world combat experience to be able to effectively train Arabs to throw the Jews into the sea.
Soon, it became apparent that there were other Nazi sympathizers who could be called upon to help in this jihad:
And soon, a more organized campaign was started by Egypt and Syria to recruit Muslims who had fought with the Nazis in Europe to act as mercenaries against the Jews in preparation for the upcoming, inevitable war.
Apparently, the International Refugee Organization operating in Europe was at least partially complicit in this plan to allow former Nazi sympathizers to be recruited to try to finish the job that Hitler didn't.
There has been much documented about the collusion of Arabs and Nazis, but the Nazi contributions to the Arab cause in 1948 and the active Arab recruitment of Nazi and Fascist elements appears to be a lesser-known chapter in this wicked partnership.
The Germans had the advantage of real-world combat experience to be able to effectively train Arabs to throw the Jews into the sea.
Soon, it became apparent that there were other Nazi sympathizers who could be called upon to help in this jihad:
And soon, a more organized campaign was started by Egypt and Syria to recruit Muslims who had fought with the Nazis in Europe to act as mercenaries against the Jews in preparation for the upcoming, inevitable war.
Apparently, the International Refugee Organization operating in Europe was at least partially complicit in this plan to allow former Nazi sympathizers to be recruited to try to finish the job that Hitler didn't.
There has been much documented about the collusion of Arabs and Nazis, but the Nazi contributions to the Arab cause in 1948 and the active Arab recruitment of Nazi and Fascist elements appears to be a lesser-known chapter in this wicked partnership.
- Friday, June 10, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
An all-too familiar scene - rabid Jew-hatred in a European city where the police stand by doing nothing.
THE blazing afternoon sun is beating down and youngsters with kaffirs wrapped round their heads mimic Palestinian terrorists, drawing on the full power of their small voices to scream anti-Israel slogans.
"Victory to the intifada," shouts one, perched on his father's shoulders as a megaphone is thrust into his face. Another clutching a "death to Israel" placard, is encouraged to join in with the chanting hundreds.
Slowly it forms into a sea of Palestinian flags and banners; the baying crowd's animosity towards the Jewish State is unequivocal.
Incitement to hatred? Not to the police, who turn a blind eye and happily offer consent to the protesters venting their venomous spleens.
It's an all-too-familiar scene frequently played out across the Middle East. Yet these aren't the dusty streets of Ramallah or refugee camps in Gaza. Welcome to the embodiment of liberal harmonisation: 21st century Europe and one afternoon on the streets of the Irish capital.
What had been promoted as a political protest against Israeli government policy turned out to be a furious demonstration of vitriol against the State - and anyone Jewish who caught the protesters' gaze.
The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign pledged it would be peaceful, but the evidence on the streets revealed far more disturbing manifestations. The timing was meticulous, coming just hours before Israel challenged Ireland at Lansdowne Road for a World Cup spot.
As the early afternoon downpour subsided, a ragbag of activists gathered at 3pm on the plaza outside Dublin's Central Bank.
The influence of non-Palestinian groups was unmistakable. The presence of Sinn Fein banners, IRA supporters and Socialist Workers' members was barely concealed. A teenager, barely 16, flogged copies of Republican newspaper An Phoblacht. A Palestinian flag was draped round his back.
Floppy-haired teenagers togged out in black Nirvana and Slipknot T-shirts arrived in search of an afternoon's 'entertainment'. They eagerly accepted placards claiming the Israeli army were responsible for the deaths of 3,600 children. Chants about the security barrier were interspersed with cackling as they mischievously adjusted the words.
Either they are unusually well informed for their age or they were just looking to stir up trouble on an otherwise mundane Bank Holiday weekend. Whatever their politics, conflict can never be a laughing matter.
Girls, who have barely finished nursery school, waved banners proclaiming Sharon to be a war criminal that their parents had cajoled into their tiny arms. Like so many generations of Irish children bedevilled by conflict, they risk being the latest young pawns in a complex political battleground.
Then there were the football fans. Celtic and Ireland shirts were encased in Palestinian flags - any tactic to incite the opposition before such a decisive match.
Mostly it was a tame affair - for such a gathering. Leaflets were handed out; flags were being flogged for 10 Euros; and the chatter between marchers was punctuated by chanting.
Until the baying crowd scented their blood: passing Israeli fans.
They had come to support their team, on the brink on an historic second-only qualification for a major international football tournament. None would talk politics, that was a matter for another day - back home. Instead they shrugged their shoulders, amazed that they were facing such animosity.
The only conflict they expected to witness was on the Lansdowne Road pitch. That changed when they came into the sights of the radar of the Palestinian supporters. Their blue stripes and Magen David flags acted like red rags to a bull.
Unprovoked, they found demonstrators squaring up to them, ranting about Israel. The travelling fans were bemused. They assumed they'd left hostilities at home, thousands of miles away. Now they were expected to act as spokesmen for Ariel Sharon, despite no-one enquiring whether they backed the Premier.
"Sieg heil! Sieg heil!" shouted one Irish fan as he proudly Nazi saluted the city's guests - scenes captured by our photographer.
All the Israelis had done was to offer a handshake as a gesture of peace, after spotting the potential flashpoint. It was declined in a forcible manner. The garda (police) response to quell the tensions? To force the Israelis out of the vicinity, as if they bore the brunt of the culpability. The rules of engagement were established.
And worse was to follow. Initially the Socialist Workers, Sinn Fein activists and Muslims reserved their condemnation for the "occupation of the Territories" and the Israeli military.
Until the marching hundreds spotted another group of Israelis. Their Budget Hyundai hire car - adorned with "Israel loves Ireland" posters - was designed to be an illustration of goodwill in this febrile atmosphere.
No chance. Hissing, booing and jeering followed. These Israelis were targeted for backing a simple, non-political message of peace. A Muslim - clad in an "end the occupation" T-shirt, a kaffir around his forehead and a Palestinian flag tied round his neck - gesticulated aggressively towards them.
A one-fingered salute made his feelings transparent: you're not welcome.
Gardai seemed to concur. Confronting the vehicle's owners, their posters promoting harmony between the two nations were confiscated and screwed up. Free speech wasn't applicable for the Israelis on Nassau Street. Their only crime was being football fans.
As one senior constable warned the fans to vacate the vicinity of the protest, without warning their vehicle was removed at speed down the street by a colleague. They were dumfounded.
An officer monitoring the protests told me: "We've been told to remove Israeli flags and banners. I don't want to be here, but I'm only doing my job."
Edging slowly towards the Embassy, a middle-aged Irish woman whipped up the crowd in a frenzy with yells of "Israel is a waste of space" into her megaphone
Passing pub-goers chanted: "Up the PLO. Up the IRA". Groups of marchers were soon echoing this. Arms raised aloft, the spectre of Nazi salutes again reared its ugly head on the route. Gardai turned a blind eye.
As the rally continued down the long road, the venomous chants built up apace. Increasingly it resembled a rally in the Palestinian territories supporting jihadist militants. There they revel in terror; here the guise was a peaceful demonstration.
When they spotted a man sporting a Republic shirt and a kippah, the police stepped in. He was a Chelsea fan from London, and had come for the weekend with friends to watch the match. Bafflingly, the garda tried to remove him from the street. When the Palestine Solidarity marchers spotted him, the response was by now sadly predictable. They turned their venom on him, despite displaying no signs of affiliation with Israel and being one of their own - an Ireland fan. The kippah was enough; this made him fair game.
Again this overt antisemitism and incitement to hatred was unchallenged.
By the time the crowd reached the Israeli embassy their blood was boiling. But as the international television crews pitched up, the speeches delivered by the Palestinian supporters were forced to take on a moderate tone.
Against a backdrop of a re-creation of the security barrier, they claimed their argument was not against Israel.
Try explaining the "waste of space" and "victory to the intifada" yells that reverberated around Dublin. They called for the aerial attacks on Palestinians to stop. Then issued a plea for bombers of their own.
One became suspicious of my presence, having followed them on foot for nearly three hours.
"Your sort aren't welcome," the Muslim protester angrily informed me - assuming that I was Israeli.
At 5.20pm as the crowd dispersed could Dublin now prepare for the main event, a World Cup qualifier?
WITH the clock counting down until kick-off, the strains of Hevenu Shalom Aleichem and Am Yisrael Chai struck up at the rear of the Israeli Embassy. A small group of flag-waving Israel fans began passionately expressing their support.
Some were Irish Christian Friends of Israel, others had made the trip across the Irish Sea and later fans from the Jewish State upped the tempo with festivities and flag waving.
In an instant, the atmosphere was soured when a break-off from the Palestinian rally breached the confines of this peaceful gathering on the narrow pavement.
"A tiny crew of middle-aged motley tree huggers," remarked one observer. But with their giant flags they were determined that their presence was felt.
The Israeli team had been due to pass by the embassy to greet the travelling fans en route to Lansdowne Road, but security concerns prevented this from happening.
Meanwhile the police - so hasty preventing anyone interfering with the earlier Palestinian demo - did nothing to halt this intimidation. Palestinian supporters were allowed to heckle and taunt. One delivered repeated shouts of "Nazis".
Despite Israel fans urging them to halt the standoff, the police response was mute. The scuffles were inevitable.
One skin-headed man openly admitted to being an Irish Republican Army backer, the terrorists responsible for some of the worst violence in Ireland and Britain.
Sealed lips from watching police, despite their quick-fire interventions earlier in the afternoon against the Israelis.
The two sides remained fixed in place, eye-to-eye, flag-to-flag, until they departed for the match. As one protester packed up his placard, another poster was already in place on the reverse, campaigning for the bin tax to be axed. The bedraggled coalition had revealed their true rent-a-mob colours. On to the next demo then.
INSIDE the creaking Lansdowne Road, specks of red, green and white exposed themselves, but stewards appeared powerless to remove the Palestinian flags being hoisted in the stands.
Initially animosity was reserved for Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern. The Taoiseach's anthem was booed, while silence ensued throughout the Hatikva. The 600 Israel fans in the North Bucket braved the teeming rain to belt out the anthem with pride.
But within 11 minutes of the whistle the Israelis were silenced. Lethal strikes from Ian Harte and Robbie Keane appeared to wrap up the tie. Struggling to press forward, Israel didn't appear to have a chance.
On their journey through the heated streets of Dublin, the team had been distracted by a replay of last month's Champions League final. Now they desperately sought to draw inspiration from Liverpool's comeback, a feat they accomplished within six minutes of the break.
Stage one was completed by Avi Yechiel, who marked his international debut with a well-timed equaliser.
Stage two came in the second minute of injury time when Yossi Benayoun, who was being watched by Newcastle United scouts, was brought down in the penalty area. After being forced thrice to retake the spot kick, with jeering ringing in his ears, Avi Nimni displayed coolness to level the tie and edge Israel closer to the World Cup finals in Germany.
At half time fans burst into a chant of "Israel Milchamah" - Israel's army - while the Irish were in shock. In the VIP area, an ashen-faced Taoiseach faced an ecstatic Roman Abramovitch, as the Chelsea owner tucked into kosher sandwiches.
And as the tie went into a nailbiting second 45, the visitors faced a barrage of antipathy as their players fought to defend the draw. The acrobatics and apparent histrionics of goalkeeper Dudu Awat infuriated the home crowd and they never forgave him for seemingly feigning injury which led to Andy O'Brien's sending off.
If anything, it was surprising that just one red card was brandished by Greek referee Kyros Vassaras. Israel defender Shimon Gershon feared the closing stages were developing into a street fight. "Tackles and elbows were flying in everywhere," he said.
At 9.31pm, with dusk settling over Dublin, Israel secured the vital point that nudged them closer to the finals in Germany. One Israel fan summed up the mood: "For the first time in Irish history, Israel was attracting the ire and venom of the Irish public with total justification."
However, an Irish fan would not let the tension remain on the field. As Awat was sitting in the lobby at the team's hotel, a bucket of ice was hurled at the Israeli keeper, who was already suffering from a suspected broken nose.
It underlined the rage facing Israelis even before the match. And it signalled the end to a disturbing day the Irish capital would rather forget.
A city that has played witness in centuries past to the tortuous results of bloodshed was again given the oxygen to become a battleground for simmering rivalries - even in the 21st century. Even in Europe, where for one weekend Israelis hoped to find solace in sport and escape the daily traumas back home. Some chance.
(hat tip to Pounce_UK)
Thursday, June 09, 2005
- Thursday, June 09, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
Palestinian Minister Mohammed Dahlan, in charge of coordinating Israel's Gaza withdrawal, said Thursday that Israel has failed to provide vital information about the pullout and accused the Israelis of creating the conditions for a new Palestinian uprising.
In other words, he is saying, "If we don't get what we want we're going to start to throw things! Waaaaaa!"
In other words, he is saying, "My people cannot control their emotions. They are mentally unstable. You have to give them what they want or they might make things uncomfortable for you."
In other words, he is saying, "Palestinians do not have the same free-will that God gave real human beings. They cannot choose right and wrong. They only have instinct. And, unlike dogs and cattle, they cannot be domesticated."
In other words, he is saying, "If you do what we want, nobody gets hurt. For now."
In other words, he is saying, "We have no responsibilities. We only have demands. And no matter what you do, we will always have more demands."
In other words, he is saying, "When you do something bad it is your fault. When we do something bad it is your fault."
This is the mentality of the Palestinian Arabs.
UPDATE: SoccerDad has some observations.
- Thursday, June 09, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
Temple Mount
It is not news when Palestinian leaders, officials, and media lie. What is amazing is that despite decades of consistent lying - easily debunkable lies, bald-faced lies, lies that are so absurd that one would have to be an idiot to believe them - the news media still will report Palestinian statements without even a hint of cynicism.
I think it is a Western pathology - since we are brought up to think that "honesty is the best policy" it is beyond our experience to believe that someone is a complete and utter liar. (Although we are also taught to stretch the truth, to color our observations, and to soften facts a bit for various etiquette and cultural reasons, Westerners are averse to real in-your-face lies.)
This blindness to when someone is lying to your face can have very bad consequences. The Western press is obligated to act with suspicion, to check facts, to be cynical, especially when the person who is stating his stories has been shown to be a liar time and time again. For one to act "even-handed" when comparing the statements of known liars and their more-truthful counterparts is dishonest itself.
Let's look at some history of Palestinian Arab lies:
There is a famous, possibly apocryphal quote from Yassir Arafat: ""I am ready to kill for the sake of my cause; wouldn't I lie for it?" Although I cannot find a source to it, it brings up a fundamental truth - why does the Western press trust murderers and proven liars? Why do they give the same weight to statements by Palestinian sources who are known to have lied to the press in the recent past? Why are Palestinian newspapers quoted as authoritative sources?
But there is a far more fundamental question that is much more important than the fact that Palestinians habitually lie to the world: How can anyone expect Israel to make agreements with liars? Time after time, the Palestinian "negotiating" stance has offered nothing of substance, nothing but words - and their words are worth far less than the words of honest people. Yet the world expects Israel to give real concessions in exchange for only words - the words of proven liars.
This is Israel's "peace partner." No one in their right mind would buy a car from someone who acts like this; but Israel is expected to spend much more on the empty promises of terrorist-supporting liars.
The world press gives the Palestinian position legitimacy by its refusal to do basic fact-checking or context when Palestinian officials speak. This is fundamentally immoral and dishonest itself, and it results in more lies and more deaths. To treat Palestinian lies with deference that would not be given to the leaders of any Western nation is not journalism - it is a political agenda that has no place in newsrooms.
(Sources for some quotes: here, here and here. If any of them can be shown to be in error, please let me know.)
UPDATE: See also this article from 2003.
I think it is a Western pathology - since we are brought up to think that "honesty is the best policy" it is beyond our experience to believe that someone is a complete and utter liar. (Although we are also taught to stretch the truth, to color our observations, and to soften facts a bit for various etiquette and cultural reasons, Westerners are averse to real in-your-face lies.)
This blindness to when someone is lying to your face can have very bad consequences. The Western press is obligated to act with suspicion, to check facts, to be cynical, especially when the person who is stating his stories has been shown to be a liar time and time again. For one to act "even-handed" when comparing the statements of known liars and their more-truthful counterparts is dishonest itself.
Let's look at some history of Palestinian Arab lies:
"Since its establishment, the racist Zionist entity has been implementing various forms of terrorism on a daily basis which are a repetition of the Nazi terror There is no difference between Hitler and Ben-Gurion, and if there was a difference at all, it was one of quantity and not one of substance." - from an article in the official PA newspaper "Al-Hayat Al-Jadida", September 3, 1997.
"Israeli practices in many aspects are equal with, if not more brutal than, those practiced by occupying Nazi soldiers dealing with French-Dutch citizens during the Second World War." PA Information Ministry press release, December 10, 1997.
"Abd Al-Fatah Hamid, the Head of the Control and Inspection Department in the PA Ministry of Supplies, said that a committee will work ... against spoiled goods and food supplies, which are one of Israel's means in its war against Palestinian society." from an article in the Palestinian daily, "Al-Ayyam", October 29, 1997.
"They brought Russian Jewish girls with AIDS to spread the disease among Palestinian youth." Abdel-Razek Al-Majida, Commander of the Palestinian General Security Service in Gaza, quoted by the official PA newspaper "Al-Hayat Al-Jadida", May 15, 1997.
"... there is no tangible evidence of any Jewish traces/remains in the old city of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. PA Information Ministry, December 10, 1997.
'Jerusalem is not a Jewish city, despite the Biblical myth implanted in some minds ? There is no tangible evidence of Jewish existence from the so-called 'Temple Mount Era' ? The location of the Temple Mount is in question ? it might be in Jericho or somewhere else' (Walid Awad, Director
of Foreign Publications for the PLO's Ministry of Information, interviewed by the IMRA news agency, Dec. 25, 1996).
Attallah Quiba, the Palestinian ambassador in Sri Lanka, believes that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was killed by unnamed Israelis using advanced technology, the Island newspaper said. Responding to questions at a media conference in Colombo on Friday, Quiba claimed that two Israelis who met Arafat on the day he was taken sick "used a laser device to attack Arafat."
Palestinian television reported, on the basis of an official announcement by the Palestinian leadership, that a priest named Jacques Amathis had been killed and dozens of monks wounded in an IDF action in Bethlehem. The announcement was published prominently in the Italian and French media and prompted a storm of protest. The following day the 'late" priest was interviewed by the MINSA agency and confirmed that he and the monks in the monastery were safe and well.
Saeb Erekat accused Israel of a "massacre" in Jenin and published the number of 520 deaths (ten times the actual number).
'The Nazis probably killed less than one million Jews and the Zionist movement was a partner in the slaughter' - Mahmoud Abbas in his book.
In April, PA head Mahmoud Abbas claimed in a meeting with Israeli reporters that the PA has collected all the weapons held by 'wanted' Palestinians in Jericho and Tulkarem and that they will all soon be joining the PA security forces. In fact, none had been collected.
"We have started to deal with the culture of violence, we stopped the culture of violence and the Palestinian people have started looking at it as something that should be condemned and it should stop." - Mahmoud Abbas
There is a famous, possibly apocryphal quote from Yassir Arafat: ""I am ready to kill for the sake of my cause; wouldn't I lie for it?" Although I cannot find a source to it, it brings up a fundamental truth - why does the Western press trust murderers and proven liars? Why do they give the same weight to statements by Palestinian sources who are known to have lied to the press in the recent past? Why are Palestinian newspapers quoted as authoritative sources?
But there is a far more fundamental question that is much more important than the fact that Palestinians habitually lie to the world: How can anyone expect Israel to make agreements with liars? Time after time, the Palestinian "negotiating" stance has offered nothing of substance, nothing but words - and their words are worth far less than the words of honest people. Yet the world expects Israel to give real concessions in exchange for only words - the words of proven liars.
This is Israel's "peace partner." No one in their right mind would buy a car from someone who acts like this; but Israel is expected to spend much more on the empty promises of terrorist-supporting liars.
The world press gives the Palestinian position legitimacy by its refusal to do basic fact-checking or context when Palestinian officials speak. This is fundamentally immoral and dishonest itself, and it results in more lies and more deaths. To treat Palestinian lies with deference that would not be given to the leaders of any Western nation is not journalism - it is a political agenda that has no place in newsrooms.
(Sources for some quotes: here, here and here. If any of them can be shown to be in error, please let me know.)
UPDATE: See also this article from 2003.
- Thursday, June 09, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
Here is who is getting arrested:
Palestinian former prisoners pay their respects at the grave of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at his former headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Thursday June 2, 2005. [AP]
Seven 15-year-old girls were arrested early Monday morning - for writing slogans and their names in the soot of a Jerusalem tunnel wall.Here's who is getting freed:
Palestinian former prisoners pay their respects at the grave of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at his former headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Thursday June 2, 2005. [AP]
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
- Wednesday, June 08, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
OK, a purely defensive device, won't hurt anyone, designed to stop people from bringing in weapons to kill Jews.
How long before we see Palestinians and terror-supporters complaining about it, under the guise of "human rights" or "religious tolerance" or something similar?
How long before we see Palestinians and terror-supporters complaining about it, under the guise of "human rights" or "religious tolerance" or something similar?
The Israel Defense Forces have found a way to block the tunnels Palestinians dig under the Gaza-Egypt border to smuggle in weapons by using a huge trench-digging machine, according to a military publication.
The 100-ton behemoth would dig deep channels along the border route Israel patrols, exposing the tunnels, the soldiers' weekly 'Bamahane' reports in its current edition.
The new trenching machine, made U.S. company Trencor Inc., might provide at least an interim answer to the smuggling problem by neutralizing tunnels now in operation.
A small picture of the machine in the weekly shows the 'Trencor' logo on the side of the yellow vehicle, sporting a snout designed to dip deep into the ground to dig trenches.
The weekly said only that the machine arrived disassembled from Texas and is now being put together. It will be operational 'in the coming weeks,' it said.
- Wednesday, June 08, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
"Bogey" Ya'alon has been consistently correct in his assessments of Israel's security situation over the years. He has been forced out of his job because he doesn't know how to mask the truth. This is a long interview but it is very much worth reading, because this shows a real road-map of where the war is headed.
Lieutenant General Ya'alon, what was your mission in the past four and a half years?
"I have no doubt that life or fate or history brought me to the boiling point and the point of decision in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It doesn't begin in these four and a half years, in which I served as chief of staff and before that as deputy chief of staff. It begins far before that. I very much wanted to bring about the end of the conflict. Very much so. I did not delude myself during the Oslo period, but I had hope. When I took over as director of Military Intelligence I started to ask questions. And I did not get persuasive replies. Gradually the facts I encountered started to change me. Until at a certain stage I reached the conclusion that we were in a situation of reverse asymmetry. That we were in retreat, whereas the Palestinians were on the offensive. Therefore I thought that our mission was to create a wall in the face of the Palestinians. To prove to them that terrorism does not pay. Yes, to burn that into their consciousness - even if there are some who do not like that term. Because if we do not do that, Israel will be in serious trouble. If the terror is successful, it will continue even more intensively. It is liable to inflict the next war on us and the next stage. Therefore the wall of consciousness is essential.
Were you successful in building that wall?
"In part."
Where were you successful?
"The success lies in the fact that in this violent round we succeeded in making he Palestinians aware of the need to stop the terrorism. We did this by means of the transition from defense to offense, from Operation Defensive Shield [spring 2002] and afterward. You have to understand: a fence does not solve the problem of terrorism. The fence is an important means in the ability to prevent infiltration, but it is not the ultimate means. The ultimate means is the ability to get to the terrorist in his bed.
"Therefore, the freedom of action we acquired as a result of taking control of the territory was what generated the turnabout. It reduced the number of casualties; reinforced our staying power; improved the economic situation; and obtained international legitimization.
"In contrast, it made the situation of the Palestinians go from bad to worse. Losses. Anarchy. The disintegration of the social fabric. Therefore, even before the disengagement plan and even before Arafat's death, they started to do some mental stocktaking. The awareness was forged that terrorism does not pay. That was the great Israeli achievement in this war."
But you say the success was partial; what did not succeed?
"If after all this the Palestinians are talking about the right of return in concrete terms and not just declaratively, that means we did not succeed in building a wall in the political sphere. On the Palestinian side, we still find a viewpoint and thinking in terms of the phased doctrine. The most significant development in this regard is the Cairo agreement between Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and Hamas. What Abu Mazen said in reference to this agreement shows that he has not given up the right of return. And this is not a symbolic right of return but the right of return as a claim to be realized. To return to the houses, to return to the villages. The implication of this is that there will not be a Jewish state here."
In other words, despite everything, despite four years of war, even Abu Mazen is unwilling to accept the existence of a Jewish state here?
"Even Abu Mazen. Even after four and a half years of war against Palestinian terrorism, we have not succeeded in convincing them to forgo their dreams about the return. All we succeeded in doing is to convince them that terrorism does not pay. From other points of view, too, the Palestinian Authority has not liberated itself from the Arafat era. When it permits Hamas to take part in the elections without abandoning its firearms, is that democracy? It's gangs. Armed gangs playing at pretend democracy. For the Palestinians it is still convenient to maintain a gang-based reality rather than a state foundation."
I will say what you are not saying: In these four years there was a phenomenal Israeli military achievement.
"That is what foreign armies are saying."
But there was a failure in translating the military achievement into a historic political achievement?
"Time will tell. I repeat what I said: we have a situation of reverse asymmetry. The State of Israel is ready to give the Palestinians an independent Palestinian state, but the Palestinians are not ready to give us an independent Jewish state. Thus the situation here is not stable. That is why every agreement that will be made is the point of departure for the next development of irredentism. For the next conflict. The next war. Despite their military weakness, the Palestinians feel that they are making progress. They have a feeling of success. Whereas we are waging a battle of withdrawal and delay."
Are you saying that historically, Israel is in a process of retreat and delay?
"Clearly. Clearly."
We are retreating without achievements?
"We are retreating without our having a narrative. Without our having an agreed story. Look, the whole question is whether your withdrawal is perceived by the other side as an act of choice or an act of flight. If it is perceived as a flight, they will continue to come after you; it is is perceived as a choice, everything looks different. As of today, three months before the disengagement, it is still not clear whether they will treat it as a flight or as a choice."
Are we heading into a dramatic summer?
"There is no doubt that this will be a dramatic summer. Until disengagement the interest will be to maintain calm. What will happen after the disengagement? If there is an Israeli commitment to another move, we will gain another period of quiet. If not, there will be an eruption."
How serious is that eruption liable to be?
"Terrorist attacks of all types: shooting, bombs, suicide bombers, mortars, Qassam rockets. It stands to reason that in the initial stage they will have an interest in demonstrating quiet in the Gaza Strip. But if there is an eruption in Judea and Samaria, Gaza will not remain quiet."
Are you saying that the first violent outburst will come from Judea and Samaria?
"Yes."
Because that is territory we have not yet withdrawn from?
"Correct. Over the years, the Palestinians have been trying to show us that territory we leave becomes quiet. I have no doubt that they will have in interest in demonstrating that after the pullout from Gaza there will be a period of quiet there. You left Gaza? You get quiet. You will leave Judea and Samaria? You will get quiet. Leave Tel Aviv and things will be completely quiet."
Do you see a return of the suicide bombings?
"Definitely. They will not forgo the suicide bombings. The suicide bombings and the Qassam rockets have something in common: they bypass the IDF. They are means of bypassing Israeli military might and striking at the civilian society."
By your logic, the Palestinians will now place Kfar Sava in their sights?
"Of course. It is as clear as day to me. If we get into a confrontation at the political level, if we do not give the Palestinians more and more and more, there will be a violent outburst. It will begin in Judea and Samaria."
So the cities on the border of the West Bank will be in the situation of the Gaza line settlements? Kfar Sava's situation will be that of Sderot?
"And Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, too. There will be suicide bombings wherever they can perpetrate them."
What you are saying, then, is that there is a high probability of the eruption of a third intifada?
"It is not an intifada. We have to stop calling it an intifada. It is a war."
Let me rephrase: there is a high probability of a second war of terror?
"Yes."
Within how much time?
"It depends how the story of this summer is recorded by each side. And whether the disengagement is implemented under fire or not."
Will the disengagement be implemented under fire?
"It is very probable that there will be a trickle of fire. But if the fire is massive, the IDF will distance the threat. Forces have been allocated for that."
Are you saying that in order to leave Gush Katif - the Gaza settlement bloc - we will have to enter Khan Yunis?
"If there is shooting from there? Yes, we are deploying for that."
No stability, everything is open
How long will the evacuation last?
"I don't know."
The chief of the General Staff does not know how long the evacuation of the Gaza District will last?
"The question is whether we evacuate 8,000 residents or 20,000 Israeli citizens or maybe 50,000. If you evacuate 8,000, it could last three weeks. If you have to evacuate more, it could take longer."
A minimum of three weeks and a maximum of three months?
"I treat all the numbers on this subject with a grain of salt."
In other words, we have an open process here?
"In terms of the timetable? Yes. It is not easy to evacuate people from their homes against their will."
As the one behind the operative plan of the evacuation of the settlements, what worries you most?
"A subject that worries me a great deal is that there will be a decision by the elected level in Israel that the army will not be able to carry out."
Could that happen?
"We are readying for all scenarios. The army will implement the mission. Even if takes more time, the army and the police will carry it out. The problem will not be the army's implementation ability, but the combination of things. You start the operation and things happen and the government stops you. In such situations, government decisions can be made during the course of the operation."
Is that a feasible scenario?
"In certain conditions, everything is possible. And a situation in which the government has made a decision that the state is unable to implement is liable to be traumatic."
What you are saying is that the disengagement is not yet a fait accompli?
"If and when we complete the move, we will talk about a fait accompli."
Did you say 'if'?
"I have experience. I live in the ambiguity in which I live. And I live the reality that I live."
Part of that reality is Hamas. Does that organization's strengthening stem from the disengagement?
"There is no doubt that Hamas has appropriated the disengagement. But the reason Hamas is getting stronger is that Fatah is corrupt."
Is it possible that Hamas will take over the Gaza Strip?
"It is."
Is it probable?
"If Fatah continues to behave as it does now, Hamas will eventually take over the Gaza Strip."
So in two or three years we are liable to find ourselves facing a Hamas-led Gaza Strip?
"Yes."
Can Israel allow itself a Gaza Strip that is controlled by Hamas?
"We are strong enough to come up with solutions for everything. But it will not bring stability. It will oblige us to be confrontational."
Do you see the IDF returning to the Gaza Strip?
"I do not rule it out."
Do you see additional operations such as Defensive Shield in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?
"I do not rule out anything. We are not reaching a situation of stability here. And when the situation is not stable, everything is open."
Do you still think Israel is creating a tailwind for its enemies?
"I do not like the political use that was made of my professional statements. But to say that in regard to certain situations one need not be chief of staff."
Overall, are we headed for a situation of dividing the land?
"In the past decade, the government of Israel and Israeli society decided to divide the land. In the present reality, I see difficulty in producing a stable situation of end-of-conflict within that paradigm."
A story divorced from reality
I am not sure I understand what you mean.
"We are talking about a viable Palestinian state. Those kinds of situations can be created in Europe: Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg. But here the situation is different. The Palestinian side does not harbor a feeling of thus far and no farther - not even in regard to the 1967 borders. They are talking about Safed and Haifa and Tel Aviv. And economically, too, Judea and Samaria and Gaza are not a viable state."
So are you saying that the thought that a two-state solution is within reach, is incompatible with reality?
"That paradigm does not bring about stability, no."
You maintain that the two-state solution cannot work. You maintain that what is agreed by the whole world and a large part of the Israeli public is without foundation.
"It is not relevant. Not relevant. It is a story that the Western world tells with Western eyes. And that story does not comprehend the scale of the gap and the scale of the problem. We too are sweeping it under the carpet."
What will happen if the world nevertheless imposes a two-state solution in the years ahead?
"It is difficult to impose things that have no foundation. Something that is imposed and is unstable blows up."
What alternative paradigm do you posit in place of the two-state paradigm?
"The paradigm of a far longer process. Far longer. One that obliges above all a revolution of values by the other side. Another possibility is to go beyond the paradigm of the Western Land of Israel, to enter into regional solutions."
Are you proposing to give the Palestinians land that is beyond the Western Land of Israel?
"We were in that situation before 1967: the West Bank was connected to Jordan, the Gaza Strip to Egypt. Today it is not relevant. But let us not delude ourselves. I do not see stability in the present paradigm and in the present state of affairs. I do not see a conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in my generation."
Is the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and in 85 to 100 percent of the West Bank not feasible?
"That is an idea that does not bring about a stable situation. No. We can go for that, but from there the confrontation will continue."
So the establishment of that Palestinian state will lead to war?
"Yes, at some stage."
Could that war be dangerous for Israel?
"Of course."
Can the establishment of a Palestinian state in the present conditions create a semi-existential threat to Israel?
"If that solution were to be imposed tomorrow morning it would bring about the continuation of the irredentism, the continuation of the conflict."
Is the idea that a Palestinian state can be established during the current term of office of U.S. President Bush, and stability achieved, divorced from reality?
"Divorced from reality."
And dangerous?
"Dangerous, of course."
If a Palestinian state is established now, will it necessarily be a hostile state?
"It will be a state that will try to undermine Israel. As long as there is no internalization of our right to exist as a Jewish state, and as long as there is insistence on concrete elements of the right of return, any such agreement will be like the construction of a house in which you plant a bomb. At some stage, the bomb will explode."
So what you are saying is that the idea of an immediate Palestinian state and of a two-state solution is a mirage.
"We have created a paradigm that generates an illusion. We have to think in long-term historical terms. Think about a lengthy process. Not something that is finished here and now and gives us an end to the conflict. There is no such solution now."
The sword must remain drawn
So the parting words of the outgoing chief of staff are that in this generation and perhaps in the next one, too, the sword will be an integral part of our lives?
"Without a doubt, without a doubt. And let us hope we can make do with a sheathed sword. In the realm of conventional wars, we have succeeded. Our sword is sheathed. Why is it that the army no longer has to fight wars of the 1967 and 1973 type? Because of our might. Because of the advantage we have acquired, which is mostly blue-and-white. The Israeli brain, Israeli technologies, Israeli fighters. That is why the sword is sheathed. But in the sphere of terrorism and in the sphere of the other capabilities which are trying to bypass the army and strike at the civilian population, our sword must remain drawn. It must remain drawn every day."
Is this what Israeli mothers are supposed to tell their sons and daughters?
"Yes. They have to tell them that they were born into a society of struggle. We should be happy that we have a home to defend. I have just returned from a visit to the death camps in Poland: once we did not have that [a home], either. And when we did not have a home, we saw what happened to us there 60 years ago. Not only a home for Israelis. For the whole Jewish people. But we have to continue to struggle for that home. To fight for our independence."
Are we in the midst of this struggle?
"Certainly. It is less intensive than when five countries invaded in the War of Independence, but it is not over."
What are you saying to Israelis as you conclude your term as chief of staff? What hope are you giving them?
"Shortly before the outbreak of the current confrontation I gave a talk to a group of civilians. At the end of the talk, a mother got up and said: `What you are saying is that I deluded my children when I told them they were going to live in a Western society of abundance; what you are saying is that we have not reached a situation of peace and security and we are still a society of struggle.' I told that mother that what she said was my recompense: if that is the conclusion she draw from my remarks, my talk was worthwhile.
"What am I saying to the Israeli public? I am saying that we are still a society of struggle. We have not reached a situation of peace and security. The cup is full. Very full. But it has to be said clearly that we are a society of struggle. With no illusions. Without false beliefs that we will resolve it with one move or another. No. It will not be resolved. And we have to see that with open eyes. It has to be said clearly. We have to prepare for the future with forbearance. With staying power. To broadcast this quiet strength. But under no circumstances to confuse ourselves with hopes that turn into illusions, which people try to translate into working plans that do not connect with reality. And not to immerse ourselves in the obsession that we are always to blame. We have to understand that what is now on the agenda is the question of our right of existence as an independent Jewish state. That is the subject. That is what we are still struggling for."
Do you harbor an existential fear?
"Of course. In the intelligence appraisal I submitted in 1998 I said that the existential threat lies precisely in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not Iran and not Syria and not Iraq, which still existed then. Those are not existential threats. There is one internal existential threat which concerns me very much, but I will not discuss it as long as I am in uniform. But the external existential threat is the Palestinian threat.
"Not that I am not concerned that Iran will have a nuclear bomb. But I am not worried that the bomb will fall here. I am worried about submerged processes it is liable to foment in the region. Whereas in the Palestinian case, I see that a combination of terrorism and demography, with question marks among us about the rightness of our way are a recipe for a situation in which there will not be a Jewish state here in the end."
Your outlook is exceptional - you are not part of the Israeli consensus.
"That is nothing new. Since November 1999 I have seen the writing on the wall: a war is about to break out. And I have to deploy for war when the situation of the Israeli consciousness is that peace is around the corner, that by summer of 2000 we will have peace. But even afterward, even after the fire erupts, there is a disparity between my conception of the confrontation and that of the people I work with. I remember myself coming to cabinet meetings and meetings of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee during the war and asking myself where they are living and where I am living. The gaps are enormous. The feeling is that you are fighting over a hollow arena."
Did you feel alone; that you were not understood?
"Of course. But first of all I felt deep worry. Because when you have to use force you need the backing of Israeli society. It is impossible to activate force without backing. Impossible. I call that intra-Israeli legitimation. I knew how to explain why we have to demolish homes in Rafah in order to prevent Katyushas falling in Ashkelon, but I was stopped because someone saw a photograph of one kind or another and had something to say. I saw those photographs every day. But I came with a deep feeling of the rightness of the way even when I was forced to demolish a house. But when you do not have intra-Israeli backing, you stop. Therefore, because of lack of agreement about the diagnosis, we moved from defense to offense very late. We paid a high price in human life only because of a lack of understanding about what happened to us here. Because of lack of agreement about the story."
That loneliness was a fundamental part of your term, was it not?
"The most difficult moments of the war came during the meetings of the security cabinet. You try to exert influence about a certain matter and find yourself almost alone. You find yourself without agreement about who the enemy is and what the war is about. A commander is always alone. Certainly a chief of staff. But in this case it was far beyond personal loneliness. It is the understanding that you perceive the situation in this way and everyone else perceives it differently. When what is at stake is the fate of your nation and your country, that is hard. Very hard."
Did your ouster pain you?
"This is not the moment to talk about that. Throughout my service I tried to eradicate phenomena of a criminal subculture. As though the law were an off-the-shelf product, ethics an off-the-shelf product. If you want, you use it; if not, you don't. And there is above the table and under the table. And an officer who is vigilant about honesty and integrity is a dolt. An officer who operates by manipulation and speculation is smart.
"In my eyes all this is a sickness, and when a sickness touches senior figures it is already a terminal disease. I tried to fight against that terminal disease. I waged a war of principle against it. Therefore, when the moment you are speaking about arrived, I thought that a very problematic message was being conveyed. But my feeling is that I lost a battle, not a war."
Will Citizen Bogey continue to wage that campaign from the place where Chief of Staff Ya'alon stopped?
"I am still in uniform. I need disengagement."
Lieutenant General Ya'alon, what was your mission in the past four and a half years?
"I have no doubt that life or fate or history brought me to the boiling point and the point of decision in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It doesn't begin in these four and a half years, in which I served as chief of staff and before that as deputy chief of staff. It begins far before that. I very much wanted to bring about the end of the conflict. Very much so. I did not delude myself during the Oslo period, but I had hope. When I took over as director of Military Intelligence I started to ask questions. And I did not get persuasive replies. Gradually the facts I encountered started to change me. Until at a certain stage I reached the conclusion that we were in a situation of reverse asymmetry. That we were in retreat, whereas the Palestinians were on the offensive. Therefore I thought that our mission was to create a wall in the face of the Palestinians. To prove to them that terrorism does not pay. Yes, to burn that into their consciousness - even if there are some who do not like that term. Because if we do not do that, Israel will be in serious trouble. If the terror is successful, it will continue even more intensively. It is liable to inflict the next war on us and the next stage. Therefore the wall of consciousness is essential.
Were you successful in building that wall?
"In part."
Where were you successful?
"The success lies in the fact that in this violent round we succeeded in making he Palestinians aware of the need to stop the terrorism. We did this by means of the transition from defense to offense, from Operation Defensive Shield [spring 2002] and afterward. You have to understand: a fence does not solve the problem of terrorism. The fence is an important means in the ability to prevent infiltration, but it is not the ultimate means. The ultimate means is the ability to get to the terrorist in his bed.
"Therefore, the freedom of action we acquired as a result of taking control of the territory was what generated the turnabout. It reduced the number of casualties; reinforced our staying power; improved the economic situation; and obtained international legitimization.
"In contrast, it made the situation of the Palestinians go from bad to worse. Losses. Anarchy. The disintegration of the social fabric. Therefore, even before the disengagement plan and even before Arafat's death, they started to do some mental stocktaking. The awareness was forged that terrorism does not pay. That was the great Israeli achievement in this war."
But you say the success was partial; what did not succeed?
"If after all this the Palestinians are talking about the right of return in concrete terms and not just declaratively, that means we did not succeed in building a wall in the political sphere. On the Palestinian side, we still find a viewpoint and thinking in terms of the phased doctrine. The most significant development in this regard is the Cairo agreement between Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and Hamas. What Abu Mazen said in reference to this agreement shows that he has not given up the right of return. And this is not a symbolic right of return but the right of return as a claim to be realized. To return to the houses, to return to the villages. The implication of this is that there will not be a Jewish state here."
In other words, despite everything, despite four years of war, even Abu Mazen is unwilling to accept the existence of a Jewish state here?
"Even Abu Mazen. Even after four and a half years of war against Palestinian terrorism, we have not succeeded in convincing them to forgo their dreams about the return. All we succeeded in doing is to convince them that terrorism does not pay. From other points of view, too, the Palestinian Authority has not liberated itself from the Arafat era. When it permits Hamas to take part in the elections without abandoning its firearms, is that democracy? It's gangs. Armed gangs playing at pretend democracy. For the Palestinians it is still convenient to maintain a gang-based reality rather than a state foundation."
I will say what you are not saying: In these four years there was a phenomenal Israeli military achievement.
"That is what foreign armies are saying."
But there was a failure in translating the military achievement into a historic political achievement?
"Time will tell. I repeat what I said: we have a situation of reverse asymmetry. The State of Israel is ready to give the Palestinians an independent Palestinian state, but the Palestinians are not ready to give us an independent Jewish state. Thus the situation here is not stable. That is why every agreement that will be made is the point of departure for the next development of irredentism. For the next conflict. The next war. Despite their military weakness, the Palestinians feel that they are making progress. They have a feeling of success. Whereas we are waging a battle of withdrawal and delay."
Are you saying that historically, Israel is in a process of retreat and delay?
"Clearly. Clearly."
We are retreating without achievements?
"We are retreating without our having a narrative. Without our having an agreed story. Look, the whole question is whether your withdrawal is perceived by the other side as an act of choice or an act of flight. If it is perceived as a flight, they will continue to come after you; it is is perceived as a choice, everything looks different. As of today, three months before the disengagement, it is still not clear whether they will treat it as a flight or as a choice."
Are we heading into a dramatic summer?
"There is no doubt that this will be a dramatic summer. Until disengagement the interest will be to maintain calm. What will happen after the disengagement? If there is an Israeli commitment to another move, we will gain another period of quiet. If not, there will be an eruption."
How serious is that eruption liable to be?
"Terrorist attacks of all types: shooting, bombs, suicide bombers, mortars, Qassam rockets. It stands to reason that in the initial stage they will have an interest in demonstrating quiet in the Gaza Strip. But if there is an eruption in Judea and Samaria, Gaza will not remain quiet."
Are you saying that the first violent outburst will come from Judea and Samaria?
"Yes."
Because that is territory we have not yet withdrawn from?
"Correct. Over the years, the Palestinians have been trying to show us that territory we leave becomes quiet. I have no doubt that they will have in interest in demonstrating that after the pullout from Gaza there will be a period of quiet there. You left Gaza? You get quiet. You will leave Judea and Samaria? You will get quiet. Leave Tel Aviv and things will be completely quiet."
Do you see a return of the suicide bombings?
"Definitely. They will not forgo the suicide bombings. The suicide bombings and the Qassam rockets have something in common: they bypass the IDF. They are means of bypassing Israeli military might and striking at the civilian society."
By your logic, the Palestinians will now place Kfar Sava in their sights?
"Of course. It is as clear as day to me. If we get into a confrontation at the political level, if we do not give the Palestinians more and more and more, there will be a violent outburst. It will begin in Judea and Samaria."
So the cities on the border of the West Bank will be in the situation of the Gaza line settlements? Kfar Sava's situation will be that of Sderot?
"And Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, too. There will be suicide bombings wherever they can perpetrate them."
What you are saying, then, is that there is a high probability of the eruption of a third intifada?
"It is not an intifada. We have to stop calling it an intifada. It is a war."
Let me rephrase: there is a high probability of a second war of terror?
"Yes."
Within how much time?
"It depends how the story of this summer is recorded by each side. And whether the disengagement is implemented under fire or not."
Will the disengagement be implemented under fire?
"It is very probable that there will be a trickle of fire. But if the fire is massive, the IDF will distance the threat. Forces have been allocated for that."
Are you saying that in order to leave Gush Katif - the Gaza settlement bloc - we will have to enter Khan Yunis?
"If there is shooting from there? Yes, we are deploying for that."
No stability, everything is open
How long will the evacuation last?
"I don't know."
The chief of the General Staff does not know how long the evacuation of the Gaza District will last?
"The question is whether we evacuate 8,000 residents or 20,000 Israeli citizens or maybe 50,000. If you evacuate 8,000, it could last three weeks. If you have to evacuate more, it could take longer."
A minimum of three weeks and a maximum of three months?
"I treat all the numbers on this subject with a grain of salt."
In other words, we have an open process here?
"In terms of the timetable? Yes. It is not easy to evacuate people from their homes against their will."
As the one behind the operative plan of the evacuation of the settlements, what worries you most?
"A subject that worries me a great deal is that there will be a decision by the elected level in Israel that the army will not be able to carry out."
Could that happen?
"We are readying for all scenarios. The army will implement the mission. Even if takes more time, the army and the police will carry it out. The problem will not be the army's implementation ability, but the combination of things. You start the operation and things happen and the government stops you. In such situations, government decisions can be made during the course of the operation."
Is that a feasible scenario?
"In certain conditions, everything is possible. And a situation in which the government has made a decision that the state is unable to implement is liable to be traumatic."
What you are saying is that the disengagement is not yet a fait accompli?
"If and when we complete the move, we will talk about a fait accompli."
Did you say 'if'?
"I have experience. I live in the ambiguity in which I live. And I live the reality that I live."
Part of that reality is Hamas. Does that organization's strengthening stem from the disengagement?
"There is no doubt that Hamas has appropriated the disengagement. But the reason Hamas is getting stronger is that Fatah is corrupt."
Is it possible that Hamas will take over the Gaza Strip?
"It is."
Is it probable?
"If Fatah continues to behave as it does now, Hamas will eventually take over the Gaza Strip."
So in two or three years we are liable to find ourselves facing a Hamas-led Gaza Strip?
"Yes."
Can Israel allow itself a Gaza Strip that is controlled by Hamas?
"We are strong enough to come up with solutions for everything. But it will not bring stability. It will oblige us to be confrontational."
Do you see the IDF returning to the Gaza Strip?
"I do not rule it out."
Do you see additional operations such as Defensive Shield in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?
"I do not rule out anything. We are not reaching a situation of stability here. And when the situation is not stable, everything is open."
Do you still think Israel is creating a tailwind for its enemies?
"I do not like the political use that was made of my professional statements. But to say that in regard to certain situations one need not be chief of staff."
Overall, are we headed for a situation of dividing the land?
"In the past decade, the government of Israel and Israeli society decided to divide the land. In the present reality, I see difficulty in producing a stable situation of end-of-conflict within that paradigm."
A story divorced from reality
I am not sure I understand what you mean.
"We are talking about a viable Palestinian state. Those kinds of situations can be created in Europe: Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg. But here the situation is different. The Palestinian side does not harbor a feeling of thus far and no farther - not even in regard to the 1967 borders. They are talking about Safed and Haifa and Tel Aviv. And economically, too, Judea and Samaria and Gaza are not a viable state."
So are you saying that the thought that a two-state solution is within reach, is incompatible with reality?
"That paradigm does not bring about stability, no."
You maintain that the two-state solution cannot work. You maintain that what is agreed by the whole world and a large part of the Israeli public is without foundation.
"It is not relevant. Not relevant. It is a story that the Western world tells with Western eyes. And that story does not comprehend the scale of the gap and the scale of the problem. We too are sweeping it under the carpet."
What will happen if the world nevertheless imposes a two-state solution in the years ahead?
"It is difficult to impose things that have no foundation. Something that is imposed and is unstable blows up."
What alternative paradigm do you posit in place of the two-state paradigm?
"The paradigm of a far longer process. Far longer. One that obliges above all a revolution of values by the other side. Another possibility is to go beyond the paradigm of the Western Land of Israel, to enter into regional solutions."
Are you proposing to give the Palestinians land that is beyond the Western Land of Israel?
"We were in that situation before 1967: the West Bank was connected to Jordan, the Gaza Strip to Egypt. Today it is not relevant. But let us not delude ourselves. I do not see stability in the present paradigm and in the present state of affairs. I do not see a conclusion to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in my generation."
Is the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and in 85 to 100 percent of the West Bank not feasible?
"That is an idea that does not bring about a stable situation. No. We can go for that, but from there the confrontation will continue."
So the establishment of that Palestinian state will lead to war?
"Yes, at some stage."
Could that war be dangerous for Israel?
"Of course."
Can the establishment of a Palestinian state in the present conditions create a semi-existential threat to Israel?
"If that solution were to be imposed tomorrow morning it would bring about the continuation of the irredentism, the continuation of the conflict."
Is the idea that a Palestinian state can be established during the current term of office of U.S. President Bush, and stability achieved, divorced from reality?
"Divorced from reality."
And dangerous?
"Dangerous, of course."
If a Palestinian state is established now, will it necessarily be a hostile state?
"It will be a state that will try to undermine Israel. As long as there is no internalization of our right to exist as a Jewish state, and as long as there is insistence on concrete elements of the right of return, any such agreement will be like the construction of a house in which you plant a bomb. At some stage, the bomb will explode."
So what you are saying is that the idea of an immediate Palestinian state and of a two-state solution is a mirage.
"We have created a paradigm that generates an illusion. We have to think in long-term historical terms. Think about a lengthy process. Not something that is finished here and now and gives us an end to the conflict. There is no such solution now."
The sword must remain drawn
So the parting words of the outgoing chief of staff are that in this generation and perhaps in the next one, too, the sword will be an integral part of our lives?
"Without a doubt, without a doubt. And let us hope we can make do with a sheathed sword. In the realm of conventional wars, we have succeeded. Our sword is sheathed. Why is it that the army no longer has to fight wars of the 1967 and 1973 type? Because of our might. Because of the advantage we have acquired, which is mostly blue-and-white. The Israeli brain, Israeli technologies, Israeli fighters. That is why the sword is sheathed. But in the sphere of terrorism and in the sphere of the other capabilities which are trying to bypass the army and strike at the civilian population, our sword must remain drawn. It must remain drawn every day."
Is this what Israeli mothers are supposed to tell their sons and daughters?
"Yes. They have to tell them that they were born into a society of struggle. We should be happy that we have a home to defend. I have just returned from a visit to the death camps in Poland: once we did not have that [a home], either. And when we did not have a home, we saw what happened to us there 60 years ago. Not only a home for Israelis. For the whole Jewish people. But we have to continue to struggle for that home. To fight for our independence."
Are we in the midst of this struggle?
"Certainly. It is less intensive than when five countries invaded in the War of Independence, but it is not over."
What are you saying to Israelis as you conclude your term as chief of staff? What hope are you giving them?
"Shortly before the outbreak of the current confrontation I gave a talk to a group of civilians. At the end of the talk, a mother got up and said: `What you are saying is that I deluded my children when I told them they were going to live in a Western society of abundance; what you are saying is that we have not reached a situation of peace and security and we are still a society of struggle.' I told that mother that what she said was my recompense: if that is the conclusion she draw from my remarks, my talk was worthwhile.
"What am I saying to the Israeli public? I am saying that we are still a society of struggle. We have not reached a situation of peace and security. The cup is full. Very full. But it has to be said clearly that we are a society of struggle. With no illusions. Without false beliefs that we will resolve it with one move or another. No. It will not be resolved. And we have to see that with open eyes. It has to be said clearly. We have to prepare for the future with forbearance. With staying power. To broadcast this quiet strength. But under no circumstances to confuse ourselves with hopes that turn into illusions, which people try to translate into working plans that do not connect with reality. And not to immerse ourselves in the obsession that we are always to blame. We have to understand that what is now on the agenda is the question of our right of existence as an independent Jewish state. That is the subject. That is what we are still struggling for."
Do you harbor an existential fear?
"Of course. In the intelligence appraisal I submitted in 1998 I said that the existential threat lies precisely in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not Iran and not Syria and not Iraq, which still existed then. Those are not existential threats. There is one internal existential threat which concerns me very much, but I will not discuss it as long as I am in uniform. But the external existential threat is the Palestinian threat.
"Not that I am not concerned that Iran will have a nuclear bomb. But I am not worried that the bomb will fall here. I am worried about submerged processes it is liable to foment in the region. Whereas in the Palestinian case, I see that a combination of terrorism and demography, with question marks among us about the rightness of our way are a recipe for a situation in which there will not be a Jewish state here in the end."
Your outlook is exceptional - you are not part of the Israeli consensus.
"That is nothing new. Since November 1999 I have seen the writing on the wall: a war is about to break out. And I have to deploy for war when the situation of the Israeli consciousness is that peace is around the corner, that by summer of 2000 we will have peace. But even afterward, even after the fire erupts, there is a disparity between my conception of the confrontation and that of the people I work with. I remember myself coming to cabinet meetings and meetings of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee during the war and asking myself where they are living and where I am living. The gaps are enormous. The feeling is that you are fighting over a hollow arena."
Did you feel alone; that you were not understood?
"Of course. But first of all I felt deep worry. Because when you have to use force you need the backing of Israeli society. It is impossible to activate force without backing. Impossible. I call that intra-Israeli legitimation. I knew how to explain why we have to demolish homes in Rafah in order to prevent Katyushas falling in Ashkelon, but I was stopped because someone saw a photograph of one kind or another and had something to say. I saw those photographs every day. But I came with a deep feeling of the rightness of the way even when I was forced to demolish a house. But when you do not have intra-Israeli backing, you stop. Therefore, because of lack of agreement about the diagnosis, we moved from defense to offense very late. We paid a high price in human life only because of a lack of understanding about what happened to us here. Because of lack of agreement about the story."
That loneliness was a fundamental part of your term, was it not?
"The most difficult moments of the war came during the meetings of the security cabinet. You try to exert influence about a certain matter and find yourself almost alone. You find yourself without agreement about who the enemy is and what the war is about. A commander is always alone. Certainly a chief of staff. But in this case it was far beyond personal loneliness. It is the understanding that you perceive the situation in this way and everyone else perceives it differently. When what is at stake is the fate of your nation and your country, that is hard. Very hard."
Did your ouster pain you?
"This is not the moment to talk about that. Throughout my service I tried to eradicate phenomena of a criminal subculture. As though the law were an off-the-shelf product, ethics an off-the-shelf product. If you want, you use it; if not, you don't. And there is above the table and under the table. And an officer who is vigilant about honesty and integrity is a dolt. An officer who operates by manipulation and speculation is smart.
"In my eyes all this is a sickness, and when a sickness touches senior figures it is already a terminal disease. I tried to fight against that terminal disease. I waged a war of principle against it. Therefore, when the moment you are speaking about arrived, I thought that a very problematic message was being conveyed. But my feeling is that I lost a battle, not a war."
Will Citizen Bogey continue to wage that campaign from the place where Chief of Staff Ya'alon stopped?
"I am still in uniform. I need disengagement."
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
- Tuesday, June 07, 2005
- Elder of Ziyon
In my travels through the Palestine Post archives today, I found something astounding (to me, at least.) I saw that someone was arrested for blowing a shofar at the Western Wall at the conclusion of Yom Kippur:
What was this all about? Why should it be illegal for Jews to do a simple and important religious ceremony?
Throughout the '30s I kept seeing similar stories printed.
And it was only at the Wall, not in synagogues or anything like that. So what the hell was going on?
And the penalty - 6 months in prison for blowing a shofar?
Something was seriously wrong, and soon it became apparent what the problem was.
Ah, now it becomes clear.
A Jew does something that is a religious requirement, that takes a couple of seconds, that disturbs nobody - and Arabs rioted in 1929.
Not just rioted, but they murdered 135 Jews, expelling Jews from communities (like Hebron) that they had lived in for centuries.
And the British blamed the Jews. Because one of the riots started in 1929 after a Jew blowed a Shofar at the Kotel.
In the bizarre logic of genteel anti-semitism, Jews must be punished for the murderous actions of Arabs. And the ironic flip-side of such an attitude is that Arabs are treated like savages who cannot be expected to control themselves.
This is a role that we have seen time and time again the Arabs take advantage of - they themselves have now brought up generations that believe that the Arab world has no responsibility for their actions. The gullible West, wracked with guilt over crimes of colonialism and liberal angst that favors the underdog no matter how deadly they are, do not hold them accountable for their actions.
So we have riots in 1929 that were the fault of a Jewish shofar blower, we have an intifada in 2001 that is the fault of a politician taking a walk on a Jewish holy site nearby, we have deadly demonstrations for the supposed desecration of a printed book.
And who can blame Arabs for acting this way? It has been shown to be a successful strategy! The Western fear of the mythical Arab street has fueled brain-dead decisions like the British made in the 1930s. Arabs daily threaten the West with the "power" of their people who can be whipped up into a frenzy with a single word from a sheikh. And the West slavishly decides, whoa, we cannot risk the wrath of a billion Arabs, we'd better force the Jews do make more concessions instead, because Jews are intelligent and can see reason, unlike the Arab savages whom we are scared of.
It is a winning formula. The 1921 riots, the 1929 riots, the 1936 strike and violence, the 1989 intifada, the 2001 intifada - all are cases where violence by Arabs are rewarded by the West rather than punished. And as long as terror and violence is rewarded and the victims perversely blamed, it is a formula that is guaranteed to be repeated far into the future.
The only ray of hope are the people who truly know the difference between good and evil and who will fight for good no matter what the conventional wisdom is. People like those who, every year in the 1930s and after, made sure that the shofar was still blown at the Kotel.
Those are the heroes.
What was this all about? Why should it be illegal for Jews to do a simple and important religious ceremony?
Throughout the '30s I kept seeing similar stories printed.
And it was only at the Wall, not in synagogues or anything like that. So what the hell was going on?
And the penalty - 6 months in prison for blowing a shofar?
Something was seriously wrong, and soon it became apparent what the problem was.
Ah, now it becomes clear.
A Jew does something that is a religious requirement, that takes a couple of seconds, that disturbs nobody - and Arabs rioted in 1929.
Not just rioted, but they murdered 135 Jews, expelling Jews from communities (like Hebron) that they had lived in for centuries.
And the British blamed the Jews. Because one of the riots started in 1929 after a Jew blowed a Shofar at the Kotel.
In the bizarre logic of genteel anti-semitism, Jews must be punished for the murderous actions of Arabs. And the ironic flip-side of such an attitude is that Arabs are treated like savages who cannot be expected to control themselves.
This is a role that we have seen time and time again the Arabs take advantage of - they themselves have now brought up generations that believe that the Arab world has no responsibility for their actions. The gullible West, wracked with guilt over crimes of colonialism and liberal angst that favors the underdog no matter how deadly they are, do not hold them accountable for their actions.
So we have riots in 1929 that were the fault of a Jewish shofar blower, we have an intifada in 2001 that is the fault of a politician taking a walk on a Jewish holy site nearby, we have deadly demonstrations for the supposed desecration of a printed book.
And who can blame Arabs for acting this way? It has been shown to be a successful strategy! The Western fear of the mythical Arab street has fueled brain-dead decisions like the British made in the 1930s. Arabs daily threaten the West with the "power" of their people who can be whipped up into a frenzy with a single word from a sheikh. And the West slavishly decides, whoa, we cannot risk the wrath of a billion Arabs, we'd better force the Jews do make more concessions instead, because Jews are intelligent and can see reason, unlike the Arab savages whom we are scared of.
It is a winning formula. The 1921 riots, the 1929 riots, the 1936 strike and violence, the 1989 intifada, the 2001 intifada - all are cases where violence by Arabs are rewarded by the West rather than punished. And as long as terror and violence is rewarded and the victims perversely blamed, it is a formula that is guaranteed to be repeated far into the future.
The only ray of hope are the people who truly know the difference between good and evil and who will fight for good no matter what the conventional wisdom is. People like those who, every year in the 1930s and after, made sure that the shofar was still blown at the Kotel.
Those are the heroes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
