Categories

October 2011 Archives

October 28, 2011, 11:51 PM

IDF plans for Schalit rescue mission and celebs pay price for his release

This week on the Tribal Update, the television-on-internet media satire review produced by Latma, the Hebrew language, satirical media criticism website I run, we bring you an interview with the IDF commander who was tasked with planning a rescue mission for Gilad Schalit. We also feature an interview with pop star Aviv Zefet describing the personal sacrifice he had to make due to Schalit's return home. And that's just for starters.

I hope you enjoy the show, post it on your blogs and forward it to all your friends.

 

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

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.


Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
BIC Code: IDBLILITXXX
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154
Beneficiary's Name: Zionist Incubator
Beneficiary's address: POB 841 Mevasseret Zion, Israel 90805

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.


Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
BIC Code: IDBLILITXXX
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154
Beneficiary's Name: Zionist Incubator
Beneficiary's address: POB 841 Mevasseret Zion, Israel 90805
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Whither the IDF?

קרביים.jpg
It was a normal Shabbat afternoon in Jerusalem's Ramot neighborhood. Children were outside visiting with their friends and playing in the empty streets. But the tranquility of the scene was destroyed in a moment, when a Palestinian terrorist crept up on 17- year-old Yehuda Ne'emad and his friend and began stabbing Ne'emad in the abdomen and shoulder.

Ne'emad's neighbor, a 12-year-old girl, told reporters that there but by the grace of God both she and her six-year-old brother would have also been attacked. After stabbing Ne'emad, the Palestinian terrorist began chasing the two children.

"It was only due to God's help that I was able to escape," she said. "I am sure that I couldn't have escaped alone, because he was much faster than me."

The IDF, which failed to prevent the attack, played no role in saving their lives. One week later, the terrorist was still at large.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the IDF would view Ne'emad's stabbing, along with the steep escalation of terror and sabotage from Ashdod to the Galilee to Gush Etzion over the past several days as a wake-up call. The time has come to ratchet up the IDF's counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria to end the current wave of terror before the Palestinians have the opportunity to get their killing machines back in gear.

But shockingly, it appears that defeating terrorists is at the bottom of the IDF's to-do list.
Statements emanating from the IDF's top echelons indicate its commanders are unaware that it is their job to fight and defeat terrorists.

Israel's release of hundreds of convicted Palestinian mass murderers in exchange for Gilad Schalit was a shot of adrenalin for Hamas and Fatah alike. Hamas views the swap as a vindication of its path of murder in the name of jihad. Fatah sees the swap as a challenge to its power that can be surmounted only by proving it can mount its own renewed terror assault against Israel.

Rather than meet this new challenge with an aggressive counterterror initiative, this week officers on the General Staff told Haaretz that Military Intelligence, the civil administration and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) believe the best way to respond to Hamas's ascendency is to release Fatah terrorists from jail and to give more land to Fatah's terror-aligned security forces in Judea and Samaria.

That is, those charged with fighting Hamas terrorists recommend empowering Fatah terrorists. And they do so at a time when Fatah's leadership refuses to have anything to do with the Israeli government and as Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is preparing for his summit with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Rather than recognize and confront the rising dangers from Hamas and Fatah alike, senior IDF commanders made statements this week indicating the army believes that its most important mission in Judea and Samaria today is to fight Jews.

This week, Brig.-Gen. Nitzan Alon completed his two-year stint as Judea and Samaria Division commander. At his farewell party held two days after the terror attack in Jerusalem, Alon described the central challenge facing the IDF in Judea and Samaria as evicting Israelis from their homes.

As he put it, "It's likely that the IDF will be required to carry out, together with the police and the civil administration, certain missions that are not within the national consensus, and do so in the face of a rising conflict with the extremist but expanding fringes of Israeli society."

During his time as division commander, Alon ordered troops to shoot at Israeli residents of outpost communities slated for destruction with rubber bullets if they tried to oppose forcible expulsion.

Alon went on to speak of the grave threat of "Jewish terrorists."

He said, "Already today there is an extremist minority, marginal in size but not in influence, that is liable to steeply escalate the acts commonly referred to as 'price tag,' but are actually terrorism. These acts must not only be condemned; their prevention, and the arrest of their perpetrators, must be undertaken more effectively than what we have managed to accomplish to date."

As far as Alon is concerned, "Jewish terrorists," pose a threat to Israel that is just as dangerous - if not more dangerous - than the threat posed by the real terrorists just freed from prison. And from OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrachi's supportive statements at Alon's farewell bash, it appears that Mizrachi agrees with him.

But how can this be? No "Jewish terrorists" have stabbed and murdered Palestinian children. No "Jewish terrorists" have sent missiles into Palestinian residential neighborhoods or strapped bombs on their chests to blow up Palestinian cafes and buses. What Jewish terrorism are they talking about? 

True, earlier this month there was an arson attack at the mosque in Tuba Zanghariya in the Galilee. While the media was quick to blame it on unknown Jewish assailants, it is hard to see why they would be the obvious or even most likely culprits. 

Residents of Tuba Zanghariya torched their own clinic and community center. They routinely steal and kill livestock belonging to Jewish farmers in neighboring communities and set fire to their fields.

Aside from that, the police arrested two Jewish suspects but were compelled to release them this week due to lack of evidence. The police arrested a third suspect this week but failed to convince a judge to remand him to custody for 10 days. The judge scolded the police for even asking, given that they had no evidence of guilt.

Why would Jews from Judea or Samaria go to all the way to the Galilee to attack a mosque anyway? There are plenty closer to home.

The truth is that the "price tag" attacks are not acts of terror. They are acts of hooliganism and warrant criminal punishment. But their Jewish perpetrators are not terrorists. They are petty hooligans.

The fact of the matter is that there is no Jewish terrorist infrastructure in Judea and Samaria or anywhere else. And there never has been. This was reported this week by Amir Oren in Haaretz.

Among other things, Oren's article dealt with the 1994 Shamgar Commission formed in the aftermath of Baruch Goldstein's massacre of Arab worshipers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Oren revealed that following the massacre, the Shin Bet recommended forming fake Jewish terror groups in order to provide an organizational framework for would-be Jewish terrorists that would enable the Shin Bet to find and arrest them. The commission adopted the recommendation in its final report.

Obviously, if there had been a Jewish terror infrastructure, the Shin Bet wouldn't have needed to build fake ones. 

So what has motivated Alon to focus his attention on fighting a nonexistent Jewish terror threat? Throughout his two years in Judea and Samaria, Alon distinguished himself as one of the most politicized IDF commanders. He consistently overstepped his authority, contradicted government policies and advocated positions of the radical Left. For instance, in an interview this month with The New York Times, Alon indicated that unlike the government, he supports a full IDF withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and doesn't believe that a withdrawal would be dangerous for Israel.

In the same interview, Alon reprimanded Congress for threatening to cut off US funding to the Palestinian Authority's terror-aligned security forces, claiming that they are a stabilizing force in the region. It is hard to think of another example of an IDF officer telling Congress how to spend US taxpayer dollars.

But while Alon's political activism is more pronounced than that of his colleagues, he is far from the only commander who misunderstands the responsibilities of the military.

Take the IDF's behavior on September 25, the day Abbas was in New York to request Palestinian membership as a state at the UN. A few hours before Abbas's speech, 300 Palestinians from Kusra in Samaria attacked a platoon of soldiers from the Kfir Brigade commanded by Lt. Maor Asayag. When one of the soldiers reported that his life was threatened, Asayag ordered him to use live fire to protect himself. His soldier's life was saved and a 34-year-old Palestinian attacker was killed.

For his actions, last week, Asayag was removed from his command and barred from further service in combat forces by his battalion commander, Lt.-Col. Yoav Tzikrun. Shocked and angry at their commander's removal, Asayag's soldiers wrote a letter to Tzikrun defending Asayag's behavior as exemplary. They also raised concern that he was punished for political reasons and demanded that he be restored to his command.

For their efforts, the soldiers received a harsh reprimand from Tzikrun.

Asayag wasn't the only victim of the IDF's decision to put politics before duty during the UN General Assembly session. That day the police, Central Command and the IDF Spokesman's Office falsely reported that the terrorist murder of Asher Palmer and his infant son Yonatan was a simple car accident. The two were killed by Palestinians who threw stones at the windshield of their car as they drove along the highway. It took two days and a court order to force the IDF to acknowledge that the father and baby had been murdered.

Not surprisingly, the politicization of senior IDF officers has demoralized junior officers and line soldiers. Soldiers and officers who for years risked their lives in operations aimed at capturing the same terrorists who were just released for Schalit feel betrayed by their commanders who supported the deal.

As one officer told Arutz 7, "It may not be so nice to say it, but we are asking what the point was in taking all those risks? These aren't some amateur Molotov cocktail-throwers or stone throwers. These are real killers. We know them and their release is frustrating."

In the aftermath of 2006's Second Lebanon War, the IDF's senior officer corps was subjected to well-deserved public attack for its poor performance during the war. Not only did senior commanders fail to produce and implement a plan to defeat Hezbollah, preferring instead to let the politicians put together a "political solution." They failed to lead their soldiers in battle, opting to stay behind in air-conditioned command posts watching the fighting on television screens.

Three division commanders and the OC Northern Command were removed from their posts for their normative and operational failures and then-chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz was eventually forced into early retirement.

It was widely believed that the public opprobrium forced the IDF's senior ranks to recognize that their duty is to defend the country, and to defeat the enemy, not to behave like politicians.

Unfortunately, the IDF's current behavior indicates that nothing has changed.

With the Muslim Brotherhood on the rise throughout the Arab world, and with Hamas coopting Fatah in Judea and Samaria, Israel needs the IDF to defend it. The current situation, where politicized commanders highlight nonexistent threats and punish committed officers for doing their jobs cannot be allowed to continue.

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

October 27, 2011, 12:48 PM

Interview with the Jewish Press about Latma and Israel

This week I gave an interview to Sara Lehman at The Jewish Press about Latma. I think it came out great.


And here's the text:


'WE WANT TO BREAK THE LEFTIST MONOPOLY ON PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN ISRAEL': AN INTERVIEW WITH POLITICAL ANALYST CAROLINE GLICK

By: Sara Lehmann 

Date: Wednesday, October 26 2011 

Laughter really is the best medicine. Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post and senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, has found humor and satire to be valuable tools in making the case for a strong Israel. Her latest venture to that end is Latma, the Hebrew-language media satire website Glick created and edits.

The non-profit Latma is Glick's newest platform for her staunchly nationalistic defense of Israel, promoted in her biweekly syndicated columns for the Jerusalem Post and in articles in The Jewish Press, The Wall Street Journal, National Review and Moment magazine, among others. Glick also is a frequent guest on Fox News, MSNBC and Israeli television.

Glick is currently in the U.S. to raise awareness of Latma.

The Jewish Press: How effective has Latma been since you started it?

Glick: I think Latma has been extremely effective since we started it about three years ago. Our goal was to use television and Internet in a new way. We want to break the leftist monopoly on public discourse in Israel. We are using groundbreaking new images through satire and humor to make the non-leftist worldview and the classical Zionist worldview about Israel's place in the world socially acceptable. It's been working very, very well - beyond our expectations. Right now we're negotiating a contract with Channel One on Israel Television to produce our program as a regular prime-time series. If that occurs it will represent a revolutionary change.

Have you detected any tangible effect on public opinion since Latma's appearance?

Public opinion in Israel is very strange, in the sense that polling data shows the overwhelming majority of Jews in Israel are right-wing, but the policies that government after government enacts are left-wing. The public tends to be quiescent in the face of this, largely because of the media, which makes it seem as though right-wing, nationalist positions are extremist.

The only way to stop this situation is to discredit the left. Subjecting Israel's icons to ridicule has the effect of empowering the public to speak its mind. I believe the fastest and most effective means is through satire, because the thing about humor is that when you laugh at something, it's no longer intimidating.

The left's ability to frighten people into accepting the left's arguments is diminishing. When Netanyahu went to the United States in May and Obama used the trip to try to force Netanyahu to accept the 1949 armistice lines, there was a very big pushback from the public. The media tried very hard to portray Netanyahu in the wrong, but the public embraced Netanyahu rather than the media's version of events. At the time, I spoke at a very large demonstration outside the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv and several hundred people flocked to me afterward thanking me for Latma, telling me they never were activists before watching it.

Do you think the recent public embrace of Netanyahu will empower him to move more to the right?

No. Just look at how he capitulated with the Shalit deal. It was [an emotional experience] to see Gilad Shalit, emaciated and traumatized, finally come home. But the deal Netanyahu agreed to is signed with the blood of the past and future victims of the terrorists he let go. The truth is that politicians, wherever they are, are beholden to the elite forces in a society. The elite are generally the media, academia, and whatever version of Hollywood exists in that country, and their beliefs tend to dictate the terms of reference for any politician. The positions of the voters are shunted aside because while they're known at the ballot box, on a daily basis they're not heard from.

The people who are heard from are those with the microphone, and in Israel, like in America and Europe, the people with the microphone tend to be on the left.

What we're trying to do [with Latma] is enact a revolutionary change in Israel as opposed to a gradual change, to replace one elite with another.

Will that goal be thwarted by leftists in Israel who routinely accuse dissenters of having crossed a red line?

There is always the question of where the red line is. The left tries to paint the line very close to the left as opposed to where it should be, which is on the margins of both sides' spectrums. We do have a problem with expression of free speech. The people who are being silenced, I think completely unacceptably and in an anti-democratic manner, have been demonized.

That's the problem. The discourse in Israel is so limited that it's shocking. It's completely distorted because the only side that really gets to decide what's going to be discussed is the radical left. So you then have a counterpart which is called the radical right. But the vast majority of Israel is neither radical left nor radical right. The vast majority love the country, want to defend it, don't want to surrender, don't want to establish a Palestinian state that's going to be the death of the country, and don't want to be beholden to foreign powers, but this view is never expressed.

One of the reasons we have a situation where we are going back time and time again, beating our heads against the wall with this false paradigm of peace on the basis of the establishment of a Palestinian state, is because the left has discounted any alternative policy. Every time we say it doesn't work, the left always comes back and says, "What's your alternative?"

Well, the alternative of course is to annex Judea and Samaria, but we haven't had any discussion of that possible alternative for the past thirty years. It's been discredited by the left because they don't want to discuss it. So most Israelis, because we never talk about it, just assume it's not a possibility. And the reason we end up having these situations where a right-wing government implements left-wing policies is because there is an absence of right-wing policies.

Do you believe a stronger leader than Netanyahu is needed for such a change to occur?

A big problem throughout the Western world, not only in Israel, is that due in large part to the intellectual terror of the left there is a huge leadership crisis. People who actually have the strength of their convictions, the character and moral fiber to stand up for their country, are being marginalized. As a result, the people who end up getting through the vetting process of the elite tend to be without strong convictions. This is the real problem. And the answer I found is that the way to have strong leaders is to have strong people. We have to do the hard work the public demands of leadership and then I believe the leaders we need will emerge or the leaders we have will be strengthened.

Do you think it will take a crisis for that shift to occur more rapidly?

Since 1993, when we allowed the PLO to decamp to the outskirts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, we've been in continuous crisis. The public has been energized by that and has opened its eyes to the perils of the left-wing agenda, but it hasn't been sufficient to change the way leaders act once they're in office. The reason is that while the left's policy paradigms have been discredited, the leftist elite has not. So you have the same radicals running the court system, running the law enforcement arms of the government; the same sort of homogenization of anyone who wants to rise in the ranks of Israel's media and entertainment industries. That has to be changed. And I think the way to change that is to discredit those who've been immune from criticism - the leftist elite.

The latest Latma song is an optimistic one. Does that reflect your personal opinion or are you more pessimistic about Israel's current situation?

I really believe Israel will win and that justice is on our side. I have a deep and abiding faith in the Jewish people to stand up for ourselves. We didn't come to Israel in order to see this country destroyed. We are so close to victory. We have everything going in our favor. Our people are extraordinary, our economy is doing well, our soldiers are brave and trained well. Our enemies are falling apart in front of our faces; their economies are falling apart.

We just have to stand tough and stand up for our rights. Once we do that it's not going to bring peace forever and ever, but when did the Jewish people ever have such a thing? It could bring peace and security and prosperity for a generation. We have been told for the past generation that we have no right to defend ourselves, that if we stand up for our rights then people are going to hate us, when the exact opposite is true.

We've been brainwashed by a left that produces demoralizing pictures of what we can expect from our region and our world, which isn't based on anything but their own fantasies. We need to expose that. Once we do that, I don't think there's anything we can't accomplish. So I am very optimistic, but I understand the obstacles we have to surmount in order to get to that place are formidable and we will have to use our greatest talents in order to get past them.



Copyright ©2011 JewishPress.com.

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

October 21, 2011, 8:52 AM

Marketing Gilad Schalit

hamas celebrations.jpg
 
Gilad Schalit is home. And that is wonderful. The terrorists Israel released in exchange for the IDF soldier held hostage by Hamas for more than five years are running around Judea, Samaria and Gaza promising to return to terror. And that is a nightmare.

But so far, the Israeli public is happy with the outcome. Indeed, the polling data on the government's decision to swap 1,027 terrorists for Schalit are stunning.

According to the New Wave poll carried out for Makor Rishon, for instance, 75.7 percent of the public supported the deal and only 15.5 percent opposed it. In a society as rife with internal divisions as Israel, it is hard to think of any issue that enjoys the support of three quarters of the population. But even more amazing than the level of support is that the poll also shows the vast majority of Israelis believe that the deal harms Israel's national security.

Sixty-one-and-a-half percent of respondents believe the deal increases the Palestinians' motivation to commit acts of terror. Only 23.4 percent disagree.

The New Wave poll's results are in line with the polling data reported by other firms. Down the line, the numbers are consistent: Three quarters of the public supported the deal and two-thirds of the public said it endangers the country. What this means is that two-thirds of the public listened to their hearts instead of their heads in supporting the Schalit-for-murderers swap.

How can this triumph of emotion over reason be explained? Israelis are not a society of overgrown adolescents, enslaved by their urges. So what brought a large majority of Israelis to favor a deal they know endangers them? 

Part of the answer was provided in an article in the Globes newspaper on Monday. Titled "Lucky the kidnapping happened in the technological era" and written by Anat Bein-Leibovitz, it analyzed the five-year advertising campaign that shaped public perceptions about Schalit and built public support for a deal that obviously harms the country.

The Shalmor Avnon Amichai firm ran the campaign to free Schalit. Shlomi Avnon, a partner in the agency, described the goals of the campaign as follows: "The first goal was to generate empathy for Gilad and his family. We did not know when the government needed to make a decision, but we wanted the Schalit family to enjoy wide public support when a decision came. It was clear that Gilad's return would be at a high price to Israel, and in order to make sure that Gilad would be returned, it was critical that there should be public support to put pressure on the government.

"The second goal was to keep Gilad in the public consciousness so that he would not be forgotten.... We attacked on all fronts: emotionally, by comparing Gilad with Ron Arad, and on a security level, by bringing in security personalities who supported his release.

"We made a decision that our target audience was the public and not decision makers, because we knew that with decision makers all could be lost...."

Avnon and his colleagues marketed Schalit like a commercial product. As advertising executive Sefi Shaked explained, "This was a battle between two brands. One was 'Bring Gilad back,' and the other 'Woe if we free murderers.' The challenge for the Gilad brand was to maintain awareness of it, to keep going forward....They did much better work than the rival brand, which is a strong brand, but it didn't do much. They gave it the knockout."

While the PR executives interviewed for the article are correct in their assessment that the Shalmor Avnon Amichai agency's campaign was well conceived and professionally executed, the fact is that over the past 20 years, hiring PR firms to conceive and implement public campaigns has become standard operating procedure in Israel. And yet, it is hard to think of any such campaign that succeeded as overwhelmingly as the terrorists-for-Gilad campaign did.

For instance, the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza paid a king's ransom for its public relations campaign against the withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria. The council's leaders mobilized more than a million Israelis to take part in the campaign that lasted for more than a year. And yet, they failed to accomplish their mission.

Other campaigns were successful in forcing the government's hand. But they still didn't enjoy anywhere near the support levels that the Gilad-for-murderers deal did. The campaigns for the Oslo accords with the PLO, for the withdrawal from southern Lebanon, for the release of hostages or bodies in return for terrorists, and for the withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria were all successful. But they were carried out in the face of a divided public.

As the polls show, the consensus formed around the cause of Schalit's release at all costs does not owe to public approval of terrorist-forhostage swaps. So what formed this consensus? 

In Schalit's case, the reason that the PR campaign worked so well is because the media and the national security community - the two national institutions that are supposed to be the watchdogs of Israel's national interests against the advertising executives - opted to behave like lapdogs.

Speaking to Globes, the PR executives were unanimous in their judgment that the success of the campaign was due to the media's total mobilization on behalf of the cause. As Gil Samsonov put it, "The first target audience was the media, which were mobilized, and everyone did their jobs while minimizing the opposition." 

Yair Geller added that Schalit is "lucky that the abduction happened at a time when the media are the strongest power.... The media left the government no option not to act."

The executives are correct that the media are the strongest force in Israeli society. Their power owes to the fact that the major media organs are ideologically uniform and therefore act consistently as a pack.

It was the media's overwhelming support for the Oslo process, for the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, and for previous hostages-for- terrorist swaps that forced the hand of the government time after time. It was similarly the media's opposition to the PR campaign against the withdrawal from Gaza that doomed it to failure.

By choosing sides, the media ensure there is no substantive public debate about the controversial campaigns they support. Rather than debate the substance of an issue, the media, together with PR firms, personalize disputes.

In the case of the Lebanon withdrawal, the media cast the debate as one between indifferent IDF commanders and concerned mothers of soldiers. The Gaza withdrawal was cast as a dispute between Ariel Sharon, a wise grandfather who loved the country and was democratically elected, and settler zealots who wanted IDF soldiers to die so they could keep their profitable farms and fancy villas. Hostages-for-murderers swaps are cast as battles between innocent soldiers and evil politicians who would let them die.

In all cases, the threat posed by surrendering to Israel's enemies is ignored or glossed over.

By barring a real debate on the most contentious issues of the day, for the past two decades the media have been able to dictate policy on the most contentious issues facing the country. Still, none of these media victories were won with the consensus support enjoyed by the Schalit campaign.

What distinguished the Schalit campaign from those that preceded it was not the media mobilization but the complicity of the IDF, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Mossad. In all the other campaigns, the security services either opposed the campaigns or stood on the sidelines.

In an interview with Haaretz this past Sunday, Col. Ronen Cohen, who recently retired from IDF Military Intelligence, said the IDF never tried to put together an operation to rescue Schalit. In his words, Schalit's prolonged captivity "was a resounding failure of the IDF.... The IDF never took responsibility for the soldier and did not even set up a team to deal with bringing him back." 

As a consequence, the IDF gave the government no choice other than to pay a ransom for Schalit.

According to PR executive Geller, the IDF's abdication of its responsibility to rescue Schalit was influenced by the media's full mobilization on behalf of the PR campaign. "That [Schalit] was not hurt in a rescue operation is due, among other things, to the high value that the media placed on him." The IDF was too afraid of media criticism to risk a rescue raid.

Even in the face of the IDF's abdication of responsibility to save Schalit, the previous heads of the IDF, Shin Bet and Mossad all opposed the swap as dangerous, and so Israel rejected it.

But, in the end, the media won out. Defense Minister Ehud Barak replaced the security bosses with successors who agreed to subordinate their professional judgment to the media's demands. They all adopted the demonstrably false position that releasing 1,027 terrorists would not endanger Israel. This is what enabled the public consensus to form.

It is possible that now that Schalit and the terrorists are free the media will permit a debate on the wisdom of future deals. For instance, a debate has already begun on mandatory capital punishment for terrorist killers.

But there are more pressing issues that need to be resolved today if we want to prevent the public from being manipulated again into adopting positions wholly at odds with reason and the national interest. The first issue is that of the media.

Given the media's unchecked power to repeatedly manipulate public opinion to adhere to its radical ideological agenda, it is essential that the government and Knesset step in and reform the media market. Broadcast licensing procedures for television and radio must be deregulated. Television and radio must be open to competition. Broadcasters should be allowed to broadcast whatever they want whenever they want, and the market should dictate who rises and who falls. This is the only way to protect the public against manipulation, and the government from blackmail.

Then there is the IDF. To fix what has clearly become broken in the IDF we must have a serious public discussion about its irresponsible, unprofessional behavior throughout Schalit's period of captivity. The public must be made aware of the apparent leadership crisis at the top ranks of the IDF in order to force the government to enact necessary changes in personnel and compel serving commanders to change their behavior.

The internal contradiction at the heart of the consensus for ransoming Schalit for terrorists renders it likely that the unanimity now surrounding the deal will evaporate soon. But to prevent PR firms and the media from successfully manipulating the public and blackmailing politicians in the future, we must check the power of the media and hold the IDF accountable for its failures today. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before the public again is convinced to support policies that it knows endanger the country.

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

October 19, 2011, 8:54 PM

Tawil Fadiha's Holiday greeting and a message from an Oxford Don

Like last week's show, this week's episode of the Tribal Update, the television-on-Internet news satire broadcast produced by Latma, the  Hebrew-language media satire website I lead was taped before last week's announcement of the hostage-for-terrorists swap that brought Gilad Schalit home.
We promise to deal with the subject in next week's show.
In the meantime, we bring you Succot Greetings from Tawil Fadiha, the Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage and a prehistory lesson from an Oxford professor.
Enjoy the show and hag sameach!

 

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

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.


Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
BIC Code: IDBLILITXXX
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154
Beneficiary's Name: Zionist Incubator
Beneficiary's address: POB 841 Mevasseret Zion, Israel 90805

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.


Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
BIC Code: IDBLILITXXX
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154
Beneficiary's Name: Zionist Incubator
Beneficiary's address: POB 841 Mevasseret Zion, Israel 90805
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Iran's war to win

Mullahs.jpg
The Obama administration's response to Iran's plan to bring its 32-year-old war against the United States to the US capital is the newest confirmation that President Barack Obama has no intention in taking action to remove or diminish the threat Iran poses to the US, its allies and interests.

Last week, the Justice Department revealed that law enforcement officials foiled an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US and to blow up the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington.

They arrested an Iranian-American dual national who is a relative of a senior terror mastermind serving in Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The dual national, Mansoor Arbabsiar, contacted an American undercover agent whom he believed worked for one of Mexico's drug cartels and asked for the cartel to assist Iran in carrying out the plot.

Iran declared war on the US in 1979. Since then, it has used its terrorist arms in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region to murder Americans. It has used its terror arms in Latin American to target US interests and allies. And now it has been caught in the act of recruiting agents to assist it in carrying out acts of terror in Washington, DC.

Following the Justice Department's announcement, the Obama administration proclaimed it intends to "isolate" Iran in the international community. While it sounds like a serious plan, particularly when it is stated assertively by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the fact is that this is not a serious policy at all.


Indeed, upon reflection, it is clear that the announced aim of isolating Iran involves doing nothing to retaliate against Iran for its aggression.

There are three reasons that this is the case. First, by placing the burden for punishing Iran on the nebulous "international community," Obama is signaling that under his leadership, America does not view operational plans to attack US interests on American soil as something that America should deal with.

In Iran's case, the "international community" means Russia and China. The two UN Security Council-veto-wielding regimes have collaborated with Iran on its illicit activities generally and its development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles specifically. Russia and China have blocked all serious sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. Their active defense of Iran at the Security Council renders it a foregone conclusion that the UN will never authorize military force to be used against Iran's nuclear installations.

Since Russia and China prefer to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons than authorize any UN measure that could prevent or slow down this development, it is hard to imagine either government suddenly agreeing to isolate Iran just because it planned to kill the Saudi ambassador and blow up a couple of foreign embassies in Washington.

THE SECOND reason it is reasonable to conclude that the administration is being disingenuous in its tough talk about Iran is because the administration tells us it is being disingenuous. Speaking to The New York Times over the weekend, several senior White House officials said they were considering options to steeply escalate the US's sanctions against Iran.

Specifically, they said the administration is mulling the prospect of barring financial transactions with Iran's central bank. They also said that the White House is thinking about barring contact with Iran's Revolutionary Guards-owned company that controls the sale of Iranian oil and natural gas to foreign countries.

Then again, administration sources also told the Times that they aren't certain that the sanctions are such a good idea. If the US blocks the only viable path toward purchasing Iranian gas and oil and otherwise makes it impossible for Iran to sell its natural resources, they warned, the US would cause the market price of both commodities to rise sharply, thus harming its own economy.So probably the US won't ratchet up sanctions on the regime after all.

Then there is the notion of military retaliation. After the news broke of the foiled terror plot, Obama let it be known that the "military option is on the table." But then, he didn't specify the goal of the military option or its target. Is the US developing an option for attacking Iran's nuclear weapons facilities? Is it preparing to attack Iranian regime targets in an effort to topple the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world? Is it planning a military strike against IRGC targets in Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan? 

It is highly unlikely that the US is planning to undertake any of these missions. Over the weekend, the US announced that its troops would be fully removed from Iraq in January. Obama has insisted on withdrawing his surge troops from Afghanistan despite the Taliban resurgence in the country.

As for attacking regime targets, it is hard to imagine that after siding with the mullahs against democracy protesters in the aftermath of the stolen 2009 presidential elections, Obama would decide to call suddenly for the regime to be replaced - let alone take military action to advance that goal.

THEN THERE is the nuclear issue. Since Russia's and China's support for Iran at the Security Council rules out any option of a Security Council-sanctioned attack in Iran's nuclear installations, it is fairly obvious that the administration will take no military action whatsoever against Iran's nuclear program. This is, after all, the administration that believes the US must receive UN approval for any military operation.

Obama's effectively pro-ayatollah policies have caused him to treat the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as essentially identical to the threat posed to the US by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As nuclear proliferation scholar Avner Cohen explained in an interview with The Jerusalem Post earlier this month, the administration is committed to a policy of containing a nuclear-armed Iran rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Cohen explained, "The US wants itself, and also Israel, to be engaged in a thorough effort to contain Iran - like the way the Soviet Union was contained during the Cold War - meaning that for all practical purposes and short of extreme circumstances, both the US and Israel would have to put aside the military option and instead work to contain Iran."

According to Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the US will have an opportunity to put its nuclear containment policy toward Iran into action in the near future. In an interview two weeks ago with Der Spiegel, Heinonen asserted that within two years, the Iranians will have sufficient quantities of plutonium to produce atomic bombs. Within a year, they will have enough highly enriched uranium to have what is referred to as "break-out capacity," meaning they can produce nuclear bombs at will.

The problem with Obama's non-response to Iran's nuclear weapons program and its terror plot to attack Washington is that the Iranian regime is nothing like the Soviet Union. The regime whose first foray into international diplomacy involved taking a knife to the nation-state system by attacking the US embassy and holding its personnel hostage is not a strategic equivalent of the Soviet Union. A regime that sent 100,000 of its children to their deaths during the Iran-Iraq War by dispatching them to the battlefields as human mine sweepers is not a regime that can be contained through mutual assured destruction as the Soviets were.

Iran's war against the US is a war that only Iran is fighting. And if something doesn't change very quickly, it is clear that since Iran is the only side fighting the war, Iran is the only side that will win the war.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

October 13, 2011, 6:23 PM

A pact signed in Jewish blood

victims of Arab terror.jpg
No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.

There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn't empathize with their suffering. It isn't simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF.

It isn't just that it could happen to any of our families.

As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family's suffering is our collective suffering.

And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others.

Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family. 

Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit. Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.

There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family's sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.

Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly.

Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.

For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14- month-old granddaughter Sinai Keinan did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002.

And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren't planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem.

Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.

The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu's brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.

The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.

IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.

Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.

This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.

It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.

The only thing we don't know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.

Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.

There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die.

In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews.

This deal - like its predecessors - is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.

The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu's current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu's part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.

Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position.

He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider.

Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition.

But this rationale ended with Barak's resignation from the Labor Party in January.

Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu.

They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu's government. He doesn't need to pay any price for their loyalty.

So Netanyahu's decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale.

WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas's position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas's patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas's leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.

Hamas's leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood's oppressor.

With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas.

But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.

According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas's leaders decamping to Egypt.

What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.

Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.

At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel's radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel's leaders to capitulate to Hamas.

At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.

What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer's convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: "The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best.

"Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse."

The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.

Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu's abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.

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

The media's Succot song and Jamil and Awad read the papers

This week on the Tribal Update, the television on internet news satire show produced by Latma, we bring you our two favorite commentators Flock Builder and Wise Man singing about what they nail to the walls of their succah. 

We also feature our favorite jihadists Jamil and Awad reacting to the reports in the Israeli media about Muslim rage following the defacement of a Muslim cemetery in Jaffa.

I hope you enjoy the show. The whole Latma team joins me in wishing you a happy Succot. 

Here is the entire episode.

And here is the Succot song as a separate clip.


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

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.


Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
BIC Code: IDBLILITXXX
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154
Beneficiary's Name: Zionist Incubator
Beneficiary's address: POB 841 Mevasseret Zion, Israel 90805

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.


Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
BIC Code: IDBLILITXXX
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154
Beneficiary's Name: Zionist Incubator
Beneficiary's address: POB 841 Mevasseret Zion, Israel 90805

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

October 11, 2011, 2:57 AM

The forgotten Christians of the East

Copt mourning.jpg
On Sunday night, Egyptian Copts staged what was supposed to be a peaceful vigil at Egypt's state television headquarters in Cairo. The 1,000 Christians represented the ancient Christian community of some 8 million whose presence in Egypt predates the establishment of Islam by several centuries. They gathered in Cairo to protest the recent burning of two churches by Islamic mobs and the rapid escalation of state-supported violent attacks on Christians by Muslim groups since the overthrow of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in February.

According to Coptic sources, the protesters Sunday night were beset by Islamic attackers who were rapidly backed up by military forces. Between 19 and 40 Copts were killed by soldiers and Muslim attackers. They were run over by military vehicles, beaten, shot and dragged through the streets of Cairo.

State television Sunday night reported only that three soldiers had been killed. According to al-Ahram Online, the military attacked the studios of al-Hurra television on Sunday night to block its broadcast of information on the military assault on the Copts.

Apparently the attempt to control information about what happened worked. Monday's news reports about the violence gave little indication of the identity of the dead or wounded. They certainly left untold the story of what actually happened in Cairo on Sunday night.

In a not unrelated event, Lebanon's Maronite Catholic Patriarch Bechara Rai caused a storm two weeks ago. During an official visit to Paris, Rai warned French President Nicolas Sarkozy that the fall of the Assad regime in Syria could be a disaster for Christians in Syria and throughout the region. Today the Western-backed Syrian opposition is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Rai cautioned that the overthrow of President Bashar Assad could lead to civil war and the establishment of an Islamic regime.

In Iraq, the Iranian and Syrian-sponsored insurgency that followed the US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in 2003 fomented a bloody jihad against Iraq's Christian population. This month marks the anniversary of last year's massacre of 58 Christian worshippers in a Catholic church in Baghdad. A decade ago there were 800,000 Christians in Iraq. Today there are 150,000.

Under the Shah of Iran, Iran's Christians were more or less free to practice their religion.

Today, they are subject to the whims of Islamic overlords who know no law other than Islamic supremacism.

Take the plight of Yousef Nadarkhani, an evangelical Protestant preacher who was arrested two years ago, tried and sentenced to death for apostasy and refusal to disavow his Christian faith. There is no law against apostasy in Iran, but no matter. Ayatollah Khomeini opposed apostasy. And so does Islamic law.

Once Nadarkhani's story was publicized in the West the Iranians changed their course.

Now they have reportedly abandoned the apostasy charge and are sentencing Nadarkhani to death for rape. The fact that he was never charged or convicted of rape is neither here nor there.

Palestinian Christians have similarly suffered under their popularly elected governments.

When the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, Christians made up 80 percent of Bethlehem's population. Today they comprise less than 20% of the population.


Since Hamas "liberated" Gaza in 2007, the area's ancient Christian minority has been under constant attack. With only 3,000 members, Gaza's Christian community has seen its churches, convents, book stores and libraries burned by Hamas members and their allies. Its members have been killed and assaulted. While Hamas has pledged to protect the Christians of Gaza, no one has been arrested for anti-Christian violence.

JUST AS the Jews of the Islamic world were forcibly removed from their ancient communities by the Arab rulers with the establishment of Israel in 1948, so Christians have been persecuted and driven out of their homes. Populist Islamic and Arab regimes have used Islamic religious supremacism and Arab racial chauvinism against Christians as rallying cries to their subjects. These calls have in turn led to the decimation of the Christian populations of the Arab and Islamic world.

For instance, at the time of Lebanese independence from France in 1946 the majority of Lebanese were Christians. Today less than 30% of Lebanese are Christians. In Turkey, the Christian population has dwindled from 2 million at the end of World War I to less than 100,000 today. In Syria, at the time of independence Christians made up nearly half of the population. Today 4% of Syrians are Christian. In Jordan half a century ago 18% of the population was Christian. Today 2% of Jordanians are Christian.

Christians are prohibited from practicing Christianity in Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan, the Christian population is being systematically destroyed by regime-supported Islamic groups. Church burnings, forced conversions, rape, murder, kidnap and legal persecution of Pakistani Christians has become a daily occurrence.

Sadly for the Christians of the Islamic world, their cause is not being championed either by Western governments or by Western Christians. Rather than condition French support for the Syrian opposition on its leaders' commitment to religious freedom for all in a post-Assad Syria, the French Foreign Ministry reacted with anger to Rai's warning of what is liable to befall Syria's Christians in the event President Bashar Assad and his regime are overthrown. The Foreign Ministry published a statement claiming it was "surprised and disappointed," by Rai's statement.

The Obama administration was even less sympathetic. Rai is now travelling through the US and Latin America on a three week visit to émigré Maronite communities. The existence of these communities is a direct result of Arab and Islamic persecution of Lebanese Maronite Christians.

Rai's visit to the US was supposed to begin with a visit to Washington and meetings with senior administration officials including President Barack Obama. Yet, following his statement in Paris, the administration cancelled all of its scheduled meetings with him. That is, rather than consider the dangers that Rai warned about and use US influence to increase the power of Christians and Kurds and other minorities in any post- Assad Syrian government, the Obama administration decided to blackball Rai for pointing out the dangers.

Aside from Evangelical Protestants, most Western churches are similarly uninterested in defending the rights of their co-religionists in the Islamic world. Most mainline Protestant churches, from the Anglican Church and its US and international branches to the Methodists, Baptists, Mennonite and other churches have organized no sustained efforts to protect or defend the rights of Christians in the Muslim world.

Instead, over the past decade these churches and their related international bodies have made repeated efforts to attack the only country in the Middle East in which the Christian population has increased in the past 60 years - Israel.

As for the Vatican, in the five years since Pope Benedict XVI laid down the gauntlet at his speech in Regensburg and challenged the Muslim world to act with reason and tolerance it its dealing with other religions, the Vatican has abandoned this principled stand. A true discourse of equals has been replaced by supplication to Islam in the name of ecumenical understanding. Last year Benedict hosted a Synod on Christians in the Middle East that made no mention of the persecution of Christians by Islamic and populist forces and regimes. Instead, Israel was singled out for criticism.

The Vatican's outreach has extended to Iran where it sent a representative to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's faux counter terror conference. As Giulio Meotti wrote this week in Ynet, whereas all the EU ambassadors walked out of Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denying speech at the UN's second Durban conference in Geneva in 2009, the Vatican's ambassador remained in his seat. The Vatican has embraced leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and the Middle East.

It is unclear what either Western governments or Western churches think they are achieving by turning a blind eye to the persecution and decimation of Christian communities in the Muslim world. As Sunday's events in Egypt and other daily anti-Christian attacks by Muslims against Christians throughout the region show, their behavior is not appeasing anyone. What is clear enough is that they shall reap what they sow.

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

Why we must fight and why we will win

What follows are two videos that popped up on YouTube over the past week. 
The first, a Jew hating screed by a protester at the Occupy Wall Street protests shows what we are up against. Watch and try to find any difference between what this man says and Nazi propaganda.

The second video is Pat Condell's latest video.

When I first became aware of Pat Condell's videos several years ago, I was frustrated. On the one hand, he clearly understood the threat to freedom posed by Muslim supremacists. On the other hand, he was anti-Israel.

In the video below, Condell defends Israel against its detractors. The reason it is important is not so much for what he says, although, as always he makes a compelling, eloquent case. The reason it is important is that it shows that the war of ideas is important, and we can and will win it. 

Not all people who oppose Israel are brain dead, evil Jew haters like the leftist in the first video. Some are amenable to reason and willing to reassess their views in the face of fact and reality. They are the people we need to reach and we can reach them.

We can win this war against evil. It is a hard fight, and often a frustrating one. But it is the moral and existential battle of our times and therefore we are both obliged and privileged to be on the side of good.

Here's the monster.

 

And here's Pat Condell:

 |   |  Bookmark and Share

October 7, 2011, 10:04 AM

The torched mosque and new revelations on Bibi

In this week's episode of the Tribal Update, the satirical newscast produced by Latma, the Hebrew-languge media satire site I run we discuss the arson at the mosque in Tuba Zangaria in the Galilee. Our esteemed reporter Flock Builder also shares the new revelations about Bibi that appear in his new book.

Enjoy the show and gmar hatima tova.


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

If you live outside the US, we formed a non-profit organization in Israel to accept donations from outside the US called the Zionist Incubator. 

Here is the information you need to make wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.


Second, here is the information you need to wire contributions to the Zionist Incubator for Latma.
Bank Name: Israel Discount Bank Ltd.
Branch Number: 510
Branch Name: Mevasseret Zion
BIC Code: IDBLILITXXX
Account Number (IBAN 23 digits): IL94-0115-1000-0010-4351-154
Beneficiary's Name: Zionist Incubator
Beneficiary's address: POB 841 Mevasseret Zion, Israel 90805 
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Justice for Jonathan Pollard

Don Corleone and Fredo.jpg
Next month, convicted Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard will begin his 27th year in prison, and the Obama administration is displaying stunning insensitivity to what this means for the American Jewish community.

Pollard was arrested in 1985 for transferring classified documents to Israel during his service at US Naval Intelligence. In 1987, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for his crime.

Pollard's sentence contradicted his plea bargain agreement. It was based, among other things, on an impact assessment report of his crimes that was authored by CIA officer Aldrich Ames. At the time of Pollard's arrest, Ames had been spying for the Soviet Union for two years.

Ames was arrested for espionage in 1994. He was responsible for the deaths of at least 10 agents working for US intelligence in the USSR.

Ames reportedly blamed Pollard for some of the agent deaths caused by his own espionage.

Pollard's life sentence was grossly disproportionate to the sentences routinely given to offenders who transfer classified information to US-allied governments. The median sentence for such crimes is two years in prison.

Until last year, there was a longstanding consensus in the US political and intelligence communities opposed to granting clemency to Pollard.

This consensus evaporated last year. In late 2010, US President Barack Obama received letters recommending commutation of Pollard's sentence to time served from former CIA director R. James Woolsey, and from retired senator Dennis DeConcini, who served as the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of Pollard's arrest and sentencing.

Obama received similar letters from former secretaries of state George Schultz and Henry Kissinger. He received requests for commutation from Sen. John McCain and former attorney-general Michael Mukasey.

Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant defense secretary under Caspar Weinberger, has spearheaded the effort to release Pollard. Korb has stated categorically that Pollard's harsh sentence was the result of Weinberger's antipathy for Jews.

Other US luminaries who have called for Obama to grant Pollard clemency include former congressman and presidential adviser Lee Hamilton, former senator and presidential adviser Alan Simpson, Harvard law professor and Obama mentor Charles Ogletree, US Appellate Court Judge Stephen Williams and former deputy attorney- general Phillip Heymann. Scores of congressmen, several senators and more than 500 clergymen have called for Pollard's release from prison.

Answering public entreaties from Korb and Pollard's wife, Esther, in early January, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu became the first Israeli leader to issue a formal, public appeal for clemency for Pollard. Netanyahu read the text of his appeal to Obama from the Knesset podium and submitted it to the White House on January 4.

One of the main reasons for the urgency of the current appeal is Pollard's failing health. Aside from that, the basic arguments given by his advocates are the disproportionate length of Pollard's sentence; his deep, repeatedly stated remorse for his actions; his exemplary behavior in prison; and the fact that deterrence has been achieved.

OBAMA HAS failed to respond to Israel's formal request for clemency.

He has been silent in the face of lesser requests as well. When Pollard's father, Morris, was on his deathbed in June, Obama did not respond to formal requests to permit Pollard to visit him in the hospital. He similarly failed to respond to formal requests for Pollard to attend his father's funeral.

Obama's cold silence was broken last week by his agent Vice President Joseph Biden. According to the New York Jewish Week, in a meeting with 15 rabbis in South Florida on September 23, Biden provided an unsolicited monologue about Pollard's case. Repeatedly referring to Pollard as a "traitor," Biden said, "It would take the Third Coming before I would support letting Pollard out."

According to The New York Times, in making the statement, Biden, who is considered a friend of the US Jewish community and of Israel, served as Obama's fall guy. Biden's job was to deflect criticism of Obama's unstated decision not to release Pollard away from the president.

In the event, Obama's decision to send Biden out to reject calls for Pollard's release backfired.

Rather than killing the issue, Biden's unbridled assault on Pollard caused the US Jewish leadership to unify around Pollard and call for his release. As Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman told Channel 2 on Wednesday, Jewish leaders had never discussed Pollard's case publicly, but after Biden went public, they decided that they must follow suit. The leaders of the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements were all quoted by Jewish Week calling for Pollard's release.

Their calls came just before Biden's previously scheduled Rosh Hashana reception for Jewish leaders. So at the party on Wednesday, Biden was beset by leaders asking him to reconsider his position and recommend clemency for Pollard. In response, Biden agreed to meet with a small group of Jewish leaders in the near future to discuss Pollard's case.

Biden's assault on Pollard was strange for two main reasons. First, it was bad politics. Obama reportedly tasked Biden with rebuilding Jewish support for the administration. That support has frayed in the face of Obama's harsh treatment of Israel.

It is odd that in the context of Biden's outreach attempts, he chose to express a hostile position on Pollard that couldn't help but raise the hackles of the very community he was dispatched to woo. Rather than bringing the US Jewish community closer to the administration, Biden accomplished the astounding feat of unifying the fractured community in opposition to his position.

The second reason that Biden's anti-Pollard harangue made no sense is because it flew in the face of the claim that Obama has turned over a new leaf on Israel. Obama's supporters have argued that his speech at the General Assembly last month where he opposed the PLO's efforts to gain UN membership as a sovereign state was a watershed event for the president. In announcing his intention to veto a Palestinian statehood resolution in the UN Security Council, his supporters argue that Obama abandoned his previous hostility towards Israel and embraced it as an ally.

BIDEN'S ATTACK on Pollard is just the latest in a stunning line of rebukes of Israel by Obama's senior surrogates over the past 10 days that cast a pall on that supposed watershed event. First Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US opposes even symbolic recognition of Israel's capital city Jerusalem. Then she attacked Israel for approving new housing construction in Jerusalem.

Following on Clinton's heels, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta launched a public assault on Israel both ahead of and during his visit early this week.

Panetta seemingly made US support for Israel contingent on Israel's willingness to make concessions to its increasingly radicalized neighbors, saying, "As [the Israelis] take risks for peace, we will be able to provide the security that they will need in order to ensure that they can have the room hopefully to negotiate."

Panetta further accused Israel of isolating itself diplomatically due to its unwillingness to take what he considers sufficient risks. Just weeks after US intervention was needed to force Egypt's military junta to prevent the murder of six Israeli embassy guards besieged by a mob of Egyptian rioters who took over the embassy in Cairo, Panetta added, "Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength."

Besides blaming Israel for the absence of peace with the Palestinians and for post-Mubarak Egypt's rapid radicalization, Panetta publicly rejected Israel's right to take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, claiming all action against Iran must be multilateral. In stating this position, Panetta effectively gave a green light for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

This is the case because the sanctions policy the Obama administration clings to has already demonstrably failed to deter Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons program.

Clinton's attack on Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, Panetta's assault on Israel's right to defend itself from the threat of genocide, and his unrestrained criticism of Israel's refusal to genuflect before increasingly belligerent neighbors all indicated that Obama's speech at the UN was not a new chapter in his administration's treatment of Israel. Rather, it was a one-off response to concern about the loss of American Jewish support for the president. That concern was spiked by the Republican victory in New York's Ninth Congressional District's special election last month.

Biden's assault on Pollard - and through him, the American Jewish community - was a similar sign that Obama has not let go of his antipathy for Israel.

Obama's behavior on Israel following the Democrats' congressional upset replicates his response to Republican Sen. Scott Brown's upset victory in the special Senate election in Massachusetts in January 2010. Brown was elected at the height of the debate on Obama's nationalized healthcare plan.

For the first couple of weeks after Brown's election, Obama and his surrogates signaled their willingness to compromise with Republicans in light of Massachusetts voters' rebuke of their partisan brinksmanship on the healthcare issue. But within two months of Brown's victory, Obama and his allies had doubled down and passed their highly controversial healthcare program with no Republican support and against the opposition of the majority of American voters.

In the case of both Israel and healthcare, Obama has opted to ignore the political consequences of his actions and press on with his ideological agenda.

The lesson Pollard and his supporters in the US and in Israel should take from Obama's behavior is that they must continue to press on in their campaign for Pollard's release as energetically and as relentlessly as possible. As the election date nears, if Obama's polling numbers continue to drop, it is possible - although unlikely - that he will decide that desperate times call for desperate measures and grant Pollard clemency.

Even if Obama fails to act in such a politically sensible fashion, a public and outspoken campaign for Pollard's release still makes sense. At a minimum, it can set the conditions for a new president to grant Pollard clemency immediately upon taking office, by causing Obama's Republican opponent to commit to such a course of action.

Speaking of Pollard's case with Jewish Week, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said, "In the midst of the Days of Awe, as we ponder the wrongdoings we have committed and pray for God's mercy, we pray as well that President Obama will act with mercy and grant Mr. Pollard long-overdue clemency."

American Jewish leaders deserve praise for their willingness to plead on Pollard's behalf. And they should be urged to continue to highlight Pollard's plight and call for his immediate release.

Pollard committed a crime. But his punishment far outweighs his misdeeds. Whether Obama releases him from his long suffering or not, it is heartwarming that due to Biden's unbridled assault on Pollard, the American Jewish leadership has found its voice and is calling for justice to be done.

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

October 4, 2011, 3:32 AM

Turkey's house of cards

Ataturk on fire.jpg
To the naked eye, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to be moving from strength to strength. Erdogan was welcomed as a hero on his recent trip to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. The Arabs embraced him as the new face of the war against Israel.

The Obama administration celebrates Turkey as a paragon of Islamic democracy. The Obama administration cannot thank Erdogan enough for his recent decision to permit NATO to station the US X-Band missile shield on its territory. The US is following Turkey's lead in contending with Syrian President Bashar Assad's massacre of his people. 

And according to Erdogan, the Obama administration is looking into ways to leave its Predator and Reaper UAVs with the Turkish military when US forces depart Iraq in the coming months. Turkey requires the drones to facilitate its war against the Kurds in Iraq and eastern Anatolia. The Obama administration also just agreed to provide Turkey with three Super Cobra attack helicopters.

Despite its apparent abandonment of Iran's Syrian client Assad, Turkey's onslaught against the Kurds has enabled it to maintain its strategic alliance with Iran. Last month Erdogan announced that the Turkish and Iranian militaries are cooperating in intelligence sharing and gearing up to escalate their joint operations against the Kurds in Iraq.

Erdogan is probably the only world leader that conducted prolonged friendly meetings with both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and US President Barak Obama at the UN last month.

Then there are the Balkans. After winning his third national election in June, Erdogan dispatched his Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to Kosovo, Bosnia and Romania to conduct what the Turks referred to as "mosque diplomacy."

Erdogan's government has been lavishing aid on Bosnia for several years and is promoting itself as a neo-Ottoman guardian of the former Ottoman possessions.

EVEN ERDOGAN'S threats of war seem to be paying off. His attacks on Israel have won him respect and admiration throughout the Arab world. His threats against Cyprus's exploration of offshore natural gas fields caused Cypriot President Demetris Christofias to announce at the UN that Cyprus will share the revenues generated by its natural gas with Turkish occupied northern Cyprus.

Christofias said Cyprus would do so even in the absence of a unification agreement with its illegally occupied Turkish north. Moreover, due to Turkish pressure, Cyprus has agreed to intensify reunification talks with the Turkish puppet government in the northern half of the island. Those talks were set to begin in Nicosia last Tuesday.

Then there is the Turkish economy.

On the face of it, it seems that Turkey's assertive foreign policy is facilitated by its impressive economic growth.

According to Turkey's statistics agency, the Turkish economy grew by 8.8 percent in the second quarter of the year - far outperforming expectations. Last year the Turkish economy grew by 9 percent. With this impressive data, Erdogan is able to make a seemingly credible case to the likes of Egypt that it can expect to be enriched by a strategic partnership with Turkey.

For Israelis, these achievements are a cause for uneasiness. With Turkey building itself into a regional powerhouse largely on the back of its outspoken belligerence towards Israel, many observers argue Israel must do everything it can to mend fences with Turkey. Israel simply cannot afford to have Turkey angry at it, they claim.

If Turkey's position was as strong as the conventional wisdom claims, then maybe these commentators and politicians would have a point. But Turkey's actual situation is very different from its surface image.

Turkey's aggressive, peripatetic foreign policy is earning Ankara few friends.

Erdogan's threat to freeze Turkish-EU relations if the EU goes ahead as planned and transfers its rotating presidency to Cyprus next July has backfired.

European leaders wasted no time in angrily dismissing and rejecting Erdogan's threat. So too, Germany and France have been loudly critical of Turkey's belligerence towards Israel.

Then there is Cyprus. Turkey's ever escalating threats to attack Cyprus's natural gas project have angered both the EU and Russia. The EU is angry because as an EU member state, Cypriot gas will eventually benefit consumers throughout the EU, who are currently beholden to Russian suppliers and Turkish pipelines.

Russia itself has announced it will defend Cyprus against Turkish threats.

Russia is annoyed by Turkish courtship of the Balkan states. It sees no reason to allow Turkey to throw its weight around in Cyprus. Doing so successfully will only strengthen Ankara's appeal in the Balkans and among the Turkic minorities in Russia.

THIS BRINGS us to the Muslim world. Despite Erdogan's professions of friendship with Iran, it is far from clear that their alliance is as smooth as he presents it. The Iranians are concerned about Turkish ascendance in the Middle East and angry at Turkey for threatening Syria.

In truth if Assad is able to ride out the current storm and remain in power, he will owe his survival in no small measure to Turkey. Since the riots broke out in the spring, Turkey has restrained Washington from taking any concerted steps to overthrow the Syrian dictator. Had it not been for Erdogan's success in containing the US, it is possible the US and Europe might have acted swiftly to support the opposition.

But whether he stays in power or is overthrown, it is doubtful that Assad will feel any gratitude towards Erdogan. Rather, Assad will likely blame Erdogan for betraying him. And if Assad is toppled, the Kurds of Syria could easily forge alliances with their brethren in Turkey, Iraq and Iran, to Turkey's strategic detriment.

Since former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February, Turkey has been making a concerted effort to build an alliance with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Ankara has reportedly transferred millions of dollars in aid to the Islamic group, and of course continues to support Hamas as well as Hizbullah.

Yet for all of his efforts on the Muslim Brotherhood's behalf, the Brotherhood issued a sharp rebuke of Erdogan during his visit to Egypt. Brotherhood leader Essam el-Arian rejected Erdogan's call for Egypt to adopt the Turkish model of Islamic democracy as too secular for Egypt.

As for the Turkish economy, a closer analysis of its financial data indicates that Turkey's expansive growth is the result of a credit bubble that is about to burst. According to a Citicorp analyst quoted in The Wall Street Journal, domestic demand accounts for all of Turkey's economic growth.

This domestic demand in turn owes to essentially free loans the government showered on the public in the lead-up to the June elections. The loans are financed by government borrowing abroad.

Turkey's current accounts deficit stands at nearly 9 percent of GDP. Greece is engulfed in a debt crisis with a current accounts deficit of 10 percent.

Analysts project that Turkey's deficit will eclipse Greece's within the year. And whereas the EU may end up bailing Greece out of its debt crisis, Turkey has no one to bail it out of its own debt crisis. Consequently, Turkey's entire economic house of cards is likely to come crashing down very rapidly.

It is hard to understand why Erdogan is acting as he is given the poor hand he is holding. It is possible that he is crazy.

It is possible that he is so insulated from criticism that he is unaware of Turkey's economic realities or of the consequences of his aggressive behavior. 

It is possible that he is hoping to combine a foreign policy crisis with Turkey's oncoming economic crisis in order to blame the latter on the former. 

And it is possible that he believes that US backing gives him immunity to the consequences of his actions.

No matter what stands behind Turkey's actions, it is clear Ankara has overplayed its hand. Its threats against Israel and Cyprus are hollow. Its hopes to be a regional power are faltering.

The only thing Israel really needs to be concerned about is the US's continued insistence that Turkey is a model ally in the Islamic world. More than anything else, it is US support for Turkey that makes Erdogan a threat to the Jewish state and to the region.

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

October 3, 2011, 3:27 AM

Israel as a wedge issue

Wasserman Schultz.jpeg
Last month at the UN President Barack Obama did something he had never done before. He discussed Israel and the Palestinians without once attacking Israel. He didn't blame Israel for the absence of peace.

True, Obama did not blame the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate with Israel. He did not attack Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for making a unity deal with Hamas. 

He did not condemn the Palestinians as racist anti-Semites in light of their demand that a Palestinian state be ethnically cleansed of Jews, or for their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist.

But for the first time in his presidency, last month at the UN Obama spoke to a world audience and drew a moral equivalence between Israel that seeks peace and the Palestinians who seek Israel's destruction. 

Given his record, this is a step forward. 

What caused the change?

Quite simply, the Republican victory in New York's 9th Congressional District's special election earlier this month caused the change. Obama did not attack Israel at the UN because he is concerned that he is losing American Jewish support. 

Cong. Bob Turner's election, like that of other Republican politicians since 2009 in traditionally Democratic constituencies owes in large part to Obama's poor economic record. But what made the NY-9 election unique was the major role Obama's hostile policies towards Israel played in the race. With its high percentage of Jewish voters, the district served as a bellwether for Obama's reelection prospects among Jews as well as a litmus test for the Democratic Party's ability to continue to view Jews as automatic Democratic voters and generous Democratic campaign donors.

Obama's UN speech, like the administration's leaked report that it has sold Israel bunker buster bombs signal that the administration views the Jewish vote as in play for 2012. And they are trying to woo Jewish voters and donors back into the Democratic fold. 

The deterioration of Jewish support for the Democrats has been a long time in coming. 

Traditional Democratic support for Israel began eroding with the nomination of George McGovern as the party's presidential candidate in 1972. Before Obama, Jimmy Carter was the most hostile president Israel ever experienced. 

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was widely regarded as pro-Israel. Yet during Clinton's eight years in office, Yassir Arafat was the most frequent foreign guest at the White House. Clinton's legacy was the Palestinian terror war which broke out in his last months in office. 

By the end of Clinton's second term, Republicans had clearly surpassed Democrats in their partisan support for Israel. And in the face of this shift, Democratic leaders insisted that the Republicans mustn't make Israel a "wedge issue." Since Israel enjoys support from both parties, the Democrats argued that it would harm Israel if Republicans made their outspoken and nearly unanimous support for Israel an electoral issue. 

American Jewish leaders were happy to oblige the Democrats. Since most of them and most of their members were Democrats, American Jewish groups from AIPAC to the New York Jewish Federation willingly pretended the Democratic Party's growing support for the Palestinians against Israel meant nothing. And the few voices pointing out the increasingly obvious partisan divide were attacked for "politicizing" Israel.

In the two and a half years since he entered office, as Obama's hostility towards Israel became increasingly obvious, demands by Democratic leaders that the Republicans keep mum on Israel and the Democrats became more and more shrill. They reached their climax during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's dramatic visit to Washington in May. 

While Netanyahu was en route to the US capital, Obama blindsided him by endorsing the Palestinian demand that all future peace talks be based on an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. Since those lines would render Israel indefensible, Netanyahu was compelled to confront Obama on the issue during a photo opportunity at the White House the following day. 

In the face of Obama's unprecedentedly harsh treatment of Israel, Cong. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee used the opportunity of a joint meeting with Netanyahu for leaders of the National Democratic Jewish Council and the Republican Jewish Coalition to make the case for silence on her party's weak support for Israel. 

Her statement reportedly made Netanyahu so uncomfortable that he asked, "Do you guys want me to leave the room and give you guys some privacy?"

While requests to block debate on Israel were respected in the past, the current divide between Democrats and Republicans on Israel is so wide that avoidance of the issue no longer makes sense for Republicans. And so, days after the meeting with Netanyahu, RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks wrote a letter to Wasserman Schultz officially rejecting her request. 

As he put it, "The Jewish community has a right to be informed about people's records and people should be answerable for the positions they take. This is the essence of democracy."  

And indeed, both the RJC and the Emergency Committee for Israel, a conservative group formed ahead of the 2010 Congressional elections, made Obama's hostility to Israel a major issue in the New York 9 race. 

Congressional Republicans have also stopped giving the Democrats a free ride for their tepid support for Israel. In the past Republicans avoided introducing major legislation on Israel without Democratic co-sponsors and willingly watered down their initiatives to attract Democratic support. This is no longer the case.

In August Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee introduced a bill that will end US financial support for the Palestinian Authority and steeply curtail US funding for the UN if the UN upgrades the PLO's diplomatic mission. All 57 of the bill's co-sponsors are Republicans. 

Cong. Joe Walsh introduced a resolution in September calling for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria. His resolution's 40-odd co-sponsors are also all Republicans.
 
Israel's enemies in the US peddle the anti-Semitic fiction that Israel's supporters are nothing more than a cabal of activists who band together to defend Israel at America's expense. Extensive polling data shows that the pro-Israel "cabal" includes the vast majority of Americans. 

It is due to the public's overwhelming support for Israel that pro-Israel activists have no reason to fear injecting support for Israel into the political debate. The more politicians are called to account for their positions on Israel, the most pro-Israel their positions will be.

And that is the thing of it. Due to the Jewish community's willingness to pretend that there is no partisan divide on Israel, for the past generation, in the face of growing popular support for Israel, successive administrations have adopted policies of appeasement towards the Arabs that have required Israel to take actions that weakened it. That is, because American Jews have agreed not to make Israel an issue, politicians have felt free to pressure Israel to take steps that harm it - without the public's knowledge and against its wishes. 

Turner's victory and Obama's UN speech expose the folly of this practice. They show that Israel's position in the US is enhanced, not weakened when politicians are called to account for their positions. 

Originally published in The Jewish Press. 
 |   |  Bookmark and Share

Syndication

Recommended Sites

© 2013 Caroline Glick