Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, August 11, 2005

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.

Rashi's 900th Yahrzeit

Today is the 900th anniversary of Rashi's death.

I only mention this because the picture I chose for myself is actually supposed to be a portrait of Rashi:

Also, the Shlock Rock version of the Association's Windy, called Rashi, is very catchy.

August 4, 1935: Persian Crypto-Jews arrive in Palestine

In 1839, the Muslims in Persia instituted a pogrom against the Jews in Mashad. As a result, the hundreds of Jewish families who lived there were given a choice of conversion or death. Many chose to outwardly convert, but they kept their Judaism not only individually but also collectively, maintaining what is considered a remarkably close-knit community even today as they are spread throughout the world.

Their story is not well-known, and even on the Internet it is not easy to find out details. And it is important to know that while Jews have lived in Persia relatively peacefully for a long time, the Muslim attitude towards Jews before Zionism was not always as benign as some would have you believe.

Cross-posted to Palestine Post-ings.

Challenge to moderate Muslims

I have mentioned before that the Islamic fatwas issued against suicide bombers, both British and American, although they seem to be categorically against them, may not apply to suicide bombers who target Jews in Israel.

This question needs to be answered by every so-called "moderate" Muslim, and by every Muslim organization that claims to condemn suicide terror. The only place I have seen suicide bombings in Israel to be condemned by Muslims on moral grounds (as opposed to tactical grounds) has been at Muslim WakeUp.com, a very secular and liberal Muslim site that is nevertheless rabidly anti-Israel and filled with absurd articles. (Even then, they ascribe a sickening moral equivalence between suicide bombers and Israeli defensive actions.) From what I can tell, the liberalism of MWU is considered left-wing fringe among most Muslims.

Meanwhile, the PA continues to glorify murderers of the Jewish elderly:

The Gaza Center for Culture and Arts on Wednesday launched a popular folklore course named after Wafa Idris, the first Palestinian female suicide bomber.

The 60-day course is being held in a local college for female students in Gaza City. At least 15 women have enrolled for the course to study several art-related subjects, including folklore dancing.

Idris, a 28-year-old paramedic from the Amari refugee camp near Ramallah, in January 2002 became the first female suicide bomber when she blew herself up on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem, killing an 81-year-old man and wounding several others.
Ashraf Sahwil, director of the center, said the decision to name the course after Idris was aimed at 'emphasizing the longstanding role of Palestinian women in the struggle [against Israel].'

Although the PA has condemned the attack carried out by Idris, some of its institutions have since turned her into a valued heroine in Palestinian society.

The Union of Palestinian Women presented Idris as a role model for Palestinian feminism, a parade for young girls was held in her honor, summer camps for children, university courses, and Fatah programs have been named after her, and a concert honoring Idris has been broadcast numerous times on PA-controlled television.

A truly depraved, sick culture, that the world wants to reward for its supposed "moderation" compared to Hamas.

The Saudi princes' Israeli urologist

I wasn't going to post this; but at least two people found my blog by Googling for this story!

August 2, 2005 -- JERUSALEM — Did you hear the one about the Jewish doctor who helped the Saudi crown prince make it big-time with ravishing Riviera babes?
Well, it's no joke.
A prominent Israeli urologist regularly slipped into Saudi Arabia dressed in Arab garb to secretly treat King Fahd, who died yesterday, and other royal princes for their impotency problems.
Dr. Moshe Many told The Post he made frequent top-secret medical missions to Saudi Arabia — and to the posh playgrounds of the randy royals — to help them overcome a problem they had bedding European women.
His visits, which started in 1978, when Fahd was crown prince, were arranged by Saudi gazillionaire playboy-arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi shortly after the Camp David peace accords.
The royals "didn't know I was an Israeli. They thought I was Italian," Jerusalem-born Many told The Post.
He said the princes had an inferiority complex that rendered them impotent when they tried to have sex with European women.
He helped them out by prescribing a prosthesis, he said.
Many, 70, said he ended his clandestine doctoring after Fahd was crowned king in 1982.

Interestingly, this was reported in the Arab press, without the sordid details, based on a Yediot Aharonot article. Of course, they assume that the doctor was a Mossad spy.

My letter to Condoleeza Rice

Dear Madam Secretary:

I am growing alarmed at the recent media reports saying that you are consistently pressuring Israel - to accelerate her unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, to limit natural growth in the settlements, to allow contiguous access between Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza, to provide weapons to the Palestinian Authority, and now to give the Shebaa Farms area to Lebanon - going beyond what even the UN asked of Israel.

This pattern is very disturbing, to say the least.

President Bush made a clear statement in 2001: either you are with us or against us in the war on terror. Israel has consistently been America's staunchest ally, and her sacrifices have saved American lives with anti-terror technology and methodologies. Meanwhile, Palestinians celebrate when American and Israeli civilians die. It is mind-boggling that in the context of the war on terror, the US State Department can even conceive that it is a good idea to reward Hezbollah and Hamas by pressuring Israel to give them land. It is disingenuous to think that somehow Palestinian "moderates" are strengthened by Israeli concessions

Any realistic look at the situation in the Middle East shows that Abbas has shown little desire to stop terror against Israel. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are still associated with his own political party and its members are "policemen" on the Palestinian payroll. Mahmoud Abbas has learned from his mentor Arafat how to give half-measures when his back is pushed against a wall, but fundamentally he has yet to condemn a terror attack on moral grounds. This is not an ally who deserves to be rewarded. And it is only wishful thinking that Hamas is not strengthened by Israeli concessions.

It is equally bizarre to demand that Israel arm her enemies. Only ten years ago, Israel saw her citizens murdered with the very weapons that she gave them. No one can account for the thousands of M-16s that were given to the PLO in the 90s. Somehow, Palestinians are claiming to you that they are short on ammunition, yet they seem to have enough to fire indiscriminately in the air during funerals and weddings.

Pressuring Israel goes against the Bush Doctrine. It rewards the terrorists and their supporters. It is strengthens those who are against freedom, who are against democracy, who are against women's rights, and who are fundamentally against what America stands for. We have unfortunately already seen how the world's apathy towards terror attacks on Israel has directly led to terror attacks on other Western nations. Signalling the terrorists that the US can help their agendas makes America less safe. Perhaps more disturbing, the impression being given by the State Department is that the US is willing to gamble Israeli lives on a longshot bet that somehow so-called Arab "moderates" can be strengthened, and that we are willfully blind to the obvious and blatant support for terror exhibited even by the "moderates."

Those who support terror, implicitly or explicitly, are the ones who need to be pressured, not those who stand side-by-side with us to fight terror.

Thank you!

Joos poisoning bananas!

I guess that if Jews are the brothers of monkeys, there is a certain logic that we'd be poisoning bananas.

The teacher could not believe what he overheard. The 'visiting' imam was launching into a tirade against the Jews and Americans that bordered on the ludicrous.

But then came the clincher, he recalled. 'The imam told the students that the Jews were putting poison in the bananas and they should not eat them.'

The imam was told to ease up on the inflammatory language after staff objected.

Werribee College is from all accounts an Islamic school with a difference. According to former staff it was a longstanding practice of the school principal, Omar Hallak, to have Muslim staff sleep on the premises after big international terror attacks such as those in Bali and the London tube bombings to prevent retributive attacks.

The Sunday Age has been told that Werribee College appears intent on exporting its particular brand of Islam to Indonesia, an achievement made possible by generous commonwealth and state grants — estimated to be in excess of $3 million a year.

Canberra's big spending laissez-faire approach to non-government school funding, intended by former education minister David Kemp to boost the numbers of Christian schools, has fuelled an increase in community-based Islamic schools across Australia which qualify for the same subsidies.

Although the vast majority of these schools — established schools such as King Khalid Islamic College in North Coburg or newer schools such as Mount Hira College in Keysborough — are run openly and with regular contact and activities with students from non-Muslim schools, there are a small number, including Werribee, that shun scrutiny and contact.