Categories

September 2010 Archives

September 24, 2010, 3:34 PM

Michael Oren's Personal Convenience

MichaelOrenandObama1.JPG

According to Israel Army Radio, Prime Minister Netanyahu has offered to extend the moratorium on Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria for an additional three months in exchange for Jonathan Pollard's freedom. That is, if Obama pardons Pollard, who has served 25 years of a life sentence for transferring classified documents to Israel, then Israel will agree to extend the ten-month moratorium on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, due to expire next week, for another three months.

 

True, the moratorium is an affront to Jewish human and civil rights and Netanyahu should have never bowed to Obama's demand that he institute it. And yet, if the Americans agree to the deal, Israel should pounce on it. Such a deal would represent a diplomatic triumph for Israel and an act of human decency on the part of Obama rarely seen in politics these days.

 

It would be a diplomatic triumph because it would be the first time in memory that Israel conceded something temporary - a three-month extension of the moratorium - for something permanent, i.e., Pollard's freedom.

 

It would be an act of human decency because the long-suffering Pollard is in poor health. Moreover, the U.S. has imprisoned Pollard longer than it has imprisoned any agent who spied for a U.S. ally. Indeed, he has served more time than most spies who have served America's enemies.

 

If the deal goes through, it will be no thanks to Ambassador Michael Oren. In a radio interview in June, Oren sought to distance himself from the Pollard affair by falsely characterizing Pollard's service to Israel. As Oren put it to Washington's WTOP, the espionage operation involving Pollard was a "rogue organization in the Israeli intelligence community."

 

When news of his comments was reported in Israel, Netanyahu reprimanded Oren and demanded that he issue a retraction. Netanyahu's reprimand was itself a news event. It is very rare in Israel that a political leader is compelled to publicly chew out a diplomat.

 

In truth, it is a shame that Oren's remarks weren't viewed as sufficiently egregious for him to be removed from his position. Because the fact of the matter is that they were simply an amplification of a pattern of behavior that has characterized Oren's tenure in Washington.

 

In the radio interview, Oren clearly preferred his own convenience to the interests of Israel and Pollard. It was unpleasant to be grilled about Israel's past espionage against the U.S. and so rather than stand strongly by Pollard, Oren opted to cut him loose by discrediting what he did. On a daily basis, Oren has shown a marked propensity to prefer his own convenience to the unpleasant work of a diplomat especially as Israel confronts the Obama administration.

 

Obama's demand that Jews be prohibited from building on their property in Judea and Samaria and later in Jerusalem simply because they are Jewish is part and parcel of his consistent belittlement of Jewish rights to Israel and hostility toward Israel's alliance with the U.S. and its elected leadership. This hostility has been demonstrated in, among other things. the administration's decision to join the anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council; its support for an international resolution singling out Israel's purported nuclear arsenal for condemnation; its refusal to take effective action to scuttle Iran's nuclear weapons program; and in Obama's embrace of the Palestinian cause and his claim that Israel owes its existence to the Holocaust.

 

Obama's personal bad feelings toward Israel's democratically elected leaders was evidenced in his early attempt to destabilize with the aim of overthrowing Netanyahu's government and replace it with the Kadima Party. It continued to be demonstrated by Obama's consistently shabby treatment of Netanyahu that included repeated public condemnations of Israel by the president and his senior aides and that reached its pinnacle in his humiliating treatment of Netanyahu during the premier's visit to the White House in March.

 

According to Netanyahu's aides who were with him, Obama left Netanyahu to have dinner with his family. When the Israelis asked for food, they were given celery sticks and non-kosher cheese and crackers. At that meeting and an earlier meeting between the two leaders, Obama refused to be photographed with Netanyahu and forced him to enter the White House through a side entrance.

 

Given the sensitivity of Israel's position in the U.S., it would be wrong to expect Netanyahu or his aides to speak out publicly against the Obama administration's contemptuous treatment of the Jewish state. And so it is not surprising that Netanyahu has consistently refused to publicly criticize Obama for his behavior.


But there is a world of difference between keeping one's mouth shut and heaping undeserved praise on Obama for his purported great friendship towards Israel. And this is what Oren has done.

 

Oren is a creature of the political Left. Just before he was appointed ambassador to the U.S., he restated his support for unilateral Israeli surrender of Judea and Samaria to Hamas and the PLO. In 2005 Oren volunteered to participate in the expulsion of the Jews of Gaza and after expelling the Jews of the community of Bedolah, he returned to Jerusalem and wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal extolling the virtues of Israel's cannibalization of its own people.

 

Given Oren's stated political views, it is obviously uncomfortable for him to defend Israel in a Washington governed by the Left. And, again in the interest of his own convenience, Oren has adopted the role of Obama's chief lobbyist to the U.S. Jewish community.

 

For instance, Oren has repeatedly, publicly and mendaciously denied that Obama mistreated Netanyahu during his visit to the White House in the spring. In a recent interview with American Jewish media, Oren extolled the virtues of Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009 where he claimed Israel owed its existence to the Holocaust and drew a parallel between the genocide of European Jewry and the absence of a Palestinian state.

 

After Netanyahu bowed to U.S. pressure to begin negotiations with Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, Oren urged American Jews to lobby Congress on behalf of the talks. As he put it in a conference call with American Jewish leaders earlier this month, "Let your feelings be known to your representatives in Congress that you support this process and you support the decisions of the Israeli government within the process."

 

Jewish activists who were present at Oren's Rosh Hashanah reception at the Israeli Embassy this month said he gave "the best stump speech for President Obama" they had ever heard.

 

In abject contradiction of the public record, Oren has repeatedly stated that Obama heads an administration that is one of the most pro-Israel Washington has ever seen. Moreover, despite the fact that the Republican Party remains staunchly supportive of Israel while more and more Democratic members of Congress openly criticize Israeli policies and actions, Oren has repeatedly attacked Republicans for pointing out their Democratic counterparts' record on Israel - on the grounds that by doing so, Republicans are making support for Israel a partisan issue.

 

In addition to being antithetical to Israel's national interests, Oren's behavior is antithetical to diplomatic protocol. It is unacceptable for a foreign emissary to stick his nose into the domestic politics of the country where he serves. Just as Yitzhak Rabin was rightly condemned for campaigning for Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential elections while he served as Israel's ambassador in Washington, so Oren's shameless lobbying for Obama should lead to his censure.

 

Oren has repeatedly demonstrated that just as he preferred his own convenience to Pollard's plight, so he prefers his own convenience to his responsibility to serve the interests of the State of Israel in Washington while keeping his nose out of U.S. politics. For this behavior he should not simply be reprimanded. He should be recalled.


Originally published in The Jewish Press.

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

What the Left is really after

gush_katif.jpg
Following the example of its counterparts in the West, for decades the Israeli Left has carefully cultivated its image as the fun side of the political divide.

In a thousand different ways, the public was told that the Left is on the side of tomorrow. It is the home of optimism. If you want a cheery future, if you want to party all night long and never get a hangover, the image-makers told us the Left is the place to be.

From the Left's perspective, the peace process between Israel and the PLO was the fulfillment of its promise. It was also its key to a permanent cultural monopoly and control of government.

Israelis who objected to handing control over the country's heartland and capital city to the PLO were nothing more than gloom and doom preaching, messianic extremists. The Right was angry. The Left was happy. The Right was the party of war. The Left was the party of peace. The Right was suspicious and tribal. The Left was optimistic and international.

The first blows to the Left's otherwise perfect narrative were cast just seven months after the moment of its greatest triumph. Just seven months after the epic handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, the first Palestinian suicide bomber made his appearance. On April 6, 1994, the bomber murdered eight Israelis on a bus in Afula.

By the time the peace process was a year old, the image of the suicide bomber had begun to eclipse the image of the balloon-festooned peace the Left sought to embody.

It was at this time that the Left could have been expected to reconsider its commitment to the peace process. But that is not what happened. The Left maintained absolute allegiance to the phony peace process. It simply ditched hope.

Quietly but relentlessly, the Left replaced hope for a better future with fear of a terrible future. Specifically, Leftist leaders like Haim Ramon began threatening their countrymen with national demographic destruction.

Ramon seized upon falsified Palestinian demographic forecasts. He and his comrades used the data - which inflated the number of Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip by 50 percent - to threaten their countrymen with encroaching demographic doom.

True, transferring land to the PLO had turned out to be a very bad idea. True life had been better and safer before the fake peace process.

But, the Left warned, if we didn't retreat to the 1949 armistice lines anyway, Jews would become a minority in our country within 15 years.

It took much longer for the demographic time bomb to be exposed as a dud than for the peace fantasy to explode. Indeed, Ramon's Kadima Party still bases its surrender platform on the phony PLO population data.

But today, with even the leftist media admitting that Israeli Jews have the highest birthrates in the Western world and that Israeli and Palestinian birthrates are rapidly converging, it has become difficult to convince Israelis that surrender is necessary on demographic grounds. Indeed, a poll taken by the post-Zionist Geneva Initiative in 2008 showed that 71% of Israelis were not concerned about losing Israel's Jewish majority.

The Left's demographic threats began unraveling just before its land surrender doctrine was wholly discredited. The American-Israeli Demographic Research Group published its initial study that exposed the Palestinian population data as a fraud just months before the August 2005 withdrawal from Gaza.

YET EVEN as its plan of surrendering land to jihadists was exposed as so much idiocy, and its demographic doomsday scenarios were proven wrong, the Left remained steadfast on its course. It simply found a new argument.

Beginning around 2006, the Left began threatening that if Israel does not remove itself from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the US will abandon us. On Sunday night, former prime minister Ehud Olmert presented this argument in his keynote speech before the Geneva Initiative's annual conference.

Olmert claimed that if Israel does not retreat voluntarily to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, the US will force it to retreat. Israel, he said, has no choice but to voluntarily partition Jerusalem and withdraw from Judea and Samaria. Left unsaid was the assumption that such a retreat will entail turning between 100,000 and a half million Israelis who live in the areas to be ceded into homeless internal refugees.

Olmert's statement is worth considering not because he said it, but because today it is the Left's central argument for withdrawal. In analyzing this claim, lt us assume at the outset that Olmert is correct and that if Israel does not voluntarily cede Judea and Samaria and partition Jerusalem, the US will try to coerce Israel to do so.

In this scenario Israel faces two possible futures. It can withdraw or it can resist US pressure, try to remain in place and only leave when compelled to do so.

If Israel withdraws it will relinquish defensible borders and clear the way for the emergence of a terrorist-controlled area abutting all its major population centers.

At a minimum, this terror enclave will be in a de facto state of war with Israel as it cultivates warm ties with Syria, Hizbullah, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In addition to its increased vulnerability to external enemies, Israel will be a society at war with itself. Its population will be deeply scarred and weakened after hundreds of thousands of Israelis are expelled from their homes.

If Israel does not withdraw, its cities will remain secure and its population will not be in crisis. But Israel will have to contend with a hostile US government threatening to take unknown steps to force it to contract to within indefensible borders.

What will those US threats involve? Washington is already arming and training a Palestinian army. It is already selling the Arabs the most advanced weapons in the US arsenal. It is already providing military assistance to the Hizbullah-controlled Lebanese army. It is already permitting Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Would Olmert and his leftist colleagues have us believe that the US military will invade Israel to force us to exit Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem? 

If that is what the Left is hinting, let us assume it is right. But if the Left is right, is Israel better off preemptively dooming itself to chronic wars and strategic vulnerability by accepting indefensible borders than by refusing to do so? At least if we refuse to stick our neck in the noose, the US government will be forced to make the case for destroying Israel to the American people.

And then there is the Left's certainty that it can foresee the future. That would be the same Left that promised us peace, demographic destruction, and that Gaza would become the new Singapore after we withdrew. But even if there is a residue of reality in its new threats, why should we squander Israel's security based on a scenario that may or may not play out? 

THE FACT of the matter is that like the peace fantasy and the demographic fantasy, the international-isolation-and-war-with-the-US fantasy is pure nonsense. None of these leftist scenarios - whether rosy or bleak - have ever withstood the slightest scrutiny.

So what accounts for the Left's behavior? Why is it that intelligent people like Olmert and Kadima leader Tzipi Livni and their comrades in the Labor Party and Meretz and the Geneva Initiative are so quick to make insipid arguments? Why won't they just admit that Israel is better off remaining where it is and not contracting to within indefensible boundaries? 

What do they really want? 

The answer to this last question is as simple as it is insidious. What the Left truly seeks is not peace or even security. In pushing their land surrender policy in the face of a mountain of evidence that it imperils the country, leftist ideologues and political leaders are seeking to destroy their ideological rivals on the Right. That is, they wish to destroy religious Zionism.

It is religious Zionism, which looks to Jerusalem rather than to Tel Aviv, that drives the Left to distraction. It is the hope of destroying religious Zionism by destroying the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem - the Jewish nerve center of the country - that keeps the Left on its path. This truth was exposed in a Haaretz editorial published in July 2005, a month before 10,000 predominantly religious Israelis were expelled from their homes in Gaza and northern Samaria.

As the Left's mouthpiece explained, "The disengagement of Israeli policy from its religious fuel is the real disengagement currently on the agenda. On the day after the disengagement, religious Zionism's status will be different."

The editorial concluded, "The real question is not how many mortar shells will fall, or who will guard the Philadelphi route, or whether the Palestinians will dance on the roofs of Ganei Tal. The real question is who sets the national agenda."

So, too, in an interview with Yediot Aharonot in October 2006, Livni castigated religious Zionists as the odd man out that was spoiling things for the rest of the country. As she put it, "In the Israeli political system there are no real gaps concerning the [vision of a] comprehensive settlement of the conflict with the Palestinians. The dispute is between the religious public and the rest of the Israelis."

In truth, just two weeks before her interview appeared, a Maagar Mohot poll of Israeli Jews showed that 73% of Israeli Jews opposed further withdrawals. At no point has the majority of Israel's Jews ever asserted that it views religious Zionists as a threat or as the major obstacle to a better future.

Indeed, in a poll published earlier this month by Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center, 79% of the public said they are "not at all concerned" by the consistent rise in the proportion of religious Israelis in the IDF officer corps. Only 1% of the public said it was very concerned about the trend.

What the Left's move from hope to fear in the service of its plan to destroy its ideological rival shows is that in contrast to its carefully crafted image, the Left is fundamentally out of step with the public. They are not the optimistic side on the political divide. And they are not interested in making our lives better or more fun. They are motivated by hatred of their rivals, not love of country or devotion to peace.

Perhaps the only question then is how many more times they will be allowed to lead us astray before we stop allowing them define the terms of our national debate?

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 


 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Churchill's true colors and the world's enraged response to Succot

In this week's episode of the Tribal Update, the television-on-internet satire show produced weekly by Latma, the Hebrew-language media satire website I edit, against the backdrop of the renewed "land for peace" talks between Israel and the PLO, we reveal the truth about World War's origins and reveal Winston Churchill's "true colors." 

We also describe the world's enraged response to the festival of Succot.

I hope you enjoy the show. 



Latma is funded through contributions to the Center for Security Policy in Washington. If you would like to support our efforts, you can contribute to our efforts by clicking here. It takes you to the online contribution page to the Center for Security Policy through Network for Good. To earmark your donation to Latma, please write "Latma" in the box marked "designation." 

Unfortunately, for now, we can only accept donations from donors in the US. We are finding a solution to the problem and check here for updates.
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

September 21, 2010, 2:03 PM

Who lost Turkey?

Iran-Turkey-Diplomacy.jpg
You have to hand it to Turkey's Islamist leaders. They sure know how to get their way. In the seven years since they first took power, the Islamist AKP party has successfully transformed Turkey from a staunch ally of the US and Israel and a member of NATO into a staunch ally of Iran and a member of NATO.

And that's not all. Turkey's Islamist leaders have used the Western language of democracy and freedom not only to abandon the West. They have used that language to destroy the foundations of Turkey's Western-style secular democracy and transform the governing system of NATO's sole Muslim member into a hybrid of Putinist autocracy and Iranian theocracy.

On September 12, the AKP took an enormous step toward consolidating its achievements and expanding its power. The Islamist regime won a national plebiscite on constitutional amendments that remove the remaining obstacles to its absolute power.

As a National Review reader noted, the vote was a mockery of democracy. It was held at the end of Ramadan during which the AKP provided 30 consecutive free post- Ramadan fast dinners to voters in key voting districts.

SINCE TAKING office, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party have used both lawful and unlawful means to intimidate, repress and silence all significant organs of secularist opposition to their rolling Islamic revolution. The media, civil service, police and business community have all been co-opted and intimidated into submission.

According to the Kemalist constitution, the military was the constitutional protector of secular Turkey. It was constitutionally bound to combat all threats to Turkey's secular regime - including threats posed by political parties and political leaders. Over the past seven years, the AKP has done everything it could to demoralize and criminalize the military's leadership and eviscerate the military's constitutional powers and organizational independence. Most recently, President Abdullah Gul began intervening in promotions of generals to block all non-Islamists from acquiring command positions.

The constitutional amendments just passed further emasculate the military, placing it under the jurisdiction of AKP-controlled civilian courts.

In 1980, in accordance with its constitutional responsibility, the military ousted a precursor of the AKP from power in what the West incorrectly characterized as a coup. The new constitutional amendments make the military commanders who ousted the Islamists vulnerable to criminal prosecution for their actions. No doubt, in the near future these generals will be brought into court in shackles and charged with subverting the will of the people.

The message to any general with any thought of removing Erdogan and his colleagues will be crystal clear.

Aside from the chastened military, the only remaining outpost of secular power in Turkey has been the judiciary. In the past, the judiciary has overturned many of the government's actions that it ruled were unconstitutional and illegal. The new constitutional amendments will work to end judicial independence by giving the government control over judicial appointments. The AKP's justice minister will also have increased power to open investigations against judges and prosecutors.

Not surprisingly, Erdogan has praised the results of the plebiscite. As he put it, "The winner today was Turkish democracy."

Now, with his constitutional amendments in hand, the only thing separating Erdogan from absolute power are next year's elections. If he and his party win, with their new constitutional powers, they will have no obstacles to remaining in power forever. If they win, whether Erdogan declares it or not, Turkey will be an Islamist state with no effective domestic checks on the power of its rulers to do what they wish at home and abroad.

Erdogan also promised that the new amendments will facilitate entrance into the European Union. And judging by the EU's initial response to the vote, he may be correct. The European Commission's enlargement commissioner, Stefan Fule, hailed the vote as "a step in the right direction."

Fule said that the constitutional changes "address a number of long-standing priorities in Turkey's efforts toward fully complying with [EU] accession criteria."

The EU has been one of AKP's primary enablers. Ruled by their ideology of multiculturalism, European leaders have refused to recognize the unique role the Turkish military played in securing the country's secular regime. That regime was of course, the EU's most vital strategic asset in Turkey. And so they gave the AKP the international cover it required to remove the greatest threat to its Islamic revolution.

AS FOR the US, President Barack Obama praised the plebiscite as proof of the "vibrancy of Turkish democracy." As Michael Rubin has noted in National Review, not only has Obama approved the sale of 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Turkey, the Defense Department has demurred from conducting a study to see whether the sale will threaten US interests in light of Turkey's burgeoning strategic ties with Iran. And not wishing to embarrass the administration that has given a full-throated endorsement to Erdogan's regime, the Democrat-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee has refused to ask the Pentagon to conduct such a review.

After the Obama administration canceled the F-22 project, the F-35 will be the US military's only advanced fighter. In light of its strategic alliance with Iran, Turkey's possession of the jets could constitute a serious threat to US air superiority in the region.

As for NATO, the US's most important military alliance had no comment on Turkey's rolling Islamic revolution. This is not in the least surprising. NATO has stood at a distance as Turkey has undermined its mission in Kosovo and transformed it into a virtual Turkish colony. So too, NATO has had no comment as Turkey has worked consistently to disenfranchise Bosnia's non-Muslim minorities and intimidate the Serbian government. At this late date, it would have been shocking if NATO had a comment of any kind on the AKP's consolidation of its Islamist thugocracy.

Iran, for its part, is not at all squeamish about both recognizing the significance of events in Turkey and extolling them. It has reportedly agreed to contribute $25 million to the AKP to help Erdogan in his bid for reelection next year. Turkish-Iranian trade has gone up 86 percent in the past year.

In a visit to Istanbul this week, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said, "Turkey is the best friend of Iran in the world. Turkey is very important for Iran's political and economic security. Our Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei also asks for acceleration of political, economic and security relations with Turkey."

And still the West sleeps.

As it watched the AKP's steady transformation of Turkey from staunch ally to staunch enemy, for seven years Israel tried to make light of what was happening. Indeed, its decision to opt for denial over strategic disengagement prompted it to continue selling Turkey state of the art military equipment. The IDF now acknowledges that Turkey has shared this equipment with the likes of Syria and Hizbullah.

Israel hoped that Turkey would grow so dependent on its military relationship that it would abandon its intention to ditch the alliance. That foolish hope was finally destroyed when Turkey committed an act of war on the high seas on May 31 with its terror flotilla to Gaza.

EVERY MOVE since then to make light of Turkey's actions has been shot down by yet another Turkish affront. In its latest slight, Turkey loudly announced that Gul will not have time to meet with President Shimon Peres at the UN General Assembly in New York this week while Gul was only too pleased to free hours from his schedule to meet with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And still, perhaps out of deference to Obama, Israel has remained circumspect in its statements about the dangers Islamist Turkey poses not only to it but to the free world as a whole. And this is a shame. But then, it is hard to imagine Israeli warnings making any difference.

The US and Europe's refusal to consider the implications of Turkey's abandonment of the West in favor of Iran goes hand in hand with their abandonment of the cause of liberalism throughout the Middle East and the world as a whole. Among other things, their dangerous behavior is emblematic of their consummate elitism.

The likes of Obama and the heads of Europe view their own publics as mere nuisances. For Obama, the groundswell of opposition to his radical and failed economic reforms doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with what he is doing. As he has made clear in repeated statements in recent weeks, as far as he is concerned, his steady loss of support is simply proof of the American people's ignorance.

As for Europe, it is not a great stretch to say that the entire EU is an elitist project consolidated against the will of the peoples of Europe. The EU leadership thought nothing of ramming its expanded powers down the throats of its unwilling constituents. After the Lisbon Treaty was rejected in referendum after referendum, Europe's leaders conspired to pass it by bureaucratic fiat.

This contempt for their own people leads the leaders of the West to disregard human rights abuses from China to Syria as unimportant. So too, it has paved the path for Obama's courtship of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US and Egypt and his decision to back the mullahs against the Iranian people in the aftermath of the stolen presidential election in June 2009.

Making deals with authoritarian leaders is so much easier than actually selling the case for the West and its values to the peoples of the world. This is particularly so given the contempt with which Western leaders hold their own publics.

Unfortunately, it is this contempt for the peoples of the West, of Turkey, Iran, China and the rest of the world that is making Erdogan's revolution a preordained success. At this late date, the only possible way for the Turkish opposition to win next year's fateful elections is if it receives massive political and other support from the West. Only if the US, the EU and NATO state outright that they view the turn to Islamism as dangerous to their interests and to their relations with Turkey will the opposition gain the necessary momentum to put up a fight. Only if the West puts its money where its mouth is and matches Iran's generosity toward the AKP with generosity of its own toward its political opponents will there be any chance that the until now unstoppable Islamist transformation will be checked.

Obama and his European colleagues may believe that they will not be blamed for the loss of Turkey. After all, its transformation into Iran's best friend started seven years ago. But they are wrong. If they continue to sit on their elitist laurels, Turkey will be lost on their watch and they will not be forgiven by their own peoples for their failure to act in time.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

September 17, 2010, 10:06 AM

The perils of diplomatic theater

abbas obama.jpg
The current flurry of diplomatic activity is deeply disturbing. It isn't simply that the Obama administration has strong-armed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into participating in diplomatic theater with the PLO whose successful completion will leave Israel weaker and less defensible. It isn't merely that the newest "peace process" diverts our leadership's attention away from Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

The most disturbing aspect of the latest round of the diplomatic kabuki is that Israel's leaders and Israel's staunch friends in the US are enthusiastically participating in this dangerous project.

True, Netanyahu is in an unenviable position, situated as he is between US President Barack Obama's rock and hard place. Instead of standing up to this hostile American leader, Netanyahu is desperately seeking a magical concession to get Obama off his back.

Netanyahu's preference for appeasement is both ironic and destructive. It is ironic because he has turned to appeasement at the very moment that the notion it is possible to appease Obama has self-destructed.

Ten months ago Netanyahu found what he hoped was a magic concession. Capitulating to Obama, the Jewish state's leader prohibited all Jewish building in Judea and Samaria for a period of 10 months. This unprecedented move to discriminate against Jews was supposed to get Obama off Netanyahu's back. It didn't.

Obama's public demand this week that Netanyahu extend the abrogation of Jewish property rights shows he will not be appeased.

There is no magic concession. Every concession to Obama - like every Israeli concession to the Arabs - is considered both permanent and a starting point for further concessions.

And so Netanyahu concedes more. Not only has he effectively agreed to extend the discriminatory ban on Jewish rights. Netanyahu has moved on to even more outrageous concessions.

According to the Lebanese media, Netanyahu has agreed to surrender large swathes of the Golan Heights to Iran's Arab puppet, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. According to the reports, Netanyahu empowered Obama's emissary George Mitchell to present his offer to Assad in Damascus and even furnished Mitchell with detailed maps of his proposed surrender.

If Netanyahu thinks that this move will diminish US pressure for a full withdrawal from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, he is in for an unpleasant surprise. Mitchell made this clear at his press conference Wednesday. Mitchell said the "two tracks can be complementary and mutually beneficial if we can proceed to a comprehensive peace on more than one track."

In plain English that means that the administration feels perfectly comfortable pressuring Israel to surrender to the Syrians and to the Palestinians at the same time.

Leaving aside the strategic insanity of surrender talks with Syria, it cannot be said too strongly that the talks with the Palestinians have absolutely no upside for Israel.

Many observers have pointed out that PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas is unlikely to make a deal. And this is probably true. With Hamas in charge in Gaza and widely supported in Judea and Samaria, Abbas will probably not risk signing a peace deal with Israel that will likely serve as his death warrant. But the same observers who bemoan the poor chances for a treaty ignore the fact that the alternative - that Abbas signs a peace deal with Israel - would be a disaster for Israel. Any deal Israel signs with the PLO will make the country weaker. We know this because we have already signed deals with the PLO. And all of those deals made Israel weaker.

All the agreements between Israel and the PLO have been predicated on Israeli territorial surrenders and Palestinian promises of moderation.

Israel has implemented its commitments and surrendered land to the PLO. The PLO has never abided by its commitment to moderate its behavior. To the contrary, the PLO's response to every agreement has been to escalate its political and terror war against Israel.

The Palestinian terror war that began in September 2000 was the direct result of the Oslo "peace" agreement of September 1993 that created the framework for Israeli land surrenders to the PLO, and the framework agreement's followon agreements. The terror attacks that have killed and wounded thousands of Israelis would never have happened - indeed they would have been inconceivable - had Israel not withdrawn from Gaza, Judea and Samaria in accordance with peace deals it signed with the PLO. The track record of the past 17 years demonstrates that withdrawals are dangerous. But still the "peace deal" now on offer is predicated on withdrawals.

Obama and his advisers claim that these talks will improve Israel's relations with the wider Arab world. But again the last 17 years expose this claim as fatuous and wrong. Israeli land surrenders in exchange for pieces of paper have not convinced the Arab League member states to accept Israel as a permanent state in the Middle East. They have convinced Israel's Arab neighbors that Israel is weak and getting weaker. This in turn has signaled to the wider Arab world that its best bet is to join forces with the likes of Hamas and fund and otherwise actively support the war against the Jewish state.

ENGAGING IN the phony "peace process" isn't only bad because there is little prospect for reaching a deal or because any potential deal would be a disaster for Israel. There are three additional reasons the government's decision to engage in this diplomatic psychodrama is terrible for Israel.

First, there is great harm in talking. Talking to Abbas and his deputies legitimizes a Palestinian leadership that is wholly committed to Israel's destruction. As Abbas and his mouthpieces make clear on a daily basis, they do not accept Israel's right to exist. They do not condemn or oppose the murder of Israelis by Palestinians. They will not accept a deal with Israel that leaves Israel in control of sufficient land to defend itself from Palestinian or other Arab attacks in the future.

And they will never end or abate their diplomatic war against Israel. The very act of legitimizing the likes of Abbas expands their ability to wage diplomatic war on Israel.

Second, just as Netanyahu's magic concessions to the Americans are but a starting point for further magic concessions, so Israel's willingness to engage in talks with its Palestinian adversaries forces our leaders to concede still more important things to maintain them. For instance, today, in the face of a clear Hamas terror offensive that has already claimed the lives of four Israelis and sent tens of thousands running for cover in bomb shelters, Israel is compelled to sit on its hands. An effective campaign against Palestinian jihadists would weaken the PLO because most Palestinians support the jihad against Israel. In the interest of "peace," Hamas is allowed to attack at will.

So simply by agreeing to talk with the Palestinians, the government has made it all but impossible to carry out its primary function - defending the country and its citizens from aggression.

The third reason that the talks are inherently against Israel's interests is because they undermine Israeli democracy. Consistent, multiyear polling shows that the public overwhelmingly rejects more withdrawals. The public rejects any compromise in Jerusalem. The public rejects maintaining prohibitions on Jewish building. The public rejects expelling Jews from their homes. And the public rejects withdrawing from the Golan Heights.

Recognizing this, the Obama administration has insisted that the content of the current talks remain hidden from the public. As far as Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mitchell are concerned, they are better judges of the prospects and wisdom of these talks than the Israeli public that will have to live with their consequences. By agreeing to these demands, Netanyahu is collaborating with a project that is inherently anti-democratic and harmful to Israel's political order.

There is another aspect of the current diplomatic season that is upsetting. This aspect involves the negotiations' deleterious role in shaping Israel's position and options in the US.

When Netanyahu announced he was caving in to White House pressure and barring Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria last November, his defenders argued it was necessary given Obama's relative political strength at the time.

But a lot has changed in the past 10 months.

Today Obama is deeply unpopular. The Democrats are likely to lose their control of the House of Representatives, and at a minimum, their hold on the Senate will be diminished.

Today Israel has nothing to gain and much to lose by bowing and scraping before Obama.

True, Obama's positions on issues relating to Israel are not likely to substantively change after November 2. But Obama's ability to implement his policies will be seriously constrained. Indeed, the anticipated Republican resurgence has already incapacitated him.

By playing along with Obama's sham peace talks, Netanyahu has made it difficult for Israel's supporters in the US to explain why these talks are dangerous and offer a counter-policy that is based on experience and reality. Even worse, Netanyahu has encouraged Israel's friends to support what Obama is doing.

THIS MUCH was made clear by an article penned last week by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer titled, "Your move, Mr. Abbas."

Krauthammer is widely perceived by the American public as a firm supporter of Israel. His many readers - who by and large are not close observers of Middle East events - defer to his judgment. Unfortunately, his latest column shows that trust is unfounded. Krauthammer wrote, "No serious player believes [Israel] can hang on forever to the West Bank."

Not only do many serious players believe Israel can - and indeed should - hang on forever to Judea and Samaria, most close observers of events in the Middle East recognize that the central lesson of the past 17 years is that Israel must hang on to Judea and Samaria. The partial territorial surrenders Israel conducted in the 1990s led to the murder of more than a thousand Israel. Ceding these areas entirely would imperil the country. Even Clinton acknowledged this week that the current situation can continue for 30 years. And as all close observers and serious players in the Middle East know, 30 years is tantamount to forever.

Given Krauthammer's tremendous influence in shaping public opinion and policy in the US, his arrogant and false portrayal of reality is debilitating.

This is particularly true in the current electoral season where Americans are seriously questioning the received wisdom of their policy elite for the first time in a generation. Now not only will Israel's supporters need to battle the administration for the US to adopt a rational policy towards the Palestinians and Israel. They will need to battle their supposed allies on the Right.

But while devastating, Krauthammer's position is a side issue at the end of the day. Krauthammer is not the man charged with defending Israel. He's a newspaper columnist and television commentator.

The man charged with leading and defending Israel is Netanyahu. Netanyahu is the man who stood for election. Netanyahu is the man who is responsible for leading and defending this country.

And Netanyahu is the man who is now leading us on a path to degradation and defeat.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

You Kippur apologies and peace with Iran

This week's Tribal Update, the television-on-internet satire program produced by Latma, the Hebrew language media satire website I edit, centers on Yom Kippur that begins tonight. Many of our regular contributors ask for forgiveness for their sins. This includes our media icon Flock Builder who asks for forgiveness from what is about to happen if Israel goes ahead with the phony peace process the media so supports.

We also feature Yariv Googleheimer from Peace Now who presents mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il and Osama Bin Laden's words of peace for the Jewish people.

Here's the whole episode.


And here's Flock Builder's song of sorrow for future transgressions.

Enjoy.

Latma is funded through contributions to the Center for Security Policy in Washington. If you would like to support our efforts, you can contribute to our efforts by clicking here. It takes you to the online contribution page to the Center for Security Policy through Network for Good. To earmark your donation to Latma, please write "Latma" in the box marked "designation." 

Unfortunately, for now, we can only accept donations from donors in the US. We are finding a solution to the problem and check here for updates.

Wishing you an easy and meaningful fast.

Caroline

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

September 14, 2010, 3:51 AM

Saad Hariri's cautionary tale

saad-hariri-meets-bashar-al-assad.jpg
Lebanon is a sad and desperate place. And its disastrous fate is personified today by its prime minister.

All who claim to love freedom, democracy, human rights and dignity should take note of Saad Hariri's fate. They should recognize that his predicament is a testament to their failure to stand up for the ideals they say they champion.

All those who say they seek a Middle East that is friendly to the West should see Hariri's plight as a cautionary tale. Policy-makers in Washington, Paris, Jerusalem and beyond who envision the 21st century Middle East as a place where the US and its allies are able to project their power to defend their interests should study Hariri's story.

All those who insist peace is possible and even incipient need to cast a long, lingering glance in his direction.

His story exposes all of their paradigms of peace and appeasement and compromise as nothing more than the hollow, callow, arrogant and irrelevant protestations of a transnational ruling class wholly detached from the reality of the world it would lead.

ON MONDAY, Yediot Aharonot reported that Iranian and Syrian intelligence agencies are applying massive pressure on Hariri to openly join the Iranian axis. Today that axis includes the Syrian regime, Hizbullah and Hamas. If and when Hariri openly joins, Lebanon will become its first non-voluntary member.

Chances are good that Hariri will succumb to their pressure. Yediot reported that the Iranians and Syrians made him an offer he can't refuse: "If you don't join us, you will share your father's fate."

His father, of course, was former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated in Beirut by Syrian and Hizbullah agents on February 14, 2005. A month later, on March 14, Saad led more than a million Lebanese in a protest in Beirut. Their demand was for Lebanon to be free of Syrian rule.

Everyone knew the March 14 movement had no chance of militarily defeating either Syria or its Hizbullah ally. But the US and France both lined up behind the young Hariri and his followers. The unlikely alliance of the Bush administration and the Chirac government just two years after Franco-American ties were seemingly irreparably frayed in the lead up to the US-led invasion of Iraq was enough to intimidate Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

After 29 years of Syrian occupation, he ordered his forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

As the head of the March 14 movement, Saad Hariri was flying high. No one could have imagined that within five short years he would become a slave of his father's murderers. No one, that is, aside from his father's murderers.

IRAN SAW what happened in Lebanon and decided to take a gamble. In the face of Franco-American unity, it gambled that they were bluffing. The Iranians bet that they would not stand by the Lebanese if their will was challenged.

Iran prepared well for its challenge. At home, dictator Ali Khamenei lined up his ducks. He promoted Teheran's fanatical mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency. With his man in power, Khamenei and his regime ratcheted up their challenge to the US in Iraq.

First there was al-Qaida. Its leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, received his orders from the al- Qaida leadership which decamped to Iran from Afghanistan in 2002. So too, Shi'ite terror boss Muqtada al-Sadr took his orders from Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Their orders were to turn Iraq into a killing field. Their stepped up insurgency weakened George W. Bush's political standing in the US. For a chastened Bush, expanding his campaign to Iran became more and more unthinkable as US casualties mounted.

At the same time, Iran massively expanded its military ties and political control over Syria. 

In the Palestinian Authority, it brought Hamas under its control.

As for Hizbullah, the IRGC transformed the militia into a professional guerrilla army.

And all the while, the Iranian regime withstood US and international pressure to end its illicit program to develop nuclear weapons.

IN 2005, Israel was too busy with Ariel Sharon's initiative of expulsion and withdrawal to pay much attention to what was happening in Lebanon or anywhere else in the region. It greeted the March 14 movement with little more than a yawn. The narrative Sharon and his lackeys Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni were peddling was that Israel's greatest threat was internal. Who had time to pay attention to Iran and its proxies when there were Jewish "settlers" challenging the state's legal authority to throw them out of their homes? 

In the aftermath of the expulsions and withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon and his followers committed themselves to repeating the expulsion-withdrawal program tenfold in Judea and Samaria. After Sharon was felled by a stroke, Olmert's electoral platform called for expelling some 100,000 Israelis from their homes in Judea and Samaria.

Although distracted by Iran's Iraqi proxies, the US began arming and training a Palestinian army in late 2005. At the same time, it demanded that Israel allow Hamas to run in the January 2006 elections and keep Gaza's border open.

Iran watched as the US and the rest of the West refused to recognize the strategic significance of Hamas's electoral victory lest they be forced to acknowledge that the Palestinian conflict with Israel had nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism. The mullahs watched too as Israel refused to acknowledge that Hamas's victory signaled the failure of the peace/withdrawal/expulsion paradigms.

Iran saw an opportunity in its enemies' combined strategic dementia. And so in June 2006, it went to war. First it attacked Israel from Gaza. A cross-border attack left three soldiers dead and Gilad Schalit was taken hostage.

Two weeks later, as Israel stammered out incoherencies about Gaza and Olmert barred the IDF from taking measures that might have freed Schalit lest his hopes for further withdrawals be exposed as strategic absurdities, Hizbullah struck. What became known as the Second Lebanon War began.

The only ones who openly acknowledged the stakes were the leaders of the March 14 movement. Druse leader Walid Jumblatt repeatedly warned that if Hizbullah was not completely defeated, Lebanon would become an Iranian colony.

But the withdrawal-crazed Olmert government wouldn't listen. It couldn't listen.

SO TOO, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice ignored the March 14 movement leaders' entreaties. A full Israeli victory would require full US backing. And full US backing would require an admission on her part that Iran was engaged in a direct war and a proxy war against the US and that the war against Israel and the war against the US were two fronts in the same war.

These were realities that Rice would never accept.

And so together with her fantasy-driven Israeli counterparts, Rice sued for a cease-fire that left Hizbullah in charge.

The rest was preordained history. In 2007 first Hizbullah and then Hamas staged putsches in Lebanon and Gaza and wrested control over their respective governments from their Western-backed rivals in the March 14 movement and Fatah.

The US responded by massively increasing its military assistance to the Lebanese armed forces and Fatah. Continued Fatah terrorist attacks against Israelis in Judea and Samaria and last month's lethal ambush of IDF forces along the border by the Lebanese army exposed the strategic insanity of that policy. And yet it continues. The US remains unwilling to acknowledge that Iran's persuasive power is greater than theirs --given the price of non-cooperation with the mullahs.

SAAD HARIRI'S March 14 movement still enjoys the support of most Lebanese. But this is of no consequence. Hariri was only able to form his government last December by granting Hizbullah veto power over government action. And theprice he paid for his premiership was not merely his personal freedom. The last embers of the Lebanese independence movement his father's assassination inspired have also been extinguished.

Since he formed his government, Hariri has travelled three times to Damascus to kiss Assad's ring. And in so doing, he gave up his call for justice for his father's killers.

This became clear when last month Hariri embraced Nasrallah's allegation that Israel murdered his father. Then last week, following his latest trip to Damascus, Hariri announced that his past claims that the Syrian regime assassinated his father were unfounded.

As he put it, "We made mistakes in some places; at some point we accused Syria of assassinating the martyr and this was a political accusation."

Hariri went on to profess his warm sentiments for Syria. As he put it, when he visits Damascus, "I feel myself going to a brotherly and friendly state."

Obviously Hariri believes his only chance for survival is to bow before those who killed his father. It is also obvious that the killers - Iran, Syria, Hizbullah - will continue to use him as their front man and apologist for as long as his service is of use to them. And then they will murder him.

Today Hariri is useful. Ahmadinejad is planning a victory trip to Lebanon next month and Hariri will be a valuable prop. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive on October 13. While there he will make a major speech at Bint Jbeil - the town where during the 2006 war then IDF chief of General Staff Dan Halutz wanted to stage a battle that Israel could use as an "image of victory."

In the event all Halutz got was a shooting gallery where Golani Brigade fighters were the ducks.

Ahmadinejad is also scheduled to peer over at Israel from the border town of Maroun Aras. Maroun Aras was also the site of heavy, inconclusive fighting in 2006.

As he uses Hariri as his figurehead host, Ahmadinejad will have more to celebrate than just Lebanon's transformation into an Iranian colony. As a spate of recent reports make clear, he is probably just months away from declaring his regime a nuclear power.

The most recent allegations that Iran has yet another undeclared uranium enrichment facility are no skin off his back. He and his boss Khamenei took a measure of their enemies and are convinced they have nothing to worry about.

For his part, Hariri can rest assured that his humiliating transformation from freedom champion to slave will go largely unremarked. Israel and the US are in the throes of yet another worthless peace process.

Again they have agreed that the greatest threat to peace is the "settlers" and their supporters who want to wreck the peace/expulsion/withdrawal paradigm by building homes. Again our leaders and the chattering classes they cater to have chosen to embrace their fantasies at the expense of our national security and interests.

Of course it isn't just Hariri whom they ignore. They ignore the basic fact that freedom must be defended with blood and treasure. Otherwise, as happened in Lebanon, it will be defeated by blood and treasure.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

September 8, 2010, 6:52 AM

A prayer for 5771

Rosh Hashanah-border.jpg
On August 28, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck confounded his colleagues in the media when he brought hundreds of thousands of Americans to the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC for a rally he called "Restoring Honor."

While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker, the rally was decidedly apolitical. The speakers said nothing controversial. The crowd was enthusiastic but not rowdy. US President Barack Obama was never even mentioned by name. In the event, the massive crowd gathered, prayed, celebrated American military heroes, listened to patriotic speeches and songs. Then the participants picked up their garbage and went home.

So what was it all about? Why do many people see it as a watershed event? 

Although Beck called the rally "Restoring Honor," it wasn't really about restoring honor. It was about restoring something even more important. It was about restoring the American creed. 

That creed is so ingrained that it has served as the subtext of every major political and civic speech by every American political and civic leader since the eighteenth century. 

The American creed has two main components. First, its core belief is that America is an exceptional country and that the American people are an exceptional nation. Second, it asserts that as Abraham Lincoln first said outright, America is the last, best hope for mankind. 

The reason Beck's rally was a watershed event is that in the Age of Obama, millions of Americans for the first time feel the need to reclaim what they believe is their birthright as Americans. Because what distinguishes Obama from his predecessors is that he is the first American President who clearly rejects the American creed. 

This basic truth was first brought to the public's attention during Obama's visit to Turkey last year. A reporter there asked him, "[Do] you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of 'American exceptionalism' that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?"

Obama replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

That is, the US President said, no, he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He rejects the American creed.

Obama's unprecedented position stands at the core of the actions he has taken and the positions he has adopted since coming into office. From his move to nationalize the American healthcare system, to his attacks on the free market; from his insinuations that his political opponents are bigoted and primitive to his effective rejection of the mantle of US superpower status and global leadership in favor of transnationalism, Obama has clearly rejected the building blocks of America's national DNA. 

And this is why Beck's rally was important. At the rally Beck and the crowd he assembled committed themselves to repairing the damage Obama is causing. What the multitudes who congregated at the Lincoln Memorial two weeks ago understood is that America's greatness as a nation is entirely predicated on its creed. If the creed is abandoned, while America may hang around for awhile, its path to ruin will be inexorable. 

Lincoln once called Americans "God's almost chosen people." In saying that, he linked American history to the history of the Jews. Whereas the Jews singled ourselves out as the chosen people by agreeing to accept God's law, in Lincoln's view, Americans accepted the burdens and the gifts of a unique national path and mission in accepting the American creed.

THE AMERICAN creed has been cultivated, preserved and defended for some 350 years. The Jewish creed America's founders turned to for inspiration has been cultivated, preserved and defended for 3,500 years. 

The Jewish creed is predicated on the dual destiny of the Jews: to be both a nation that dwells alone and a light to the nations. 

God bestowed the Jews with three tools to achieve these twin, and seemingly contradictory missions. He gave us the Law of Israel. He gave us the Nation of Israel. And he gave us the Land of Israel. 

The law of Israel, the Torah, is the human path to righteousness and holiness. By obeying the laws and recognizing the frailty of mankind as a collective, the Jews comprise a distinct nation that is a blessing and an inspiration to the world. 

By building our lives in the land of Israel, our birthright, the Jews are able to cultivate our heritage and perform our dual mission in relative peace and make the blessing of choseness tangible for ourselves and the world as a whole.

For 3,500 years, successive generations of Jews have understood our mission and creed. They internalized it and lived their lives by it. 

Since the dawn of modern Zionism, the overwhelming majority of Jews, in Israel and throughout the world have recognized the return to the land of Israel as the harbinger of redemption for the Jewish people - and through it, for the world. This understanding has been so ingrained that it has seldom necessitated a mention. 

On almost every level, the State of Israel has been an overwhelming success for the Jewish people and for the world that has enjoyed its blessings. Economically today, the Israeli economy is the envy of the world. And this is no mean feat. In its first forty-five years of independence, Israel's socialist and otherwise economically backwards leaders went to extraordinary lengths to stifle market forces and essentially doomed Israel's economy to sclerotic performance and basket-case status.

But the reforms enacted over the past fifteen years or so, mainly initiated and pushed through by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have transformed Israel into an economic powerhouse. Although much remains to be done to expand economic opportunity and growth, because of Netanyahu's sound economic leadership, Israel has been largely immune to the recession now plaguing much of the Western world. 

Technologically as well, as the world is now recognizing, Israel has become a pintsize superpower. As George Gilder demonstrated in The Israel Test, Israeli computer entrepreneurs created the foundations of the digital age by inventing, among other things, the microprocessor and the main components of cellular telephone technology. The world we inhabit would be inconceivable without Israel's pioneering role in building it. 

As for Judaism, it is flourishing in Israel today as it never has at any time in the past two thousand years. The Jewish people emerged from the brink of annihilation 65 years ago to build a Jewish state whose population is more learned in Jewish law than any Jewish community has ever been. More Jews study in institutions of Jewish learning in Israel than have studied at any time in our history. And even non-observant Jews live Jewish lives in Israel to a degree their families could never have enjoyed or imagine just four generations ago. 

ISRAEL'S EXTRAORDINARY success is marred by but one failure. Since Theodore Herzl's untimely death in 1904, Israel has lacked a leader who recognized the importance of espousing the Jewish creed both to the world and to the Jewish people. That is, since Herzl, Israel has lacked leaders who have understood the first principle of statecraft. 

For a nation to flourish and succeed over time, its leaders must assert its creed with utter confidence both to their own people and to the world at large. They must assert their nation's creed with complete confidence even to leaders who reject it. And they must never give anyone else the right to deny their people their identity.

That is, whereas Obama is the first American president to deny and denigrate the American creed, Israel has never had a prime minister who was willing to assert Israel's creed. Leftist prime ministers have failed to assert the creed because they don't accept it. Rightist prime ministers have failed to assert our creed because they fail to understand what it means to have the confidence to boldly assert an identity that people don't want you to have.

Many scholars have argued that Jewish history is also the history of anti-Semitism. By not asserting Israel's creed, Israel's leaders have essentially accepted this claim. But this claim is utterly false. The history of the Jews and the history of anti-Semites are based on parallel narratives - one is true and one is false. And like parallel lines, they never intersect.

Throughout history, anti-Semites have sought to deny Jews the right to define ourselves by replacing our creed of law and holiness and homeland with a false creed of conspiracy and avarice and rootlessness. Today the instruments anti-Semites employ to tell Jews who we are involve accusations against a monstrous "Israel lobby," and an attempt to deny our rights to the land of Israel. 

Jews have survived repeated attempts to destroy us not because we have argued the finer points of the anti-Jewish narrative of the day, but because we have been faithful to our creed. That is, we have not survived by attacking anti-Semitic slurs, but by loyally upholding our truth. 

Yet in Israel, rather than proudly assert the extraordinary, tenacious and indeed miraculous nature of our people, our law and our land, our leaders have turned our creed into a bargaining point. And if this course is not soon abandoned, it will be our undoing. 

Our leaders are leading us astray by insisting that it is possible to achieve peace in the near term with our neighbors. Peace today is impossible because our neighbors reject at least two of our national creed's three components: Jewish nationhood and the Land of Israel. 

Furthermore, by introducing the demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as the Jewish state, our leaders are only making matters worse. In presenting this demand, our leaders are suggesting that the Arabs have the power to grant or deny that which is not theirs to give or take away. 

THIS EVENING we begin our observance of Rosh Hashana. The Bible describes Rosh Hashana as the day of trumpeting. When we assemble in prayer and blow the shofar, we engage in a loud and boisterous celebration of national unity and uphold our sacred birthright to our religious heritage and the land of Israel. 

At his rally Glenn Beck reminded us of the importance of loud, boisterous celebrations which recommit nations to their destiny and creed. Yet what Lincoln referred to as "the mystic chords of memory" cannot only be recalled in times of celebration. Like the American nation, for the Jewish nation to survive and prosper, that creed must resonate in all we do on all the other days of the year when the trumpets are silent.

It is my prayer for the coming year that our leaders take a measure of strength from our people and our creed. I pray that they recognize that it is both their sacred duty and their great privilege to confidently represent and defend our exceptionalism and our destiny as the nation of Israel.  

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Latma's ode to the Israeli peace kick

This week's Tribal Update from Latma, the Hebrew-language media satire site I edit, we discuss the upcoming Palestinian responses to the breakdown of the peace negotiations with Tawil Fadiha, the Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage. We also produced an ode to Israeli prime ministers past and present who can't seem to kick their peace obsession.

Here's the whole show:


 

And here's the musical tribute to Israel's peace kick on its own.

 

Latma is funded through contributions to the Center for Security Policy in Washington. If you would like to support our efforts, you can contribute to our efforts by clicking here. It takes you to the online contribution page to the Center for Security Policy through Network for Good. To earmark your donation to Latma, please write "Latma" in the box marked "designation." 

Unfortunately, for now, we can only accept donations from donors in the US. We are finding a solution to the problem and check here for updates.

Again, we wish you all a happy and healthy new year from Jerusalem.

All the best,
Caroline
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

September 7, 2010, 3:46 PM

Shana tova from Latma!!!

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

September 3, 2010, 8:23 AM

Artists for jihad and the attack of the killer phenomena

This week at Latma's Tribal Update, we feature a musical discourse on what moves Israeli actors to announce that they are boycotting audiences who live in Judea and Samaria. We also discuss the unique natural phenomenon that seems to exist only in Israel where Israelis are attacked by a natural phenomena.

Here is the whole show.


 

Here is the Artists for Jihad clip:

 

Latma is funded through contributions to the Center for Security Policy in Washington. If you would like to support our efforts, you can contribute to our efforts by clicking here. It takes you to the online contribution page to the Center for Security Policy through Network for Good. To earmark your donation to Latma, please write "Latma" in the box marked "designation." 

Unfortunately, for now, we can only accept donations from donors in the US. We are finding a solution to the problem and check here for updates.
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

The New Netanyahu?

bibi peacenik.jpg
Despite a multi-million dollar media blitz, Israelis are not buying the US-financed Geneva Initiative's attempt to convince us that we have a Palestinian partner. A week after the pro-Palestinian group launched its massive online promotion urging people to join its Facebook page, a mere 634 people had answered the call. 

The US-funded agitprop involved ads in which senior Fatah propagandists were featured telling Israelis we can trust them this time around. The reason for its failure was made clear by a public opinion poll taken Tuesday night for Channel 10. When asked if they believed that Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is serious about making peace with Israel, two-thirds of Israelis said no. Only 23 percent said he was serious and 17 percent said they didn't know.

Moreover, most Israelis have had it with the peace paradigm based on Israeli concessions of land and national rights in exchange for Palestinian terror and political warfare. When asked whether the government should extend the prohibition on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria beyond its Sept 26 terminus, 63 percent said no, it should not. A mere 21 percent of the public believes the government should respond positively to the US demand that Jews continue to be denied our property right in Judea and Samaria.

In his analysis of the results, Channel 10's senior political commentator Raviv Drucker said that if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decides to make a deal with the Palestinians, he will have a hard time convincing the public to support him.

Drucker also argued that the results may have been influenced by the Palestinian terror attack on Tuesday night in which four civilians were brutally murdered on their way home from Jerusalem. That is, Drucker implied that the public is driven by its emotions. But what the results actually show is that the public is driven by reason. 

When Palestinian terrorists gun down innocent people on the highway simply because they are Jews, the public's reasoned response is to say that the Palestinians do not want peace. The public's wholly rational reaction to this act of anti-Jewish butchery is to insist that Jews should not be denied our basic civil and human rights in a dangerous bid to appease murderers.

The poll's final question regarded Netanyahu and his intentions at the new round of land for peace negotiations in Washington. Slightly more than half of the public believes that Netanyahu is serious in his pursuit of a deal with the Palestinians and a mere 34 percent believe that he is not serious. 

This last response is interesting for two reasons. First it is a strong indication that the public trusts Netanyahu's word. Since taking office a year and a half ago, Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he supports making a deal with Fatah. And a majority of the public believes him. 

The second conclusion suggested by the result is more discouraging. With the public convinced that the Palestinians are not to be trusted and that Israel should stop making concessions, the majority of the public believes that Netanyahu is moving in the opposite direction. Netanyahu's statements in Washington give us ample reason for concern.

ON WEDNESDAY evening, ahead of a dinner at the White House with US President Barack Obama, Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, Netanyahu made a startling statement.

He said, "I have been making the case for Israel all my life. But I did not come here to win an argument. I came here to forge a peace. I did not come here to play a blame game where even the winners lose. I came here to achieve a peace that will bring benefits to all."

This statement is worth considering carefully. Does Netanyahu truly believe that by "making the case for Israel" he and others who speak out in defense of Israel have merely been argumentative? 

Does he think that defending Israel's rights diminishes the prospects for peace and so those that defend Israel are actually harming it? 

Does he believe that in calling the Palestinians out for their brutality, barbarism and hatred of Jews and Israel he and his fellow advocates for Israel have merely been playing a blame game? 

Does he think that a peace forged on the basis of ignoring Israel's case will be a viable peace? 

If Netanyahu does believe all of these things - and his statement on Wednesday evening indicates he does, then the public should be very worried. Indeed, if this is what the premier believes, then it is just a matter of time before he begins echoing his predecessor Ariel Sharon and tells us that we are too dimwitted to understand him because the world looks different from where he is sitting than from our lowly perches on the ground, in Israel.

AND THIS brings us back to Tuesday evening's highway massacre. Predictably, the Obama administration led the way in framing the terrorist violence as a bid by Hamas to derail the newest round of negotiations. For example, after meeting with Netanyahu Wednesday Obama said, "The tragedy that we saw yesterday where people were gunned down on the street by terrorists who are purposely trying to undermine these talks is an example of what we're up against." 

The only party that rejected the administration's rationalization of the attack was Hamas, whose operatives reportedly carried it out. In an interview Thursday with the London-based Asharq al Awsat, Hamas leader Mahmoud A-Zahar said that the talks have nothing to do with the attack. As he put it, "The bid to link this operation to the negotiations is completely wrong. When people have the opportunity, the capability and the targets, they act."

The truth is probably found neither in A-Zahar's claim nor in Obama's assertion. In all likelihood, Hamas was testing the waters. Iran's Palestinian proxy wanted to know whether the regular rules for peace processes have kicked into gear yet. Those rules -- as the families of the hundreds of Israelis murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the peak years of peace processes will attest -- involve Israel giving free rein to terrorists to murder Jews during "peace talks." 

Since Yitzhak Rabin first shook Yassir Arafat's hand on the White House lawn 17 years ago, successive prime ministers have opted to not to retaliate for murderous attacks when peace talks are in session. They have justified their willingness to give the likes of Hamas a free hand to murder by claiming that fighting back would be tantamount to allowing terrorists to hold the peace process hostage. Conducting counter-terror campaigns in the midst of negotiations, they have uniformly argued, would endanger the talks and so, Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad must all be given a carte blanche to murder.

Echoing these sentiments precisely, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin all reportedly objected to launching any response to Tuesday's attack. According to the media, the three closed ranks against Netanyahu who reportedly wished to attack Hamas targets in Gaza following the massacre. 

Wednesday's roadside shooting attack, in which a man and his wife were wounded, was a clear indication that Hamas and its ilk received the message. Just as A-Zahar said, they are always looking for an opportunity. And in not responding to Tuesday's attack, Israel told them that for the duration of these negotiations, Hamas can again kill with impunity.
 
Whether Hamas renewed its terror attacks this week because it likes to murder Jews, because it was trying to derail negotiations or because it was testing Israel, the fact of the matter is that from Hamas's perspective, it stood only to gain from attacking. Terror is always popular with the Palestinian public. As the Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, when news broke of Tuesday's attack, mobs of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria took to the streets to celebrate. 

Part of the reason that Palestinians love terrorism is because they have never had to pay a real price for killing Jews. To the contrary, they have been richly rewarded. The Palestinians believe that it was terror, not negotiations that convinced Israel to withdraw from Gaza. So too, as they glance at the international response to their acts of wanton murder, they see terror has only benefitted them. International monetary assistance and political support for the Palestinians have always risen as terror levels peaked. 

Obama's insistence that the talks go on after Tuesday's attack showed the Palestinians that the game is still theirs to win. The US will continue to side with the Palestinian demands against Israel regardless of their behavior. 

IN NETANYAHU'S defense, his speech on Wednesday evening was not simply a repudiation of his life's work on behalf of Israel. Netanyahu seemed to hedge his bets when he said, "We left Lebanon, we got terror. We left Gaza, we got terror. We want to ensure that territory we concede will not be turned into a third Iranian sponsored terror enclave aimed at the heart of Israel. That is why a defensible peace requires security arrangements that can withstand the test of time and the many challenges that are sure to confront us."

The problem with this statement is that in light of the free pass he gave Hamas for Tuesday's attack, Netanyahu already conceded this crucial principle. If he believes that the only way for the talks to advance is to stand down in the face of attack rather than aggressively strike back, then Netanyahu has already committed himself to a peace that will create "a new Iranian sponsored terror enclave aimed at the heart of Israel." 

Likewise, if he believes that only by ceasing to make Israel's case can he make progress with his "partner" Abbas, then Netanyahu has already conceded his demand that a peace agreement contain security arrangements that will defend Israel's national rights and other vital interests. 

The most distressing aspect of Netanyahu's enthusiastic participation in a process the Israeli public rationally opposes is that it is him doing it. With Netanyahu now joining the ranks of those that attack Israel's defenders as enemies of peace and claim that defending the country is antithetical to peace, who is left to defend us? 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Syndication

Recommended Sites

© 2013 Caroline Glick