PRIMER-Connecticut

Awaiting peace 30 years while serving community

2011-11-16T11:45:00.001-08:00

This op-ed by Neil Berro was published in The New Haven Register, November 15, 2011.

Was it 30 years ago that I began my Jewish community service career, the week in March that President Ronald Reagan was shot?

When in college on my first trip to Israel in 1975, I barely knew there was such a thing as Jewish community service in which people worked full time. My mom always had done event fliers at the temple and my dad had volunteered in the early years to do the synagogue's financial books, while leaving the prayer books to higher authorities.

I always wanted to give back, believing it would never be possible to pay back the kindness and opportunities I was blessed to receive. Something in me said: Strive for social justice.

While American Jews still enjoy bountiful opportunities, there continues an unabated hate and terrorism campaign against Israel.

It is as if the enemies of Israel are unwilling to reflect upon needed reforms in their societies without being prodded by protests and revolutions. Even then, Israel remains the whipping boy and scapegoat for Arab and Muslim nationsThe Arab Spring has revealed how much work needs to be done to advance liberal democracy.

Israel in the last 30 years has built a largely modern society. Its scientists win Nobel Prizes. Along the way, Israel makes sacrifices of land for peace with uncertain commitments in return. Egypt, since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, has seen a breakdown in order in the sensitive Sinai Peninsula, where critical gas flows to Israel under the peace accord. On several occasions, sabotage has shut delivery while the Egyptians have been slow to restore contracted service, in an apparent attempt to raise prices.

Egypt's emerging electoral process includes many calling for the abrogation of the long-standing peace treaty with Israel.

With Iran making existential threats against Israel, with 100,000 Hamas and Hezbollah rockets ready and with nervous Arab regimes, such as Syria, threatening to deflect domestic attention by attacking Israel, Few can argue that Israeltheir has achieved a sense of permanence and peace with law-abiding neighbors. While Iranians speed to nuclear bombs, Israel must endure the bombast with the knowledge of history that those who threaten to kill Jews en masse mean what they say.

While 1,000 murderers and assorted serious felons are returned unharmed, Israel places an equivalent value on the life of one young soldier. Sadly, many a Jewish family will be saying Kaddish for the dead because of such a painful choice to obtain the release of Gilad Shalit, who became every Israelis' child. The 1,000 freed Palestinians are the equivalent of 1,000 freed Cheshire home-invasion killers - not exactly an axiom for reassurance or for the prospects for peace.

For me and many Americans of all backgrounds, there remains the hope and expression that Israel will soon enjoy a full and meaningful peace with her neighbors grown tired of excuses instead of internal progress.

It is a small hope at best. Yet, in the region there are growing numbers of Arabs and Muslims who realize the future is hopeless without change that begins at home.

I have worked and waited for this to happen for 30 years. I have raised money to post flabby, middle-aged guards outside kindergartens in Israel. No people anywhere should ever have to do that. Sadly, kindergarten children are a favorite target of Palestinian killers.

Peace is possible, but only if and when the hatred and fascist ideology that drove the Nazis and continues to drive some in the Islamic world is finally retired forever.

Neil Berro of New Haven has worked for Jewish and Israeli causes since 1981. Write to him at the Register, 40 Sargent Drive, New Haven 06511.

Open Letter to a BDSer

2011-11-15T05:30:00.000-08:00

I was recently sent a copy of a misguided appeal calling on members of the New York University community to pressure TIAA-CREF to act against the only bastion of liberal values in the Middle East. As an alumnus of NYU, I wrote the following letter to one of the people propagating that misguided appeal. It is followed by a copy of the offending email.

Dear Ms. Katz:

For most practical purposes, any Israeli "occupation" ended in the mid-1990s, near the beginning of the failed Oslo process. All the Arabs in Gaza and roughly 95 percent of those in Judea and Samaria (aka the "West Bank") live under their own, albeit brutal and corrupt, governments.

Further progress awaits a turnaround on the part of the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, who have repeatedly refused to accept the establishment of their own state in virtually all of the disputed territory and have refused to even negotiate with Israel for more than two years.

In practical terms, "Justice in Palestine" is impossible to achieve, since the injustices emanating from more than six decades of brutal Arab war on the Jews in their homeland can never be rectified. Pressuring Israel, the victim, only encourages continued conflict and, ironically, probably harms the Arabs more than anyone else.

Mahmoud Abbas has finally acknowledged the Arabs made a mistake in not accepting the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. Unfortunately, he has not internalized the real, immoral aspect of that "mistake" and effectively repeats that mistake every day as he refuses to accept the existence of the world's only Jewish state and refuses to make peace.

If you are interested in promoting the welfare of the Arabs in the portion of the world the Romans renamed "Syria Palaestina" in their exercise in ethnic cleansing, I suggest pressuring the Palestinian Arabs and their leadership to end their glorification of terrorism, their continued assault of innocent Israeli civilians and their boycott of peace.

And, as an alumnus of NYU, I urge you to take advantage of the education you are being offered, learn to distinguish between truth and lies and propagate the former rather than the latter.

Alan Stein
Professor Emeritus
Department of Mathematics
University of Connecticut
stein@math.uconn.edu
http://www.math.uconn.edu/~stein
Skype: alanstein

The following is the original, misguided appeal:

LETTER RE: DIVESTITURE
From: Sara Katz
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:08:18 -0500
Subject: TIAA-CREF Campaign

Dear Professor,

I'm a sophomore in College of Arts & Science and a member of NYU Students for Justice in Palestine. Last semester SJP launched a campaign for NYU faculty, students, and staff to call on TIAA-CREF to divest its holdings in companies that profit from the ongoing US-backed Israeli occupation. We have only just begun to realize the support of the NYU community and hope to expand our campaign greatly over the coming months.

Following this letter is a list of the 174 faculty and staff members who have signed our open letter to Roger Ferguson, CEO of TIAA-CREF. For information regarding our campaign, please see the link below. If you are interested in signing the letter, you can either reply to this email or do so online: http://nyusjp.wordpress.com/tiaa-cref-campaign/

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you!

- Sara Katz

View our campaign here: http://nyusjp.wordpress.com/tiaa-cref-campaign/

Current Signatories:

1. Sandra Adams - Department Administrator, French, College of Arts and Science
2. Rodolfo Aiello - Senior Language Lecturer, Department of Spanish and Portugeuse, College of Arts and Science
3. Jonathan Alexander - Sherman Fairchild Professor of Fine Arts, Institute of Fine Arts
4. Awam Amkpa - Associate Professor of Drama, Social and Cultural Analysis; Director, Africana Studies, College of Arts and Science
5. Gary Anderson - Professor of Educational Leadership, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development
6. Peder Anker - Associate Professor of History of Science
7. Sinan Antoon - Assistant Professor, Gallatin School of Individualized Study
8. Arjun Appadurai - Goddard Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development
9. Karl Appuhn - Associate Professor of History, College of Arts and Science
10. John M. Archer - Professor of English, College of Art and Science
11. Aline Baehler - Senior Lecturer, Department of French
12. Michael Balter - Adjunct Professor of Journalism
13. Nancy Barton - Clinical Associate Professor of Art and Art Education
14. Adam Becker - Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Classics Director of Religious Studies
15. Thomas Bender - University Professor of the Humanities and Professor of History
16. Georgina Dopico Black - Associate Professor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
17. Ned Block, Julius Silver Professor, Departments of Philosophy, Psychology and Center for Neural Science
18. Neil Brenner - Professor of Sociology, Social and Cultural Analysis
19. Barbara Browning - Associate Professor of Performance Studies
20. Craig Calhoun - Professor of Sociology; University Professor
21. Christopher Cannon - Professor of English
22. Marisa Carrasco - Professor of Psychology and Neural Science
23. Vivek Chibber - Associate Professor of Sociology
24. Gene Cittadino - Clinical Assistant Professor, Gallatin School of Individualized Study
25. Robert Cohen - Adjunct Professor of German
26. Joy Connolly - Associate Professor of Classics
27. Frederick Cooper - Professor of History
28. Marty Correia - Assistant to the Chair, Dept. of American Studies
29. Medhat Credi - Arabic Language Lecturer; Middle East Studies Association; American Association of Teachers of Arabic
30. Raffaella Cribiore - Professor of Classics
31. Shamita Das Dasgupta - Adjunct, Law School
32. C. Daniel Dawson - Adjunct Professor, Gallatin
33. Patrick Deer - Associate Professor of English
34. María de Lourdes Dávila - Clinical Assistant Professor: Spanish and Portuguese
35. Dipti Desai - Associate Professor of Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human development
36. Muriel Dimen - Adjunct Clinical Professor of Psychology
37. Carolyn Dinshaw - Professor of Social & Cultural Analysis and English
38. Ana Dopico - Associate Professor of Comparative Literature and Spanish and Portuguese
39. Lisa Duggan - Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis
40. Stephen Duncombe - Associate Professor, Gallatin
41. Henry Em - Associate Professor, East Asian Studies
42. Kathy Engel - Art & Public Policy, Tisch School of the Arts and Faculty Administrator, Office of Community Connections
43. Paula England - Professor of Sociology
44. Khaled Fahmy - Associate Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, History
45. Michelle Fawcett - Adjunct Professor, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development
46. Allen Feldman - Associate Professor, Media, Culture and Communication
47. Hartry Field - Silver Professor of Philosophy
48. Sibylle Fischer, Associate Prof. and Chair, Spanish & Portuguese
49. Juan Flores - Professor, Dept of Social and Cultural Analysis
50. Luis Francia - Adjunct Professor, Asian/Pacific/American Studies, Dept. of Social & Cultural Analysis
51. Elaine Freedgood - Professor, Dept of English
52. Rosalind Fredericks - Assistant Professor, Gallatin School of Individualized Study
53. Toral Gajarawala - Assistant Professor of English and Comparative Literature
54. Ahu Gemici - Assistant Professor of Economics
55. Patricia DeGennaro - Professor of International Security, Department of Politics
56. Michael Gilsenan - Professor, Anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies
57. Gabriel Giorgi - Associate Professor Spanish and Portuguese
58. Ann Goerdt - Assist Professor of Physical Therapy
59. Jeff Goodwin - Professor of Sociology
60. Gayatri Gopinath - Associate Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis ; Director of Gender and Sexuality Studies
61. Linda Gordon - Professor of History
62. Greg Grandin - Professor of History
63. David F. Greenberg - Professor of Sociology
64. Ed Guerrero, Associate Professor - Cinema Studies/Africana Studies
65. Nadia Guessous - Assistant Professor/Director of Graduate Studies, Hagop Kevorkian Center
66. Hanna Gurman - Clinical Assistant Professor, Gallatin School of Individualized Study
67. Hala Halim - Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Middle Eastern Studies
68. Yukiko Hanawa - Senior Language Lecturer
69. Christine Harrington - Professor of Politics; Institute for Law and Society (Associated Faculty); and New York University School of Law (Affiliated Faculty)
70. Scott Hightower - Adjunct Faculty, Gallatin School
71. Denis Hollier - Professor, Department of French
72. Richard Hull - Professor of History
73. Colin Jerolmack - Assistant Professor of Sociology, Environmental Studies
74. Neville Kallenbach - Professor of Chemistry
75. Rebecca Karl - Associate Professor, History & East Asian Studies
76. Jair Kessler - Assistant Director, Remarque Institute
77. Arang Keshavarzian - Associate Professor, Department of Middle Eastern & Islamic Studies
78. Mehdi Khorrami - Clinical Professor of Middle Eastern Islamic Studies
79. Ilya Kliger - Assistant Professor, Russian and Slavic Studies
80. Michael Landy - Professor of Pyschology
81. Jill Lane - Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
82. Andrew H. Lee - Librarian for History, European Studies, Iberian Studies, Soccer & Politics
83. Tamer el-Leithy - Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies
84. David Levering Lewis - Julius Silver University Professor and Professor of History, NYU and NYU Abu Dhabi
85. David Levene - Professor of Classics
86. George Levine - Visiting Professor of English
87. Jacques Lezra - Professor of Spanish and Portuguese, Comparative Literature; Chair of Comparative Literature
88. Jocelyn Lieu - Adjunct Professor, English, Faculty of Arts & Sciences
89. Zachary Lockman - Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies and History
90. Beatrice Longuenesse - Professor of Philosophy; Acting Director of Graduate Studies
91. Thomas Looser - Associate Professor of East Asian Studies, Director of Graduate Studies
92. David Ludden - Professor of History
93. Ritty Lukose - Associate Professor, Gallatin
94. Steven Lukes - Professor of Sociology
95. Holly Maguigan - Professor of Clinical Law
96. Jeff Manza - Professor of Sociology
97. Randy Martin - Professor and Chair of Art and Public Policy (Tisch)
98. H. Salvador Martinez - Professor Emeritus, Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Former Director of NYU in Spain
99. John Maynard - Professor of English
100. Anna McCarthy - Associate Professor of Cinema Studies
101. Aziz Mehdi - System Network Administrator
102. Eve Meltzer - Assistant Professor of Visual Studies, Gallatin School of Individualized Study
103. Ara H. Merjian - Assistant Professor of Italian
104. Adam Meyers - Clinical Associate Professor of Computer Science
105. Mona Mikhail - Emeritus professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies
106. Mark Crispin Miller - Professor of Media Ecology,
107. Mara Mills - Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication
108. Bella Mirabella - Associate Professor, Gallatin School of Individualized Study
109. Ali Mirsepassi - Professor of MEIS and Sociology, Gallatin
110. Sylvia Molloy - Schweitzer Professor of Humanities
111. Paul Monsour - Adjunct Professor, Courant Institute
112. David Thornton Moore - Associate Professor, Gallatin
113. Ann Morning - Assistant Professor of Sociology; Center for Advanced Social Science Research
114. José Muñoz - Professor of Performance Studies
115. Vasuki Nesiah - Associate Professor of Practice
116. Mary Nolan - Professor of History
117. Sana Odeh - Faculty Liaison for Global Programs, Department of Computer Science
118. Bertell Ollman - Professor of Politics
119. Deborah K. Padgett - Professor of Social Work
120. Crystal Parikh - Associate Professor, Department of English and Social and Cultural Analysis
121. Michael Peachin - Professor of Classics
122. Haley Peele - Administrative Coordinator, Department of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies
123. Ann Pellegrini - Associate Professor, Performance Studies and Religious Studies
124. Susan Pelosi - Adjunct Lecturer, Silver School of Social Work
125. Dana Polan - Professor of Cinema Studies
126. Maurice A. Pomerantz - Assistant Prof./Faculty Fellow Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies
127. Mary Louise Pratt - Silver Professor and Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Languages and Literatures
128. Rajeswari Sunder Rajan-Visiting Professor of English, Global Distinguished Professor of English
129. Arvind Rajagopal - Professor of Media, Culture & Communications, Steinhardt
130. Mark Read - Adjunct Professor, Gallatin
131. Timothy J. Reiss - Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature and Distinguished Scholar in Residence
132. Nancy F Regalado - Professor of French, Medieval & Renaissance Center; Director, Medieval and Renaissance Studies Program
133. Erica Robles-Anderson - Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication
134. Andrew Ross - Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis
135. Kristin Ross - Professor of Comparative Literature
136. Everett Rowson - Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies
137. Deirdre Royster - Associate Professor, Sociology & Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
138. Martha Rust - Associate Professor, English
139. Josefina Saldaña-Portillo - Associate Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis
140. Greta Scharnweber - Associate Director, Outreach, Hagop Kevorkian Center
141. Martin Scherzinger - Associate Professor, Media, Culture, and Communication
142. Frank Schiro - Professor, Vocal Performance
143. Nadrian Seeman - Sokol Professor of Chemistry
144. Eduardo Segura - Senior Lecturer, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
145. Burt Shachter - Retired Professor of Social Work
146. Lytle Shaw - Associate Professor of English
147. Stephen Schiffer - Silver Professor of Philosophy
148. Ella Shohat - Professor, Art and Public Policy; Affiliate with NYU Faculty of Arts and Science Department of Middle Eastern Studies
149. John Victor Singler - Professor of Linguistics
150. Laura Slatkin - Professor, Classical Studies, Gallatin School
151. Nancy Smith Amer - Department Administrator, Department of Classics
152. Alan Sokal - Professor of Physics
153. George Solt - Assistant Professor of History, East Asian Studies
154. Marie Cruz Soto - Clinical Assistant Professor, Gallatin
155. Robert Stam - University Professor, Cinema Studies
156. Justin Stearns - Assistant Professor in Arab Crossroads Studies, NYUAD
157. Constance R. Sutton - Professor of Anthropology
158. Helga Tawil-Souri - Assistant Professor, Media Culture and Communication
159. Nina Thomas - Clinical Associate Professor, Co-Chair, Relational Orientation at NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
160. Paul Thompson - Associate Professor, Tisch School of the Arts
161. Sinclair Thomson - Associate Professor of History
162. Thuy Linh Tu, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis.
163. Jim Uleman - Professor of Psychology
164. James David Velleman - Professor of Philosophy
165. Daniel J. Walkowitz - Professor of History and Metropolitan Studies
166. Marc Walters - Associate Professor of Chemistry
167. Jeremy Walton - Assistant Professor and Faculty Fellow, Religious Studies
168. Stephen Wangh - Affiliated Professor, Tisch
169. Sarah Waterbury - Staff, Asian/Pacific/American Studies Program & Institute
170. Barbara Weinstein - Silver Professor of History
171. E. Frances White - Professor, Gallatin and Social Cultural Analysis
172. Marilyn B. Young - Professor of History
173. Edward Ziter - Associate Professor, Drama
174. Angela Zito - Associate Professor of Anthropology, Religious Studies; Co-director of the Center for Religion and Media

Open Letter to the Russell Tribunal

2011-11-12T15:24:00.001-08:00

My name is Janis Just, and I am a political science student at the University of Cape Town. I attended the full proceedings of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine as I am covering it on behalf of a German newspaper. I attended in my individual capacity and am not part of any specific lobby group.

On Monday November 7, I attended the post Tribunal press conference. Organisers of the Russell Tribunal recognised me from a different press conference last week where I asked a question about Hamas’ violations of human rights. When attempting to ask a question this time, the organisers called me a “serious heckler” and a “Zionist activist”.

The first accusation is patently untrue, as I did not engage in any heckling whatsoever. As to the second accusation, I have no problem wearing this title. However, their labelling of me as a “Zionist activist” was their attempt to delegitimise my argument and me as a person. This is not only against any democratic convention, it is contrary to the stated intention of the Russell Tribunal itself - which is hears all evidence and seek the truth.

Simply for asking an uncomfortable question, which apparently did not fit with the agenda of the Tribunal, I was forcibly removed from the Russell Tribunal's official press conference. Not only was I not allowed to ask any questions, but in attempting to raise issues of concern, I was thrown to the floor, dragged out of the conference and threatened with more violence.

It would seem that my mere presence there constituted a threat so serious that I had to be removed by any means. What they were afraid of was not that I would disturb their session, but that I would expose their biased agenda.

I have laid a charge of assault against the Tribunal organisers. However, what concerns me more than the physical abuse to which I was subjected, is that a gathering of such eminent persons for a process that has the stated aim of attempting to examine testimony and uncover the truth, in the spirit of judicial enquiry, not only were not capable of hearing differing opinions, but that such opinions were forcibly silenced. That is far more reminiscent of the apartheid regime than any of the allegations levelled against the State of Israel at the Tribunal itself.

The question I wanted to ask and still need answered is the following: Hamas is not only responsible for murder, torture and human rights violations among their own people, but also for terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. What official position does the Russell Tribunal jury take towards the Islamist regime of Hamas ruling the people of Gaza?

To the jurists of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine: I demand an answer to my question and an apology from the organisers of the Tribunal for physically attacking me.

Sincerely,

Janis Just

Offensive Words and Policies Defined

2011-11-05T19:20:00.000-07:00

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

In the spirit of fair play and respecting others’ points of view and beliefs, we in the West have fallen into a most interesting and stealth- like trap. One, I might add, that is used by all groups who do not share our way of life in the West nor do they share our same sense of toleration and humanity. They have enabled a destructive narrative to consume all manner of public discourse and in turn produced national policies that are detrimental to our survival. The strategy of disrupt a society from within is replete with multiple tactics-the use of language is but one such tactic.

For reasons mentioned by many, the narrative of “offensive language and behavior” has been allowed to promulgate throughout all stratum of our society. The agents of academia and MSM accelerated the “offensive” language myth. Weapons appear in many different forms, words are the 21^st century weapon of choice among many groups who have a design to tear down the West from within-unfortunately we are cooperating quite nicely!

The tactic is quite simple to understand and use. You know your enemy believes one should exhibit tolerance of others; you further know that you can undermine a person’s credibility and legitimacy by calling the man or woman a name that slurs his/her good standing inside a society. You know then that your enemy will refrain from challenging your words (fear of “offending”) and your enemy will either ignore or criticize anyone who dares make a challenge. You have learned how to de-legitimize your enemy. You have used stealth-like words to neuter your opposition. This accomplished,

allows you to demand specific policies supporting your beliefs and values while nullifying your enemies long held convictions.

Guess what? This tactic has produced value-added outcomes in our enemies’ war against us and we choose to ignore the fact we are at war, 21^st century style war. For example, our Marine soldiers fighting so many miles away from home now must not urinate or spit in the direction of Mecca as it “offends Islamic human senses”. Yes, an edict has then been generated to our soldiers to change how where they perform a daily human activity. Absurd-yes and the reason I chose this one from thousands of examples. There are far more “serious” offenses that have resulted in humans being murdered, maimed and injured for life. Everyone remembers the Mohammed cartoon event and how could we forget the simple act of a female having a coffee with a male that leads to her death?

As upsetting as these and other examples are for we Westerners to accept or even understand, we have chosen to “stand down” in the face of this war tactic currently in play here in the USA. This road of value submission leads us in a direction I do not want my grand children to engage. Therefore, I offer the following.

Offensive language does not exist except in the minds of those who choose it. I have found that individuals do not offend anyone; fact is I am the only one that can do this to myself. Why do I write this? The state of being offended is simply my personal reaction to words and this is a learned behavior-therefore I can control it. Personally I believe that I am in charge of this not anyone else. No one was born “being offended”-rather, you learn to respond this way.

Our enemies know this and have taught their people to respond and act in a particular manner to specific language as it produces the desired effect-we call this political correctness today. “Being offended” is an example of irresponsible behavior by the person claiming to be so offended. Fact is, the person assumes no accountability, blames others and gives his “power” away to someone or something outside his abilities to be human.

What to do with this information? Consider the following immediate actions: 1. You are not responsible for any person’s perception; you are responsible for words selected. 2. From this moment forward speak your mind regarding what you believe about your beliefs and your values-they are as legitimate as the Islamists’ views. 3. Cease being concerned what others think about your intentions as no one but you knows your intentions. 4. Challenge anyone who falsely claims you are “offending” them-consider saying, “It is your choice to perceive what has been said as offensive and btw why do you choose being offended? What is in it for you?” 5. Be clear what you personally believe, treat others with behavior as you would like to be treated and understand you no longer have to tolerate the intolerant. Doing the latter does not make you a good person, a righteous person, or a more moral person. It does demonstrate weakness in the face of a confrontational situation.

Now, if I did believe others could offend me, I might be offended when Islamists say or do the following:

Our G-d is the only G-d

Kafirs have only three choices…

Women must cover their body parts

Call to daily prayer

Want to build a mosque near the former Twin Towers

Cab drivers may interrupt my ride as he has to engage in prayer

Refusal to assimilate into our Western culture

Demand special prayer rooms for public schools

And so many more…

However, I do not get offended and I do take action against all of the preceding. I ask that others stand up now and defend our precious culture and social institutions. You see, our enemy has made its choice and cares not one bit about our feelings.

Chemo vs Grads

2011-11-03T09:37:00.000-07:00

No doubt, you have heard the news reports that Palestinianterrorists in Gazaare once again firing short and long range missiles into Israeli cities. Totallyunprovoked. Yesterday, I happened to be visiting friends in the southern cityof Ashdod andwe were enjoying a quiet afternoon meal in their home when the air raid sirensbegan their ominous shrill. Immediately, twelve of us huddled into their bombshelter that doubles as a walk-in cabinet and we waited in absolute silence (asIsraelis do) to hear “the boom”. Hear it we did as a long-range grad missilelanded not terribly far away. It was time to head back home to the north. Duringthat drive, we listened intently to the news while additional barrages of gradswere launched against Israeli civilian population centers.

Today in Emek, I was leading a group of visitors from

England

on a tour of our School for Hospitalized Children. I introduced the group toArrif and his fifteen year old son, Mohammed. They come from Gaza. They have been ‘living’ in Emek for tenmonths as young Mohammed is being treated for severe facial cancer. Arrifspeaks fluent Hebrew and I conducted a simultaneously translated Q&Asession between him and the British visitors …

Q. How do you feel here, among the Jews of Israel?

A. Perfectly normal and at ease. Grateful – so verygrateful.

Q. What does your family back in Gaza say about Mohammed’s treatment here?

A. They are amazed and they send their sincere gratitude. Theycannot believe what has and is being done for Mohammed and me.

Q. Do you know that missiles are again being fired from Gaza into Israeli cities?

A. Yes. I am ashamed. The politicians and extremists arenot “the people”. We only want to live a normal life alongside you.

Many ask, considering the asymmetrical vortex we are caughtin … why do you help ‘them’? The answer is simple – because that is who we are.

It’s chemo vs grads. You decide what and who is theproblem.

Support Emek … an example the world can learn from.

http://www.emekdonations.org/

Larry Rich

Director ofDevelopment

International PublicRelations

Israel

'sEmek Medical Center

Phone in Israel ...972-04-649 4417

Mobile in Israel ...972-0505-737 641

Phone in New York ... 646-5465970

Fax in Israel ...972-04-813 5608

Email ... rich_l@clalit.org.il

Mailing address:

Emek Medical Center

Afula 18101

Israel

Intentional misrepresentation of facts MSM?

2011-10-18T06:03:00.000-07:00

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

As I watch the unfolding of the Shalit exchange across multiple television news channels, including Israeli, France, CNN, BBC and UK I find the most of the reporting disconcerting. Why? The reporters are either ill informed, intentional in distorting the truth or truly ignorant. There is no other possibility.

Let me clarify a point repeatedly, across almost all of these news stations regarding Shalit’s abduction. He was taken on 25 June 2006 by Hamas terrorists from Gaza in a cross-border raid. A Hamas terrorist group attacked a Merkava Tank Mark 3, which was guarding the security fence and an army post, both in Israeli territory. During the attack, the commander and a fellow tank member were killed. Shalit was abducted near the Kerem Shalom crossing as was dragged under the security fence into parts unknown in Gaza. This is a critical point, Hamas terrorists illegally entered Israel and kidnapped Gilad. He was not engaged in a battle or a war and was not ever granted POW status. Why? Simple, he was kidnapped.

He was kept in primarily inhumane situation, his eyeglasses taken from him most of the time, he lived in solitary confinement, he was NEVER, not one time allowed a visit by the international Red Cross. We had no actual evidence that he was alive until two years ago. Still, after the infamous “still alive” video no visit permitted by any humanitarian or health organization. This alone is illegal in terms of International Law and at the very least demonstrates the inhumane character of our enemy.

For the MSM media to not even mention this background material is disingenuous when they present an empathetic view of the poor, just released, prisoners. For the MSM not to focus upon the released criminals, many of who engaged in barbaric actions murderers of primarily civilians breaches the integrity that should be displayed by professional journalists. I note that all of this was missing-I know they possess these minimal details and have chosen to with hold from today’s stories.

This is no small detail; it is central to my point that the MSM are misrepresenting entire experience today. They have contributed the following:

Lead the viewing public to believe that the prisoners should be released; it is after all only humane. Never mind that many are murderers serving over 15 consecutive life sentences, they should be viewed with empathy. No, they should be seen for what they are, first-degree murderers and they did not have the courage to take on fighters, they murdered innocent civilians. They murdered children, women eating pizza at a favorite pizza joint. Imagine you are enjoying a Little Caesars or Incredible pizza with all the toppings surrounded by your family and then in an instant they were targeted and blown to pieces.

These prisoners deserved freedom and annulment of their crimes of blowing up innocent civilians on busses, ask the Roth’s if they have any sympathy for these terrorists?

The MSM does not hold Hamas or Fatah speakers to the truth regarding using International law to justify their positions. They are using the day’s release event, as we knew they would, to lie to the viewers. Article 5 of the Geneva Convention does not apply as these two groups are not state parties to the Geneva Convention applies to their “fighters” are not legally “protected persons” under the definition of the convention.

Either the “journalists” do not know international Law or they do. Whichever is the answer to this statement my response is the same. Shame on the MSM for not holding these speakers to two points: 1. Are you not using this event for political outcomes? 2. You know as well as we know, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to you, why are you being so deceitful?

There will be peace in the Middle East before the MSM ever steps up and does their job correctly. They do hold us in Israel to a higher standard, sometimes known as hypocrisy.

Gilad was kidnapped, held in inhumane conditions for 5 years. Israel was held hostage by Hamas, the international community who supported the untold inappropriate ratio of terrorist prisoners to one Israeli and the media would have you believe the world should feel compassion for their families. No compassion for the hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians murdered by these barbarians. The media speaks not one negative word about the celebrations in the Arab villages. The MSM speaks nothing about the inappropriateness of dancing and celebration by Arab “leaders” for having murderers released unjustly. No, instead they pitch how now maybe the Israelis may be ready to re-engage in talks with these ruthless people. Yet another lie-you know and I know we in Israel have not been the ones to negotiate-tell the MSM to stop supporting terrorists with their distortions.

Yom Kippur Israel Appeal

2011-10-16T05:06:00.000-07:00

This is the Yom Kippur Israel Appeal given by Ed Berns at Temple Beth Sholom in Hamden, Connecticut. TBS regularly distributes a valuable Israel Matters newsletter to its members. Israel Matters is also available on the TBS website.

Shabbat shalom,

A year passes quickly. It seems like yesterday that I was on this bimah urging you to fight the demonization of Israel and to make Israel a daily part of your life. That you should make an investment of time to be knowledgeable about the issues that Israel confronts daily. And, ultimately, I encouraged you to leave your comfort zone and actively advocate for Israel. I could give the same speech today - it would be just as timely, but that wouldn't express what is affecting Israel this year.

A lot can happen in a year. If you were sitting here last year praying that in the year to come Israel would see peace, then today you are sitting here a very disappointed person.

We've all heard about the Arab Spring. Democracy rising from the ashes of dictatorships. Mubarak and Gaddafi overthrown. Great for the Arab street and great for the world, right? I wish I could tell you that the Arab revolution will ease rather than exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, but from the early returns it doesn't look like it will deliver as advertised.

Take Egypt, for example. With Mubarak deposed it didn't take long for the Muslim Brotherhood to emerge as the only unified political party and it is rapidly securing its hold on the country. The recent takeover of the Israeli embassy, the nurturing of relations with Iran, and the removal of security forces in the Sinai that facilitates the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, all of these result in Israel having been better off dealing with a ruthless dictator who knew that a cold peace with it, rather than confrontation was in his, and Egypt's, best interests.

In the last twelve months, Israel's relations with Turkey have deteriorated from being one of the most mutually beneficial to one of confrontation. Using Israel's reaction to last year's Flotilla incitement as justification, Turkey has flexed its geopolitical muscles to become a power broker in the region. In the process, its political balance tilted away from the democracies in the West to fall more in line with the traditional Islamic view of Israel. By recalling its ambassador, Turkey severed relations with Israel. Most recently it threatened to send its warships with the next flotilla to Gaza, risking a military confrontation with Israel in the process. The view from those on the inside is that Israel's relationship with Turkey is not recoverable.

Needless to say, nothing good has come out of Iran. Speaking at the UN, Ahmadinejad enjoyed the opportunity to again blast both the US and Israel. This year's rant denied the Holocaust, calling it an excuse for the foundation of the State of Israel that represented "ransom to the Zionists." In the meantime, the Iranian march toward nuclear independence accelerated despite attempts to encourage it to abandon its plan.

To all of that instability, we must add the increased inflexibility of the Palestinian Authority. While refusing to sit down with the Israelis to negotiate an elusive peace, it simultaneously ignored the urging of the US and other Western nations and proceeded down the dead-end path of using the comfortable surroundings of the UN to declare unilateral statehood. In other words, the goal of the Palestinians was to achieve the land without achieving the peace.

There was one significant, bright spot to report. During the past twelve months, many felt whipsawed by the changes in President Obama's posture toward Israel. In May - for the first time publicly - the president announced that it was the official position of the US that Israel should negotiate peace with the Palestinians using the pre-1967 borders as the starting point. Remember: With those borders, parts of Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest place, would revert to Arab control. Ignoring realities on the ground, Israel would have to start fresh and negotiate for them. Notably missing was a pronouncement by the President that any peace agreement must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that Palestine must be for the Palestinians. This prompted a public rebuke - and more bad press for Israel - when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu responded that those borders were indefensible and would not be the starting point for renewed negotiations. Relations between Israel and the US had reached a very low point.

This month, in an incredible turnaround, President Obama spoke at the UN in response to the Palestinian bid for statehood. In a speech that has been described as missing only a portrait of Theodore Hertzl in the background, President Obama provided the strongest support for Israel of his presidency. The president stressed America's recognition of and commitment to Israel's security concerns. "Let's be honest," he said, "Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it" and "Israel's children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them." Capping his support, the president made the point he should have made in May when he very clearly articulated the land of Israel as the "historic homeland" of the Jewish people.

With all of that as background, I stand before you today to appeal to your love of Israel by asking that you affirmatively stand with and demonstrate your devotion to her. I know things are tight. But as we know, Israel is getting squeezed pretty hard, too.

As American Jews it is up to us to declare our solidarity with Israel. There are many ways to show your support, and with the variety of Israel-related charities and organizations you are sure to find one that fits your interests. Some you know well: Hadassah, tree planting through the Jewish National Fund, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, the organization dedicated to Israel advocacy and which the Rabbi and I are both members. These are wonderful organizations and well worth your support. There are many more, some of which you might not be aware. Some of those are described on the handout you found on your chairs this morning. For example, last night Rabbi Scolnic commented on the infrastructure needs of Israel, and mentioned the Carmel forest fires. If the needs of the Israeli firefighters resonates with you, you'll see on your handout an organization known as Friends of Israel Firefighters that raises funds to buy badly needed equipment.

My point is this: It really doesn't matter what you support so long as you do support. Get engaged, become invested. This is not the time to stand on the sidelines. There's a Yiddish proverb that goes, "If you don't want to do something, one excuse is as good as another." In other words, if you're not doing something, what does it matter why?

It is traditional in an Israel Appeal to urge the purchase of Israel bonds, and today is no exception. Investment in State of Israel bonds has helped cultivate the desert, build transportation networks, create new industries, resettle immigrants, and increase export capability. It supports a nation of extraordinary innovation that pushes the boundaries of modern technology. Israel has never defaulted or missed a single payment of principal or interest. An easy way to purchase Israel bonds is to donate to the TBS Israel Bond Fund. When sufficient amounts are accumulated, the synagogue purchases another bond.

The bottom line is this: As American Jews, we must demonstrate a common front in the support of Israel. Golda Meir had it right: "To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be."

Be someone who supports Israel. Be someone knowledgeable about the issues Israel faces. Be someone who is willing to fight against the slander Israel faces daily. Be someone who responds to the media when you read something printed that portrays Israel in a false light. Be someone who visits Israel if you can. What I'm asking you today is to be.

I would be remiss if I failed to recognize June 25th as the fifth anniversary of the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit who has been held captive and incommunicado by Hamas. We pray for his freedom.

In conclusion, the Rabbi has asked me to inform the congregation that throughout the coming year he will be holding informational sessions about advocating for Israel. The first session is set for November 6th. He and I hope you will join us.

I wish you, your families, and Israel peace in the coming year.

L'shana tovah.

Cartoon in The New Haven Register: Despicable and Incendiary

2011-09-26T07:45:00.000-07:00

Editorial cartoons are supposed to be thought-provoking, but a responsible cartoonist does not mislead and does not promote hatred. Atlanta Journal-Constitution cartoonist Mike Luckovich did both in a hateful cartoon published in The New Haven Register September 26, 2011.

Ed Wood wrote the following letter about the cartoon to the Editorial Page Editor of The New Haven Register, Charles Kochakian ckochakian@journalregister.com.

The cartoon may be viewed at http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2011/09/mike09232011.jpg.

Dear Mr. Kochakian:

Even though I have reached my letters limit for the year, I
promised to keep sending them on topics which show up on the op-ed page
that I believe require a response. Mike Luckovich's particularly nasty
and biased cartoon today fit that category.

In it he has Benjamin Netanyahu saying "I'm finally willing
to accept a two-state solution." He is pointing to a map indicating that
Wyoming and Nebraska are the two states in which he wants the
Palestinians to end up.

I know that a free press should allow many points of view,
so I hope to see another cartoon soon which might go something like
this:

"Mahmoud Abbas and the PA Finally Agree to a Peace Treaty"

It could show Abbas signing the document while standing on
the beach of the Mediterranean with a whole fleet of payloaders pushing
all the Jews into the ocean.

HOW'S THAT FOR BALANCE?

Sincerely,
Edward Wood

Setting Stanley Heller Straight

2011-09-25T11:07:00.000-07:00

After Stanley Heller's latest anti-Israel rant published in The New Haven Register, Ed Wood wrote the following letter to the editor. Heller is the leader of the Middle East Crisis Committee, a group with the singular goal of eliminating the world's only Jewish state, which happens to also be the only true democracy and America's only enduring friend in the Middle East.

Because The New Haven Register has a policy of not publishing more than four letters from a single individual in a year, Ed's letter wasn't published, but his message is worth reading.

Stanley Heller is, if nothing else, predictable. Again he laments the "unfairness" the Palestinians have experienced at the hand of Israel with a stubborn refusal to look at the facts. Here are some of them which he has ignored:

1) In return for decades of concessions, Israel has reaped only increasing scorn, contempt, and attacks from the Palestinians and their allies around the world.

2) When given the choice, the Palestinians chose Hamas to represent them whose goal to exterminate Israel has never changed.

3) The conflict between Israel, the Palestinians, and its Arab neighbors is very much a religious war, since their opponents adhere to a religion whose own Quran and teachings direct its followers to either convert, subjugate, or eliminate all those outside Islam. More and more these militant directives are being taken literally by Muslims, including the Palestinians.

4) A free society has no obligation to allow those very freedoms to be abused by those which would seek to destroy it. In fact it is obligated to protect itself and its citizens from this very thing.

5) By continuing their animosity toward Israel, the Palestinians have very much brought their present fate upon themselves.

To have peace ALL parties involved must truly be seeking it.

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, this will never come and all the U.N. declarations to impose peace will not be worth the paper they are printed upon.

Sincerely,
Edward Wood

Ecological Considerations in the War Against Israel

2011-09-06T05:38:00.000-07:00

The following letter was submitted to The Hour (Norwalk, Connecticut) immediately after that newspaper published virtually the same later twice in eight days. Although The Hour publishes almost everything sent to it, this letter has not been published, even after it was resubmitted about two weeks later just in case it got lost in cyberspace.

To the Editor:

It's encouraging to learn that in these days of diminishing resources, The Hour has initiated the revolutionary concept of "content recycling." The letter, "Nervy of the letter writers to suggest editorial policy," by Lynn Carlton published August 15 was almost identical to the letter by the same writer, "Defending Scott Kimmich," published eight days earlier and also similar in message to the letter by Aletha Carlton, "Focus the conversation on what is happening now," published just four days earlier.

Each of these anti-Israel letters, like Scott's, also recycle false information and unsupportable opinions. The latter are acceptable but the former, such as the obviously false assertion "Israel has … separate license plates for people of a different faith," are not. The known truth is that Israel issues the same license plates for all its citizens, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim or adherents of any of the other faiths who practice freely in Israel. These license plates of course differ from those issued by the Palestinian Authority, the corrupt governing body for almost all the Arabs in the disputed territories.

Interestingly, these anti-Israel writers completely ignore the apartheid policies of the Palestinian Authority, which go far beyond issuing different license plates based on religion. The Palestinian Authority insists that no Jews will live in its future state and long ago made it a capital crime to even sell land to a Jew.

Those who claim to be interested in human rights should be protesting the racist policies of the Palestinian Authority and its refusal to even negotiate with Israel.

In terms of suggesting editorial policy to The Hour, I would not suggest it stop publishing the anti-Israel diatribes by Scott Kimmich and the two Carltons, but I would suggest it pay more attention to Article IV of the Statement of Principles of the American Society of News Editors, which reads: "Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently."

In other words, I suggest The Hour exercise its responsibility to eliminate the false information that pervades those anti-Israel letters and issue its own, official corrections when it inadvertently publishes false information.

I recognize such a policy would create tremendous difficulty for the anti-Israel writers, since it is very hard to make a case against Israel while sticking to the truth, but unfortunately sometimes life can be fair. And the anti-Israel fanatics certainly have plenty of illogical arguments they can continue to recycle.

Alan Stein

Rasheed Screed Trilogy, August 2011, Part 3

2011-08-17T11:15:00.000-07:00

I sent a letter to the New Haven Register in response to Rasheed's screed and The Register was good enough to publish it on August 16. There are, however, some interesting differences between the letter published and the letter submitted. We include both, followed by some comments.

The Letter Published August 16

Questionable assertions about Gaza, civilian deaths

Jamilah Rasheed's Forum article, "Palestinians also struggle for freedom,"contains many questionable assertions.

Rasheed contradicts her assertion that the "Gaza Strip is an open air prison" with her acknowledgment that Gaza has an open border with Egypt.

Rasheed says Israel killed 1,417 civilians during Operation Cast Lead. This is blatantly false. Nobody knows how many Arabs in Gaza were killed and the number given by Rasheed is the highest estimate, including civilians and combatants, I've seen.

If one accepts Rasheed's inflated figure as the total, Hamas admitted that between 600 and 700 of those killed were combatants, so no more than 817 could have been civilians.

Most likely, the total number of casualties was below 1,200 and the number of civilians killed well under 500.

Alan Stein
Waterbury

Editor's note: Alan Stein is president of Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting-Connecticut.

The Letter Sent to the Editor

Dear Mr. Kochakian:

Jamilah Rasheed's August 9 Forum article, "Palestinians also struggle for freedom," contains many questionable assertions. Indeed, Rasheed herself contradicts her assertion that the "Gaza Strip is an open-air prison" with her acknowledgment two paragraphs below that Gaza has an open border with Egypt.

In the same paragraph as her assertion about Gaza being a prison, Rasheed falsely asserts Israel killed "1,417 civilians" during Operation Cast Lead. This is a blatantly false assertion which should not have been published and should be corrected by The New Haven Register.

Nobody really knows how many Arabs in Gaza were killed during Operation Cast Lead and the number given by Rasheed is the highest estimate of total casualties, both civilian and combatants, I've ever seen. Even if one accepts Rasheed's inflated figure as the total, even Hamas representatives ultimately admitted that between 600 and 700 of those killed were combatants, so that no more than 817 could possibly have been civilians.

Most likely, the total number of casualties was below 1,200 and the number of civilians killed well under 500. However, however generously one estimates the number of civilian casualties, Rasheed indisputably inflated the number of civilian casualties by at least 600.

While Rasheed's biased arguments are appropriately countered via letters to the editor, such a factual error calls for an official correction by The New Haven Register. Also, since Rasheed's Forum articles almost always contain blatant factual errors, we strongly urge you to carefully scrutinize future submissions from Jamilah Rasheed for factual accuracy.

Note: Two reliable sources, among many, for the Hamas admission are the Alan Dershowitz article "Finally, a Hamas Leader Admits That Israel Killed Mostly Combatants In Gaza," available at and the Jerusalem Post article "Civilian casualties, Gaza and the political war," available at .

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Comments

The original letter was sent directly to the editor, not to the address for letters for publication. It was clearly written as a request for The Register to issue its own, official correction of one of the factual errors in Rasheed's screed, not as a letter for publication. The Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors obligates newspapers to issue such corrections.

Instead of issuing that correction, The Register basically eliminated that portion of the letter and published it as if it was written for publication. It also eliminated the part where it was pointed out such false assertions should not be published in newspapers.

Rasheed Screed Trilogy, August 2011, Part 2

2011-08-17T11:14:00.000-07:00

This letter was sent to the New Haven Register on August 9, the day Rasheed's screed was published. The writer was contacted by The Register, but as of August 17 the letter has not been published. It was submitted with the proposed title: "Bizarro world, parallel universe or just willingly ignorant?" along with an explanatory note to the editor, Charles Kochakian.

Note to Mr. Kochakian: I have probably exceeded my four per year limit on letter publication, but I think it is still important to send them in because I hope the "powers that be" at the Register will realize that there are probably a lot of us not at all fooled by Jamilah Rasheed, Stanley Heller, and the rest of the "Hate Israel - Hate America" crowd.

I understand why there has to be a limit to letter writers, but what irritates me is to not see it applied to someone like Rasheed who seems to have a much wider access to column space than the average Joe (or Josephine!), i.e. Faith Matters, Forum, and regular letters section.

Maybe you could look into this.

Nevertheless, do appreciate all the times you did feature my contributions and those of Neil Berro and Diana West, for example, who actually know what they're talking about!

The Letter Submitted

To the Editor:

I was and am a big sci-fi fan. When I was a kid, the top guy was Superman. Some of the comics feature a storyline based on a place called the Bizarro World where everything was reversed. Bad was good, good was bad, Superman, who was really a pretty sharp guy on our Earth, had a Bizarro version was probably the dullest pencil in the pencil box.

Star Trek featured an episode called Mirror, Mirror which featured an almost parallel universe but in which the benevolent Federation of Planets of our universe was brutal and warlike.

Lost in Space had an episode called "The Antimatter Man" in which John Robinson was captured and replaced by his evil opposite.

I'm wondering which of these places Jamilah Rasheed is getting her information because it certainly doesn't square with what I see anywhere in this universe on my planet.

She mentions in positive terms dictators being overthrown in the Middle East, which is good as far as it goes, but how often do thee places which lack a Judeo-Christian belief system invariably pick someone or something worse? Like Hamas, Hezbollah, or, in the case of Egypt a real possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood.

She mentions the plight of the Palestinians whose own choice of leadership is one of confrontation which will be satisfied only with the total destruction of Israel, something which they have proudly and publicly proclaimed - and then she can't seem to figure out that they are their own worst enemies.

Abetting them are the naive people who send "humanitarian aid" ships whose real goal is one of inciting confrontation in hopes of securing world sympathy when Israel has to take measures to protect itself.

One thing seems clear - either Rasheed and her like-minded proponents, or the rest of us have somehow materialized onto the wrong world or they are wishing to remain willingly ignorant of reality.

In either case, I hope they will open their eyes or perhaps Mr. Scott can either send us . . . or them . . . back home!

Sincerely,
Edward Wood

Rasheed Screed Trilogy, August 2011, Part 1

2011-08-17T11:12:00.000-07:00

The New Haven Register regularly published op-eds written by Jamilah Rasheed , coordinator of the Connecticut Islamic Speakers Bureau. Rasheed ironically has the email address in4truth@comcast.net, ironic since so much of what she writes is of, at best, highly questionable veracity.

The Register published one of her op-eds, more accurately referred to as a Rasheed Screed, on August 9, 2011, with the title "Palestinians also struggle for freedom."

We post three entries relating to Rasheed's latest screed. This one contains quotes from her screed along with comments about each.

The second will contain a letter sent to The Register but, as of today, unpublished.

The third will also contain two versions of a letter sent to The Register, the published version and the original.

The Quotes and Comments

Re the title "Palestinians also struggle for freedom":

The Palestinian Arabs certainly have a strange way of "struggling for freedom."

They rejected "freedom" in 1947, when an Arab state was proposed by the United Nations through the Partition Plan. The Zionists agreed. The Arabs rejected it and launched a war instead.

They rejected "freedom" throughout the period 1948-1967 when the currently disputed territories were under Arab occupation and an independent Palestinian Arab state could have been established unilaterally.

They rejected "freedom" after the Six Day War when Israel offered to withdraw from all the captured territory in exchange for peace.

They rejected "freedom" in 1978, when the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt called for the negotiation of autonomy for the Arabs in the disputed territories by they refused to negotiate.

They rejected "freedom" in 2000, when they were offered a state in nearly all of the disputed territory, even including parts of Jerusalem, and they instead launched a brutal terror offensive.

They rejected "freedom" in 2008, when they were offered a state in the equivalent of all the disputed territory and they didn't even bother to respond.

They've rejected freedom for the last two and a half years, during which they've refused to even pretend to negotiate with Israel.

-----

Re "Sadly, the plight of Palestinians continues without intervention by the United States. ":

Au contraire, it would be a gross understatement to say the Obama Administration has given the self-induced and self-perpetuated plight of the Palestinian Arabs disproportionate attention. One might more reasonably argue that the Obama Administration has undermined the real interests of the Palestinian Arabs by being far too accommodating of their intransigence.

-----

Re: "The total disregard for the brutality that continues against a population of more than 1.7 million is appalling.":

One wonders to what population Rasheed is referring. According to Wikipedia, the Arab population in Judea and Samaria is roughly 2 1/2 million and the population of Gaza is just under 1.6 million.

One also wonders about what "brutality" Rasheed is referring, since all those Arabs in Gaza and roughly 95 percent of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria live under their own governments.

-----

Re: "The 60-year struggle of Palestinians has been encumbered by the failure of the Obama administration to deal firmly with the intransigence of the Israeli government."

The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly stated his willingness to agree to the establishment of another Palestinian Arab state and his willingness to make enormous concessions. He has made it clear he expects to give the Palestinian Arabs most of the disputed territory and even displace significant numbers of Israelis.

In contrast, Mahmoud Abbas, the so-called "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and the PLO, has insisted he will never make any concessions on the core issues and admitted peace would have been made long ago had he been willing to show any flexibility.

"I can't allow myself to make even one concession." (Al-Ayyam newspaper, September 7, 2010)

"If we showed flexibility on these issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago." (October 15, 2010)

-----

Re "To live free in their place of birth is a dream deferred. Palestinians want to regain some semblance of their life before occupation.

Is Rasheed referring to their life before 1948, when Egypt occupied Gaza and Transjordan occupied Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem? She certainly can't be referring to their life between 1948 and 1967, since their lives improved dramatically when Israel took over the administration of the disputed territories. Unfortunately, things have basically gotten worse since the Palestinian Authority took over near the start of the failed Oslo Process.

Among many other sources, the article "What Occupation?" by Ephraim Karsh, available at and originally published by Commentary in 2002, details some of the vast improvements in the lives of the Arabs in the disputed territories in the aftermath of the 1967 war.

-----

Re " Their desires are no different from those any human being would want for themselves and their fellow citizens.":

Perhaps this is true for many, but they have certainly followed leaders who put far more importance on their desire to destroy Israel than on the welfare of their people.

-----

Re "According to statistics gathered by the website ifamericansknew.org,since Sept. 29, 2000, 6,430 Palestinians have been killed. Factored into this number is the attack on Gaza in December 2009 in which Israel bombarded Gaza for 23 days, killing 1,417 civilians.":

This is simply false. Even representatives of Hamas have conceded a large majority of those killed during Operation Cast Lead were not civilians but were fighters and operatives of Hamas and other terror groups. See "Finally, A Hamas Leader Admits That Israel Killed Mostly Combatants In Gaza,"

by Alan M. Dershowitz . See also .

-----

Re "The Gaza Strip is an open-air prison where food and water are restricted and unemployment is at 40 percent.":

Gaza has an open border with Egypt. If Gaza is an "open-air prison," then Hamas is the jailor.

Israel certainly tries to control its border with Gaza. In this way it is no different from any other state, although most other states don't have a government pledged to its destruction on the other side, nor do they have missiles launched at their citizens on virtually a daily basis. Amazingly, Israel also transfers massive amounts of humanitarian assistance to Gaza, helping the very people attacking Israel. This is virtually unprecedented in human history.

-----

Re "Citizens of the world have to unite to free the people of Gaza and the West Bank from the debilitating assault on their humanity.":

To do that, they need to put pressure on the rulers of the Arabs in those areas, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in Judea and Samaria, to treat their subjects like human beings.

-----

Re "The revolution in Egypt brought a glimmer of hope to the Palestinian plight. The new administration in Egypt has opened permanently its border with Gaza.":

Rasheed contradicts her own assertion about Gaza being an "open-air prison."

-----

Re "Organizations outside the occupied territories have been sending people into Gaza to assure Palestinians that they are not forgotten.":

Given the obsession of the United Nations with the Palestinian Arabs, there is no chance they are being forgotten. Unfortunately, international coddling of Arab rejectionism actually harms the Palestinian Arabs by encouraging their continued refusal to make peace.

-----

Re "In June, American activists organized a U.S. vessel named Audacity of Hope that was to join a flotilla assembled by activists who were gathering to challenge the illegal Israeli economic blockade of Gaza.":

Even the United Nations, hardly friendly to Israel, recognizes that Israel's blockade, preventing some heavy weapons from reaching terrorists in Gaza, is legal. See, for example, the Haaretz article "Gaza flotilla probe: IDF used excessive force but naval blockade legal" .

Palestinians Stalling Mideast Peace Talks

2011-08-03T13:11:00.000-07:00

Published in the Waterbury Republican-American Wednesday, August 3, 2011.

The July 28 article "Abbas wants mass rallies" omitted the context of its reference that "with peace talks stalled since 2008," Palestinian Arabs will ask the United Nations to recognize their "state."

Peace talks have been stalled since 2008 because Mahmoud Abbas walked out of the talks and, with the exception of a short, three-week interval, has been refusing to talk with Israel ever since. When one side refuses even to talk, it's difficult for the talks to be anything other than stalled.

The world should not let Abbas get away with his end run around negotiations, in violation of the solemn commitment made by the Palestinian Arabs and Israel to make no changes in the status of the disputed territories except through a negotiated agreement.

Time and again, Israel has made offers the Palestinian Arabs would have eagerly grasped had they any interest other than the destruction of Israel. We in America, and the rest of the world, need to stop rewarding Abbas for perpetuating a conflict he has admitted would have been resolved long ago had he been willing to show any flexibility.

Alan Stein
Waterbury

The writer is president of PRIMER-Connecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting; www.primerct.org).

The Lesson of Tisha B'Av: We Are One … Or At Least We Need To Be

2011-07-27T06:28:00.000-07:00

This was written for my synagogue bulletin. — Alan Stein

The "Three Weeks" lead up to Tisha B'Av, the saddest day in the Jewish calendar, the date on which both the First Temple and the Second Temple were destroyed. This year Tisha B'Av, the 9th of Av, coincides with the 9th of August.

Rabbi Mendel Weinbach of Ohr Somayach writes, in "What do we get from Tisha B'Av?":

"The rebuilt Beis Hamikdash was once again destroyed and we were once again exiled because of the sin of 'unjustified hatred' of one Jew for another. ... Lack of tolerance, aggressive competitiveness and destructive dissension continue to plague our families and our communities. ... Unlimited love for our fellow Jew must replace the intolerance and hatred which caused our present exile."

The theme of the first General Assembly of Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) I attended was "We Are One," celebrating the unity of the Jewish people, was the most meaningful to me. Too many in our community don't realize we are one, with consequences potentially as devastating as the destructions of the Temples.

We have serious schisms between denominations.

The most uncompromising elements of the Orthodox rabbinate force Israelis to adhere to its standard regarding who is a Jew - while it's doubtful their own grandparents could have proven themselves Jewish under their standards.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Reform movement didn't help matters when it unilaterally adopted patrilineal descent, even though, in my opinion, their rabbinical arguments trump those of the Orthodox clinging to matrilineal descent. Large numbers of practicing Jews cannot marry in Israel because the Orthodox rabbinate refuses to accept their Jewishness.

Without compromise by all, prodded by an Israel government putting the welfare of its people ahead of narrow-minded coalition politics, we're heading towards a self-detonated explosion.

Israel continues to be surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction while many Jews, apparently suffering from the "Oslo Syndrome," collude with our enemies.

The Oslo Syndrome is akin to the "Stockholm Syndrome" which leads kidnap victims to sympathize and even act in concert with their abductors. I believe the term was coined by psychiatrist and historian Kenneth Levin, author of "The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege."

Hamas, Fatah and the PLO are all pledged, in their most basic documents, to the destruction of Israel. For example, Article 12 of the Fatah Constitution lists "complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence" as a goal. Fatah, led by Mahmoud Abbas, is considered moderate, and in the spectrum of Palestinian Arab politics it is. Both Fatah and the PLO may be less fanatical than Hamas, which rules Gaza and has launched more than 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians in Sderot and other southern towns and cities, but all are united in their desire to annihilate Israel.

In the face of such hostility, one would expect all Israelis and all Jewish people in the Diaspora to be unified in their support for the Jewish state. Sadly, this is not the case.

The problem goes beyond internal debates and good-faith disagreements. There are Jews advocating and acting against Israel. Several of the staunchest Israel-haters here in Connecticut are Jewish. Some of the participants in the latest flotilla to Gaza, in support of Hamas and against Israel, were Jewish.

There are also groups which claim to support Israel but actively work against measures to support Israel. For example, early this year, J Street, which calls itself "pro-Israel," came out against an American veto of an anti-Israel resolution in the United Nations Security Council and co-sponsored a congressional mission to Israel with the viciously anti-Israel "Churches for Middle East Peace," a promoter of the BDS (boycotts, divestment, sanctions) campaign to delegitimize Israel.

For far too many Jews, the Oslo Syndrome is more powerful than identification with their own people, with the reality that "we are one." They do not understand that the people they are abetting hate them as much as they hate the rest of us.

Rabbi Weinbach begins his article with the assertion "we Jews have a long memory."

Unfortunately, the memories of some of us are not so long; some of us have forgotten, or never learned, the lessons of Tisha B'Av.

Is media conspiring with terrorism? Yes.

2011-07-22T09:50:00.000-07:00

This was sent as a letter to The Register Citizen of Torrington, Connecticut by a PRIMER activist who asked that it be published without using his or her name. Like most papers, The Register Citizen does not publish anonymous letters and did not publish this, but the message remains a strong one.

The recent Op-Ed piece, "Is media conspiring with terrorism?" blatantly ignores the reality of the past 63 years. I've followed the reality in real time. During that entire period the Islamic and secular Arab world's intention has been abundantly clear. They simply cannot stomach the presence of a Jewish state of any size, whether the borders correspond to the lines of 1947, 1948-1967 or the present.

The PLO was formed before 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza were still under Arab control, so its aim had to be to "liberate" Tel Aviv, Haifa and the rest of the world's only Jewish state. In 2000, Yasser Arafat not only rejected an incredibly generous offer to set up a Palestinian Arab state in virtually all of the disputed territories, including parts of Israel's capital, but responded by launching a brutal terrorist offensive. In 2008, Mahmoud Abbas didn't even deign to respond to an even more generous offer that would have effectively given him all the disputed territory and has refused to negotiate with Israel for more than two and a half years.

It's not only Hamas whose charter (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp, Article 7) calls for the destruction of Israel; so do the basic documents of the supposedly "moderate" Fatah (http://www.mideastweb.org/fateh.htm, Articles 8 and 12) and the PLO (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp, Articles 19, 1 and 2).

Israel would love to negotiate with a Palestine that truly believes in peaceful coexistence. But how do you negotiate with an enemy whose objective is your complete destruction?

If there's any media conspiracy, it's to keep the public ignorant of those critical facts. In doing so, de facto, the media is indeed conspiring with terrorism.

Responding to Threats and Violence

2011-07-07T04:27:00.000-07:00

This letter was published in the Danbury News-Times on Thursday, July 7, 2011.

Defends Israel's use of force as response to threats, violence

I read with interest the article entitled "Sticking to the script" by Stephan Lesher, published June 22.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very complicated and involved subject, and I feel that Mr. Lesher's article deserves some additional comment.

Mr. Lesher complains that whenever anyone discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict, they promise an unswerving commitment to Israel's security. He does not mention that Palestinian and Hamas officials continually profess an unswerving commitment to Israel's destruction.

Mr. Lesher complains that "Israel continually moans and groans about the supposed Iranian nuclear weapons." He dismisses this danger to Israel's existence by saying that it will not occur until 2015. Mr. Lesher evidently thinks that postponing a bad event for four years eliminates the hazard.

He ignores the constant threats by Iran that they will destroy Israel and murder all its citizens.

Mr. Lesher minimizes the abusive firing of explosive rockets against Israeli civilians, stating that only a few people have been killed. How many people have to be killed in this fashion before this vicious act becomes an atrocity?

I wonder, if vandals routinely set off explosives in Mr. Lesher's neighborhood, endangering the lives of his family and their neighbors, would he sit back and say "only a few people will be killed, so why worry."

He condemns Israel's attack on Gaza, but ignores the fact that this attack was in direct response to these rockets. Any nation in the world would take effective steps to counter such constant attacks on its territory and against its citizens. Israel is entitled to do the same.

A brief look at recent history might help to put things in better perspective.

This conflict has its roots in 1948 when several Arab armies attacked the then newly born State of Israel from several directions.

Israel's borders had just been delineated by the United Nations. The Jews accepted the U.N.'s division of the area between Arabs and the Jews, but the Arabs did not.

The stated intention of the attacking Arab armies was to drive the Israelis into the sea and murder all the Israelis. The Arabs have been trying to do this ever since.

The many actions the Israeli government has taken against the Arabs over the years have been done in reaction to constant Arab attacks. Witness the building of a separation be tween Israel and the Arab areas. This separation has effectively stopped the suicide bombers and their attacks against innocent civilians.

Hamas, which is now part of the Palestine Authority, has been listed by the United States as a terrorist organization.

Does inclusion of Hamas in its ranks make the Palestinian Authority a terrorist organization?

There are many thorny issues separating the Arabs and the Israelis. Peace negotiations will be difficult. These negotiations can only begin when the Arabs accept Israel's right to exist and stop their constant attempts to attack and kill Israeli citizens.

We pray this will happen.

Melvin H. Friedman
Danbury

Rewriting history, again

2011-07-06T05:42:00.000-07:00

The following letter was published in The Hour , in Norwalk, Connecticut, on July 6, 2011.

To the Editor:

As the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Scott Kimmich is entitled to his opinions, no matter how illogical and hateful they may be, but he's not entitled to make up his own facts, as he has once again done in his latest, fanatical anti-Israel diatribe, "Questioning those who question you," published in The Hour June 25.

As is typical, his rant was filled with half-truths and what might euphemistically be described as extremely creative versions of history. One could fill volumes analyzing his distortions; I'll restrict myself to the way he again insisted that Israel started the 1948 war.

As far as the fighting before Israel's actual reestablishment, on April 16, 1948, Jamal Huseeini, spokesman for the Arab Higher Committee, told the United Nations Security Council: "The representatives of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We do not deny this. We told the whole world we were going to fight."

As far as the actual war, with the invasion by five Arab armies immediately after Israel declared its reestablishment with a call to its Arab neighbors to live together in peace, Trygve Lie, United Nations Secretary General, reported to the Security Council "The Egyptian government has declared in a cablegram to the President of the Security Council on 15 May that Egyptian armed forces have entered Pales tine and it has engaged in 'armed intervention' in that country.

On May 16, I received a cablegram from the Arab League making similar statements on behalf of the Arab states. I consider it my duty to emphasize to that this is the first time since the adoption of the (U.N.) Charter that member states have openly declared that they have engaged in armed intervention outside their own territory.'

Scott Kimmich is right about one thing, readers can easily determine PRIMER's bias by perusing its website, www.primerct.org: PRIMER is biased to wards the truth.

Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut, Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting.

The Stories of Paul and Leah

2011-06-29T18:55:00.000-07:00

Introduction: The author recently participated in the Adult International March of the Living, spending one week in Poland visiting the concentration camps and restored historic Jewish sites, followed by a week in Israel celebrating Yom HaShoah V’Hagvura (Holocaust and Martyrs Remembrance), Yom HaZikaron (Remembrance of Fallen Soldiers); and Yom Ha’Atzmaut (Israel’s Independence Day).

______________________________________

I knew the program would be emotionally exhausting. But never could I anticipate Paul and Leah.

Paul Fryberg is an 86-year-old survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau who made the 20-hour trip from Australia with his daughter Yvonne. He’s a large man with rapid speech and a thick Aussie accent. He had survived hell and ended up an orphan on the other side of the world.

Yet now, on our way to his birthplace of Lodz, he said, “I’m scared.” Like most survivors, Paul said he never return to Poland, but the Lodz Ghetto Judenrat kept burial records and, after 67 years, he’d located his father’s grave in the medieval Lodz cemetery and returned to give him a funeral.

He was a teenager when the Nazis herded his family into the ghetto. When his father's legs became too swollen to work, a German soldier shot him in the head; they showed Paul the picture they took for evidence. His mother and sister were burned, he believes, at Chelmno. Paul was shipped to Auschwitz-Birkenau, the main extermination camp.

Paul looked disoriented as we entered Birkenau, but quickly he remembered Dr. Mengele, silently waiting for the new arrivals off the trains, using just a one finger to indicate left or right: immediate death or slave labor.

The next day, we walked among the astounding headstones of the Lodz cemetery that told a story of this once thriving community of some 223,000 Jews before WWII. But Paul never forgot the taunts of the local Polish kids who made throat-slicing gestures and called out “Zhid, Zhid.”

I was worried sick: how would Paul handle this? We found the grave. Paul was trembling, but in control. But when we began to recite kaddish, this gentle old man collapsed over the flat gravestone, calling for his father and sobbing like the lost child he was.

Later, Paul confided he was afraid he’d be alone with his daughter at the grave site. How happy he was when he wiped his tears and saw dozens of us, Jews from all over the world, now his congregation.

A week later, we gathered in Israel’s Safra Square for our march to the Kotel to celebrate Israel’s Independence Day. Music and dancing, flags of Panama, France, Brazil, the UK, Australia, the United States, Argentina, and more-- all signaling we survived, we prospered. Everyone cried as Paul lead his contingent, carrying the Australian flag to the Western Wall.

Leah

Birkenau death camp is a huge, sprawling complex of primitive wood barracks with guard towers everywhere and feeder railroad tracks the Nazis added to expedite the transport of Jews for slaughter. It seems endless. This day, it was raining and miserable. (We had been surprised at how less ominous Auschwitz I* appeared, with its neat brick buildings, trees in bloom and small grassy yards.)

We walked into a women's barracks, not far from Mengele's house of horrors. There were windows here and there, but unless you were right in front of one, you couldn’t see much. The group stopped and I couldn’t move forward or see. We were all wet and cold. Then I heard one of our South African leaders, Tali, translating in English for Leah Herman, a tiny elderly woman from Israel who had returned to the very barracks she had survived. She, too, came to hold a funeral service for her lost family.

Leah, a Hungarian Jew, was grabbed by the Nazis when she was only 12. She was small for her age. They stripped and shaved her, part of the dehumanization process. They handed her a huge cotton dress, way too large for her tiny body, and wooden shoes. Nothing else.

She remembered how they were forced to stand in their thin cotton rags in the freezing snow for hours during "roll call." If anyone was missing, they’d all have to stand until the escapee was caught, even if it took all night. In the meantime, the Nazis would randomly shoot prisoners. Others just froze to death or dropped from disease or hunger.

When the siren blared, you had to run into your barracks immediately or you would be shot.

One day, the siren went off, but Leah wasn’t close to her barracks; terrified, she ran into the nearest one. She was amazed to find her aunt there, the only family member left.
The aunt had learned the Nazis would be collecting women for a work force: it was a chance. Auntie stood Leah on some bricks in a back row and pinched her cheeks to make her appear healthier.

Leah was selected. They walked two miles to work and two miles back, everyday, even in freezing winds. They were given two slices of moldy bread each day. Nothing else. They were dying of starvation, disease, and cold.

The sleeping bunks were merely rough wooden slats in layers of three, with room for two or three people in each. The Nazis forced in six to eight. (More could fit as their bodies wasted away.) Leah remembered how everyone wanted a top bunk because, as people died above, their body fluids would spill onto you.

When the Nazis learned that the Allies were approaching, they took Leah’s group on a 4-day death march to Bergen-Belsen which Leah said was even worse than Birkenau. At Birkenau at least she saw workers. Bergen-Belsen had only corpses.

They marched with no food, no water, no toilets. They ate dirt along the road. Later, the lice covered her body so thickly that when she flicked them with a finger, they’d fall off in clumps. She contracted typhus and tuberculosis. The child was a living skeleton when the Russians came.

After two years in a Swiss hospital, she ended up in Israel. One granddaughter, Kim, accompanied Leah on the March; this was the first time she’d heard her grandmother’s story. The two women clung to one another and wept.

As Leah softly told her story, I kept my hand on one slat of a middle bunk. I was reaching out to ghosts, but it was all I had.

The rain came hard so we held the ceremony inside the miserable dark barracks. Leah wiped her tears, and, like Paul, turned to see dozens of us reciting kaddish with her.
The warm yellow of the collective candle flames shined brighter than chemistry should allow.

____________________________________

Even in Poland, splattered with so much evidence of human venality, you can understand the Holocaust only a piece at a time. This was one piece: As we were leaving, someone commented that Auschwitz didn’t look as ominous as it does in the Liberation photos; here were lots of blooming trees and grass. Someone else answered, “That’s because it’s April now. When they were liberated, it was winter; the snow probably covered the grass back then.”

“No,” Paul said, “There was no grass. We ate it.”

________________________________

* This is the Roman numeral one “I”

June S. Neal
Delray Beach FL Florida and West Hartford, CT

June Neal is a free lance writer, editor and former feature writer for Northeast Magazine and has contributed to the Jewish Ledger and other publications. She is an activist for Israel and a member of Connecticut's PRIMER (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting).

Israel Celebrates Its 62nd Anniversary

2011-06-29T18:40:00.001-07:00

This is a letter submitted to The Hartford Courant by Professor Joe Behar. It was not published by The Courant, but is posted here with the permission of the writer.

In a few days the modern state of Israel will celebrate its 62nd anniversary.

Established in 1948, any objective evaluation with numerous criteria will show Israel to be a success story. This is especially so when compared to some of its adversaries established in a similar time frame, Jordan (1946), Lebanon (1943), Syria (1946), Saudi Arabia (1932).

This beleaguered nation of eight million citizens has survived numerous attacks by neighboring nations, with their intention of destroying it.

Yet Israel has more Nobel Prize winners than the sum of their attackers. Israel's students consistently score very high in the international exams in science and mathematics.

Israel's GNP per capita is more than the combined total of their neighbors. So is their total economic production.

Their scientific advances have significantly aided us to live more comfortable and healthy lives. The cell phone, voice mail technology, most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems, synthetic vaccines and the first ingestible video camera inside a pill were all the product of Israeli scientists.

These accomplishments are in spite of having to spend more money per capita on defense, than any country in the world!

Religious pluralism, women's rights, a Western legal system and a dedication to democracy and liberty, are some of the reasons over 80% of Americans support and admire the State of Israel.

"Third world" nations attempting to advance their citizens lives should take Israel as an example to emulate.

It is no wonder that successive American administrations continue to declare " Israel is Americas strongest ally in the Middle East."

Congratulations Israel on your 62nd Anniversary.

The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment

2011-06-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

This is a minimally edited version of an article I wrote for the Beth El Synagogue Bulletin. J Street, that fringe, deceptive group many consider anti-Israel, was part of an early version but removed because of space limitations. I plan to modify this in the future to deal with their negative role.

In an article, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," published last year in The New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart took up the question of "why American Jewish college students were not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism of Israel."

Beinart argued that Jewish students were turned off because they wanted "an 'open and frank' discussion of Israel and its flaws."

I believe Beinart is dangerously wrong.

There's no shortage of discussion and debate about Israeli policy within the Jewish community, whether in America, in Israel or anywhere else around the world. The real problem is that there is no real discussion or debate on the other side. This presents a confusing and distorted picture to our youths.

Within the Jewish community, there is a relatively open and balanced debate, with even the strongest advocates of Israel recognizing Israel has made mistakes and the Palestinian Arabs have serious problems, albeit primarily of their own making, and recognizing Israel needs to make painful concessions in any peace agreement.

From the anti-Israel forces, there is a litany of distortions, half-truths and outright lies demonizing Israel.

Not having lived through the re-establishment of Israel, the Suez Campaign, the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War and the intifada, too young to remember the beginning of the Oslo process, the bus bombings in the mid-1990s or even the way the Palestinian Arabs rejected the establishment of a state in 2000 and launched the Al Aksa intifada instead, today's youth aren't really equipped to separate fact from fiction.

We have failed, as Peter Beinart points out, but not in the way he argues.

It is not that we have lacked discussion or debate or criticism; it is that we have not sufficiently educated our community and we have not imbued in our youth the feeling for Israel that previous generations had in their kishkes.

The reality is that the Jewish homeland is in a fight for survival, against an enemy that has the automatic support of most of the world. We need to make sure our youth understand that and are knowledgeable enough to carry on with a sometimes neglected part of Hillel's admonition: "If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us."

As far as how we do this, I have no answers, but Beinart's prescription would only exacerbate the problem.

I do believe synagogue needs to play an important role, starting with educating our members and supplying parents with needed tools.

Ripley's Believe It or Not: UN Chief Praises Tehran's Anti-Terror Initiative

2011-06-27T04:47:00.000-07:00

From the FARS News Agency, "Iran's leading independent news agency."

TEHRAN (FNA)- UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon praised Tehran's initiative and efforts in holding the First International Conference on the Global Fight against Terrorism, and described it as a major move and gathering in the war on terrorism.

In a written massage to the conference read by UN Envoy to Tehran Mohammad Rafi al Din Shah, Ki-moon appreciated the Islamic Republic of Iran for holding the very important conference.

Also in his message, the UN chief said the world body has approved a large number of resolutions against terrorism in recent years, "and holding conferences like the Tehran conference can be considerably helpful in implementing these resolutions".

"The UN has an important role in fighting terrorism and I hope that the Tehran conference can attain great goals," he added.

Ban Ki-moon further underlined in his message that terrorism is not a political but a universal phenomenon "that we should fight firmly".

"Moving towards negotiation and recognition among nations according to the UN charter, having friendly relations with nations and improving relations among them and performing humanistic activities are some of the important strategies against terrorism," the UN Chief reiterated.

The International Conference on Global Fight against Terrorism officially started work here in Tehran on Saturday with several high-ranking officials and international figures in attendance.

The event has brought together senior officials from at least 60 countries, and representatives from several international organizations including the UN.

Presidents of Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Iraq as well as senior dignitaries and officials from different world states and world bodies have attended the conference.

The chief executives of a number of states, including the Armenian president, are also due to join the conference today.

The event, arranged under the slogan of "A World Without Terrorism", is aimed at increasing international convergence and coordination in fighting terrorism.

The topics to be discussed in the two-day summit include various aspects of fighting terrorism, reasons behind the increasing trend of terrorist activities in the world, challenges and obstacles in the way of fighting terrorism, and enhancing appropriate counter-terrorism means and strategies on bilateral, regional and international levels.

Interpreting the Easing of Palestinian Arab Demands

2011-06-25T06:17:00.000-07:00

On June 24, the Connecticut Post, Danbury News-Times, Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate published the following short article, dubbed "Palestinians easing demands for freeze:"

The Palestinians are ready to drop their demand for a complete Israeli settlement construction freeze and resume peace talks if Israel accepts a U.S. proposal calling for a broad Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in 1967, according to senior Palestinian official in Ramallah in the West Bank Thursday. The official said the Palestinians have presented their ideas to American mediators visiting the region in recent days in an effort to get long-stalled negotiations moving again.

The following letter was submitted to each of those papers to interpret the article:

To the editor:

Let me see if I correctly understand the article "Palestinians easing demands for freeze."

It appears that, provided Israel agrees to join with the Palestinian Arabs in violating the 1949 armistice agreements, which specify that the armistice lines are to have no political significance, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for secure borders, the Palestinian Authority may consider ending its two and a half year long boycott of negotiations. On the other hand, the PA still won't abandon its plan, in flagrant violation of its commitment under the Oslo Accords to negotiate any changes in the status of the disputed territories, to get United Nations approval of its unilateral declaration of independence.

How nice of them.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

The Hamas - Oops, Gaza - Flotilla

2011-06-24T16:01:00.000-07:00

This was written by David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee and sent by email with the following explanation.

Nearly two years ago, I was invited by The Huffington Post (HuffPo) to become a blogger on their site. I was honored. It is one of the most heavily trafficked news sites anywhere, and it reaches an influential audience. Since September 2009, I have published nearly 50 articles there, and look forward to publishing many more. This week, for the first time, I was told by HuffPo that an article submitted was "not for us." It's below. I ask you to read it and decide for yourself. Apropos, the same article was published on my Jerusalem Post blog earlier this week.

Best wishes,
David

The Hamas - Oops, Gaza - Flotilla

June 21, 2011

We're on the verge of another "flotilla" to Gaza. Estimates of the number of ships and participants vary from day to day, tending downward, but the erstwhile organizers insist that the maritime operation will take place.

Their spokesmen have been hyperactive in drawing attention to the event. After all, without coverage, they'd be denied their oxygen. And the kind of coverage they seek - idealistic humanists and peace activists determined to aid the poor, beleaguered residents of Gaza versus stone-hearted oppressors in military uniforms determined to block them at all costs - would, needless to say, portray Israel in the worst possible light.

The International Solidarity Movement, Free Gaza Movement, U.S. Boat to Gaza, and kindred spirits want the world to believe there is a strip of land called Gaza that, left to its own devices, would create the Shangri-La of the Middle East.

All its residents want are peace, harmony, coexistence, and tranquility. Some spokesmen acknowledge that Gaza has a governing authority. A very few even mention its name, Hamas, but hasten to add that it was elected democratically, so end of story. The rest don't give it a name, as it might muddy the waters.

According to this narrative - a word particularly popular in Middle East discussions- the residents of Gaza face a neighboring oppressor, Israel, which, for diabolical reasons of its own, wants to inflict maximum harm on people whose only dream in life is to live and let live. For these spokesmen, the wealth of vocabulary in the Oxford English Dictionary fails to capture the true nature of Israel's venality.

Enter, then, the self-described, modern-day Freedom Riders. They're boarding flotilla ships, they suggest, to bring aid, relief, and attention to those trapped in Birmingham, Alabama, circa 1963.

George Orwell, where are you? You could have a field day with this story.

Actually, you anticipated it when you wrote about the Ministry of Truth in your classic book, 1984. What were the ruling party's slogans on the outside of the 1,000-foot-tall building housing the ministry? Weren't they "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength"? And didn't the ministry rewrite history at will to ensure it always served the party's interests?

The Gaza flotilla spokesmen are inverting the truth and rewriting history at will to serve their interests. And what are those interests? To prop up the Hamas regime in Gaza and delegitimize Israel.

While they are entitled to their own opinions, however misguided, they are not entitled to their own facts.

They cannot separate Hamas from the equation. Much as they might try, the central fact is that Hamas is key to understanding Gaza today.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Don't take my word for it. Check with the United States and European Union, both of which have designated Hamas as a terrorist entity.

Hamas preaches the elimination of Israel and a toxic brew of classical anti-Semitism. Again, don't believe me. Read the Hamas Charter.

While Hamas may have been elected to govern with the PA in 2006, the first and only national Palestinian elections, one election does not a democracy make. Hamas used the ballot box to gain a foothold, then employed anti-democratic means to impose its own suffocating vision on the land. Hamas violently ousted the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority from Gaza in 2007 and has ruled ever since. Because Hamas cannot reform, the much heralded "unity" agreement it signed with Fatah six weeks ago is headed for an uncertain future.

Hamas celebrates violence. It joyously speaks of jihad, martyrdom, conflict, and the ultimate destruction of Israel. It has matched its fiery rhetoric with a sustained effort to import weapons, courtesy of Iran, smugglers in the Sinai, and tunnels from the Egyptian side of the border. In recent years, literally thousands of rockets and missiles have been fired from Gaza at Israel. Why?

Israel has no claim on Gaza. To the contrary, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Soldiers and settlers alike were pulled out by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, giving local residents the first chance ever in their history to govern themselves.

Indeed, with Israel's encouragement, a number of Jewish donors purchased Israeli greenhouses in Gaza and left them behind to help jump-start the local economy. The first reaction was to ransack them, when they could have been sources of flowers and vegetables for the local economy.

Israel has an interest in a stable, peaceful, and prospering Gaza, not a gun-toting, missile-firing, jihad-preaching entity. After all, you can change a lot of things in life, but not neighbors. Israel and Gaza are destined to be neighbors for a long time to come.

The Quartet - the U.S., EU, Russia, and UN - set three conditions for engagement with Hamas. The group must forswear violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. To date, none of those conditions have been met. Apologists for Gaza would have you believe otherwise, but Hamas's spokesmen always undercut them. When it serves their purposes, they might briefly curtail violence to regroup and rearm, but Hamas is adamant that it will never abandon its struggle against Israel.

So, let's be clear. The flotilla participants, whether they acknowledge it or not, are handmaidens of a terrorist regime. That regime, not Israel, is responsible for the conditions in Gaza, which may not be enviable, but are a far cry from the dire picture of starvation and stunted growth painted by the hyperbolic spokesmen.

Israel has only one concern, which is to ensure that Hamas, a declared enemy of Israel, does not get additional means to threaten its neighbor. That's it, pure and simple.

As has been said, if Hamas laid down its weapons, there would be peace. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no Israel.

The flotilla participants claim their mission is nothing more than humanitarian, but, in reality, it serves the interests of a regime that espouses terrorism, peddles anti-Semitism, and praises the memory of Osama Bin Laden.

To portray themselves as the new wave of Freedom Riders is to trample grotesquely on the legacy of America's civil rights struggle and rewrite history. Orwell's Ministry of Truth is back.

For more information, visit ajc.org.

Editor's Note: David's blogs are having worldwide impact. If you enjoy reading them, please share this one with your friends and make a donation to AJC.

SPME STATEMENT ON YIISA AND YPSA

2011-06-21T05:58:00.000-07:00

By Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Board of Directors

June 20, 2011

In response to Yale University's abrupt and thus far poorly explained termination of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA), Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), representing a worldwide grassroots community of academics from across many disciplines, notes Yale University's announcement that it is establishing the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism (YPSA) and wishes it success. Nevertheless, SPME remains gravely concerned about the handling of the YIISA and registers significant concerns about the new organization.

During its brief five-year existence, YIISA had gotten off to a spectacular start with much promise ahead. SPME hopes that YPSA can achieve similar success but remains concerned that the manner in which Yale handled YIISA may create obstacles for YPSA. SPME attributes YIISA’s success to four critical factors upon which YPSA’s success or failure will depend: contemporary focus, global reach, substantial resources, and intensive activity.

First, YIISA wisely and courageously focused on the contemporary resurgence of global anti-Semitism. Many anti-Semitism scholars admired YIISA’s effectiveness in tackling the difficult and politically charged issue of 21st century anti-Semitism. These achievements not only enhanced Yale’s prestige but also strengthened our understanding of this pressing contemporary problem. If YPSA greatly illuminates the long history of anti-Semitism but fails to address its current manifestations, it will be judged a failure.

Second, YIISA set high ambitions for itself. It was not merely a study group for faculty at one university, but a global center which brought together scholars from many nations and disciplines. Contrary to what Yale spokespersons have suggested, YIISA’s scholarship was internationally influential, and its fellows madeintellectual contributions to the countries and communities to which they returned. If YPSA provides a productive hub for Yale faculty but fails to engage the international community of anti-Semitism scholars, it will be judged a failure.

Third, YIISA attracted sufficient outside funding to operate at a large scale, conducting major international conferences, attracting numerous visiting scholars, and preparing to launch an international journal. Yale’s handling of YIISA has reportedly alienated many of its outside funders, so Yale must now invest its own significant resources in order for YPSA to achieve its important mission. If YPSA provides a provincial home for anti-Semitism research but fails to gain sufficient funding to operate at YIISA’s level of engagement, it will be judged a failure.

Fourth, YIISA was intensely active in generating, promoting and supporting anti-Semitism scholarship around the world. This intensive activity was due to the energy and creativity of its founding director, Charles A. Small. Dr. Small led YIISA to immense productivity while simultaneously serving as a lecturer in political science, a thesis advisor to undergraduate students, a busy academic author and an internationally recognized speaker. In light of the manner in which Small has been treated, questions remain as to whether YPSA’s leadership will be empowered to achieve similar success. If YPSA generates respectable scholarship at Yale but fails to take active international leadership in the study of anti-Semitism, it will be judged a failure.

YPSA will be judged a success if it can address all forms of anti-Semitism, including contemporary anti-Semitism in its many manifestations; if it can set and satisfy ambitious goals for global engagement; if it can obtain an adequate funding base from Yale; and if it can assume a position of global leadership similar to YIISA’s achievements.

In order to provide YPSA with a fair chance for success, Yale must provide a full accounting of its treatment of YIISA. Great disappointment has been expressed that Yale gave YIISA not only very short notice of termination, but also very little explanation for the decision or chance for appeal. We, therefore, call on Yale President Richard C. Levin to allow a full, independent and transparent accounting of this action with opportunity for a full review and public response to this decision by YIISA’s management.

The Yale community and the international scholarly community should be told why Yale chose to terminate rather than to strengthen YIISA’svaluable academic inquiry in such a deplorably underserved but essential area of study. Substantial evidence available to the public has led some observers to speculate on a non-scholarly, indeed politically driven motivation for Yale’s decision. To facilitate a transparent discussion, and to lay these rumors to rest, we call on Yale to disclose the Institute review report to YIISA’s Director, Advisory Board, and faculty. And we ask that independent inquiry be launched to review Yale’s handling of YIISA.

Anti-Semitism may be the oldest of enduring human hatreds. Examination of the roots and unanticipated contemporary resurgence of anti-Semitism is a critical academic endeavor not just for Jews, but for anyone grappling with the volatile phenomena of modernity. Jews traditionally are an early target of people who use hatred to incite genocide, but they are never the last. The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews, but the total collateral damage caused by their technologically-endowed insanity included an additional 24 million dead. It therefore behooves the modern academy to pay close attention to paranoid Jew hatred.

We also call on other universities to house and build on YIISA’s achievements and to invest in contemporary anti-Semitism scholarship. Europe does better by anti-Semitism studies than the United States. Scholarly institutions should promptly step forward to develop interdisciplinary approaches to the study of this fascinating, repellent, and urgent current problem.

Statement on SPME Website

Statement on Yale Yanking YIISA

2011-06-20T09:26:00.000-07:00

YIISA: The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism
Statement from Charles Asher Small
Executive Director and Founder of YIISA

Recently, Yale University officials informed us of their precipitous decision to close YIISA, The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism.

It became evident that YIISA and Yale University have different visions and approaches to the study of antisemitism. YIISA, like Yale, believes in the necessity to publish in top tier journals. YIISA scholars, its graduate and post-doctorate research fellows, esteemed senior visiting professors, and scholars associated with YIISA have done so at a high caliber and with success.

YIISA, however, is committed to critical engaged scholarship with a broader approach to the complex, and at times controversial context of contemporary global antisemitism.

It is this mission that my colleagues at YIISA so eloquently and with a sense of integrity engaged. This was reflected, for example, in the conference, Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity. Held in August 2010 it was the largest academic conference on the study of antisemitism ever. This illustrated not only the relevance of YIISA, but the concern, if not alarm, that scholars of antisemitism have for the contemporary global condition. It also marked the launching of the International Association for the Study of Antisemitism (IASA) a professional association, of which I was elected by peers to be its first President.

We believe that the role of a true scholar and intellectual is to shed light where there is darkness. It is a responsibility of scholars to understand the implications of antisemitism on society, nationally as well as internationally. YIISA has been successful in this regard since our formation in 2006. YIISA was the first research center based at a North American University dedicated to the study of antisemitism, and will continue to be a trailblazer in the field.

I wish to express appreciation for the role Yale students and professors played in the development of YIISA. I am especially grateful for the community of scholars from across the United States and from around the world that contributed to YIISA. I look forward to continuing to work with these scholars. I also look forward to work with academics that will be associated with the new Yale Program on Antisemitism, to be constituted, especially with my esteemed colleague Maurie Samuels. We are all colleagues on a subject matter with profound implications. I would also like to thank members of the YIISA Board of Trustees for their efforts and for their continued commitment to further our mandate. I am also grateful for the thousands of people that attend our events and support our work.

We are in conversation with several academic institutions that understand the importance of our mission. They have expressed interest in YIISA becoming part of their academic community. It is also my hope, given the importance and timeliness of the subject, that several research centers, dedicated to the study of antisemitism, especially the contemporary global context, will open at universities across the United States.

Charles Asher Small, D. Phil.
Executive Director and Founder
Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism

Three Palestinian Places

2011-06-20T06:46:00.000-07:00

By Jay Bergman

Published in the Waterbury Sunday Republican on June 19, 2011.

Largely absent in the extensive analyses of President Obama's recent pronouncement that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own - without their having to agree Israel should remain a Jewish one - is acknowledgment there already is a Palestinian state. It is called Jordan.

Jordan has been ruled since its creation in 1946 by Hashemites, who, while Arab and Muslim, are not Palestinian. This enabled King Hussein, in ejecting the PLO from Jordan in September 1970, to kill more Palestinians in one month than Israel has killed, almost always in self-defense, in 63 years.

But the majority of Jordanians are Palestinian. For purely pragmatic reasons, it might be best for both Israel and America, not to mention the Hashemites themselves, that Hussein's successor, his son Abdullah, remain in power, but his overthrow remains a real possibility. In that event, Jordan would be a Palestinian state de jure as well as demographically. Should that occur, the Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza that President Obama desires would be the second one, not the first.

But this second Palestinian state could generate a third one. Because Gaza and the West Bank are separated by 25 miles of Israeli territory, it is easy to imagine them becoming separate, independent entities. In fact, Gaza under Hamas is already self-governing and can thus be included among the many other Muslim states in the Middle East that are more interested in killing Jews than in improving the lives of their own people.

In a passage in his recent speech at the State Department, Obama said the Palestinian state he envisaged would be "contiguous," which is to say there would be a band of territory linking Gaza and the West Bank. The mind boggles at what might exist on such a territory. An express lane for suicide bombers? Toll booths that enable the kleptocrats running the Palestinian Authority line their pockets?

The contiguity President Obama is calling for is of course wildly impractical, and it is hard to imagine Israel - or any other nation in similar circumstances - agreeing to what in practice would be an obvious infringement of its territorial integrity. For that reason, the Palestinian state he desires very likely would devolve into two states.

And should Abdullah be overthrown in Jordan, there would be three states, all Palestinian, and all with the same objective of destroying Israel.

This scenario may seem far-fetched, but the mere fact it is not impossible underscores how dishonest the Palestinian leadership - the Palestinian Authority as much as Hamas - is in pretending the Palestinians are state less, and that Israel is responsible for this. Jordan is indeed Palestinian, and it would be helpful to the cause of peace in the Middle East if President Obama gave some indication he knows this.

Jay Bergman is professor of history at Central Connecticut State University and the author, most recently, of "Meeting the Demands of Reason: The Life and Thought of Andrei Sakharov."

Russian Jews left in cold

2011-06-15T18:21:00.001-07:00

We, the undersigned, members and activists of the Russian Jewish community of Boston, would like the leaders of the Boston Jewish community to know we are appalled that J Street has been accepted as a member of the Jewish Community Relations Council. JCRC is supposed to represent the Jewish community and support Israel. Unfortunately, it does neither.

How open and democratic is JCRC when it does not pay any attention to the views of 70,000 Russian Jews in Massachusetts? Jews from the former Soviet Union count for one third of the total Jewish community in our state. But, as we were in the Soviet Union, here, too, in the Jewish leadership structure of Greater Boston, we find ourselves to be the Jews of Silence. Sadly, meanwhile, leaders of the Boston Jewish establishment find room in their “big tent” for the radical anti-Israel J Street.

The list of reasons why J Street cannot be part of any pro-Israel organization seems endless. J Street is funded by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros, who famously blamed Israel for European anti-Semitism. J Street lied about its connection with Soros, then proudly acknowledged it. J Street refused to condemn the slanderous Goldstone Gaza report. J Street initially fought economic actions against Iran.

Massachusetts is home to one of the most anti-Israel congressional delegations in America. What is JCRC doing about this? And now, in a blatant violation of its own bylaws, well documented by CAMERA’s Andrea Levin in the Advocate, JCRC sneaks in the radical anti-Israel J Street. When confronted with this revelation, the leadership of the Boston Jewish establishment brings out the usual supply of pious platitudes about unity. But if anything, J Street is not uniting our community; it is dividing us.

We invite the community at large to start a broad discussion about the formation of a new representative organization. And we hope that any new Jewish relations council will include fair representation of the 70,000 Russian Jews in this area, who passionately care about Israel and our adopted country, the United States.

ALEX KOIFMAN, president, Boston For Israel
GREG (ZVI) MARGOLIN,editor and publisher, Jewish Russian Telegraph
ARY ROTMAN, president of Russian Jewish Community Foundation
MICHAEL SHERMAN, professor, Boston University School of Medicine
INESSA RIFKIN, founder and principal, Russian School of Mathematics
SAM GEISBERG, founder, Parametric Technology Corporation
VLADIMIR TORCHILIN, professor and director, Center for Pharmaceutical, Northeastern University
RABBI DAN RODKIN, Jewish Russian Center and Synagogue

The letter was also signed by 129 others from the Russian Jewish community of Greater Boston.

Responding to The Hour

2011-06-13T13:31:00.000-07:00

The following letter was submitted to The Hour when it responded to PRIMER's request for a correction to just one blatant error, among several other factual errors, in a letter by Scott Kimmich by saying a letter was more appropriate. There are two parts, an introductory explanation to the editors, not for publication, followed by the letter submitted for publication. As this is being posted, the editors of The Hour have not yet indicated whether they will publish the letter.

The introduction, not for publication:

I requested The Hour publish a correction to one of the several factual errors in a letter from Scott Kimmich published on June 11, but was told "Please feel free to send a letter to the editor. Would be better handled as such."

A correction issued by the newspaper could be very brief, such as: "In a letter from Scott Kimmich published on June 11, the writer wrote 'with the exception of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, all seven wars that Israel has fought, including the 'war for independence,' were initiated by Israel.' This is false. It is indisputable that Israel's Arab enemies initiated the 1948 war and the actual start of other wars is open to interpretation."

On the other hand, a correction via a letter to the editor must be far more thorough, lest it create the false impression there is simply a difference of opinion. The consequence is the following letter which I am submitting for publication.

I still believe The Hour should adhere to the Code of Ethics for the American Society of Newspaper Editors and publish its own, official correction such as that suggested above. Failing that, I believe it would be unfair to not publish the letter below.

Thank you.

The following was submitted as a letter and was published by The Hour on June 14 as an op-ed with the title "Claims Israel started wars are false and should be corrected." I commend The Hour for publishing it. Other newspapers, with less integrity than The Hour, have not just refused to issue corrections but then refused to publish letters pointing out the errors.

One of the provisions of the Code of Ethics for the American Society of Newspaper Editors is the stipulation "Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently."

I'm disappointed that The Hour apparently follows a code of ethics which doesn't include this provision, since when, as president of PRIMER-Connecticut, I requested The Hour issue a correction of just one of several factual errors in Scott Kimmich's latest anti-Israel screed, I was told "Please feel free to send a letter to the editor. Would be better handled as such."

The Hour is to be commended, however, for offering that opportunity. There are other newspapers in Connecticut that have refused to correct factual errors and also refused to publish letters pointing out those factual errors.

In a letter published June 11, Scott Kimmich falsely asserted "with the exception of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, all seven wars that Israel has fought, including the 'war for independence,' were initiated by Israel."

This statement is so obviously false as to border on the absurd which, in my opinion, the editors should have either refused to publish or accompanied by a note pointing out its falsity.

There is absolutely no question that Israel's Arab enemies initiated the 1948 war, Israel's "war for independence." Israel's Declaration of Independence, proclaiming its desire to live in peace with its neighbors, was issued on May 14, 1948, only to have the armies of Transjordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invade the next day. Not even Israel's enemies deny they initiated that war.

My studies indicate all the wars were actually initiated by Israel's enemies. For example, even the 1967 war was really started by several acts of war by Israel's enemies, such as cross-border raids and the illegal closing of the Straits of Tiran, prior to Israel's pre-emptive attack. However, there is some element of ambiguity and legitimate differences of opinion, so I only requested The Hour point out the indisputable factual error regarding the start of the 1948 war.

Kimmich's letter contained several other factual errors, of which I'll mention just two, neither of which I asked The Hour to correct.

Kimmich referred to Israel's "1967 borders."

There were no borders in 1967, only temporary armistice lines. Indeed, each of the armistice agreements specify the armistice lines are to have no political significance. For example, Article VI, Paragraph 9 of the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan reads: "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."

It's unfortunate that most people, including President Obama, seem to be unaware of this fact, but that's a separate issue.

In the very same sentence, Kimmich writes about "the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians." This short phrase contains at least two factual errors.

The first is the reference to "East Jerusalem." While the use of that term is quite common, it is in error since there is no such entity.

The second is the reference to returning territory to the Palestinian Arabs. It would be possible for Israel to return territory to Jordan or Egypt, the powers which occupied the disputed territories prior to the 1967 war. But the Palestinian Arabs never had possession of any of that territory so, while Israel can turn territory over to them, Israel cannot possibly "return" territory to them.

Besides being filled with factual errors, Kimmich also resorts to what I consider the promotion of hatred and, at best, the pandering to prejudice, as in the next to last paragraph of his June 11 letter: "In contrast, a tiny claque wildly applauds the head of a foreign government dictating policy to the White House and the Capitol." (This, too, contains an assertion many would consider a false statement, since obviously no foreign government dictates policy to the United States, but some might argue Kimmich is merely giving an opinion.)

In my opinion, many of Kimmich's letters and op-eds have crossed the line between legitimate opinion and criticism and venomous, bigoted, illegitimate attacks and should not have been published. That, of course, is itself a subjective opinion and it is up to The Hour to determine its standards.

I do hope the editors will in the future bear in mind an unfortunate truth pointed out by David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post, when he recently wrote an article referring to the veracity of Israel's enemies and aptly entitled it "Guess what: Our enemies lie."

Sincerely,

Alan Stein, Ph.D.
President, PRIMER-Connecticut
Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting
www.primerct.org

Distortions in The Hour of Norwalk, Connecticut

2011-06-12T07:35:00.000-07:00

The following letter was sent on June 11 to Jerrod Ferrari and Chris Bosak, Interim Co-Managing Editors for The Hour in Norwalk, Connecticut. It is followed by a response from Mr. Ferrari, the letter to which this refers and an analysis of that letter.

Dear Editors:

In his hateful letter published June 11, "Leave apartheid behind, Israel," in addition to numerous absurd assertions, including many some would consider clearly false statements but others might argue represented opinion, there is at least one blatant lie that definitely should not have been published: "With the exception of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, all seven wars that Israel has fought, including the 'war for independence,' were initiated by Israel."

I have noted the Code of Ethics for the American Society of Newspaper Editors includes the obligation "Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently."

While I recognize it may be impractical to carefully scrutinize the facts stated in every letter, this particular statement is so blatantly false I believe it should not escape an official correction by your newspaper. (I would also write a letter of my own, but since I just submitted one to your newspaper less than a week ago, it seems too soon to write again.)

There is absolutely no question that the Arabs started the 1948 war, Israel's "war of independence," with five Arab armies, from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, invading immediately when Israel declared its independence. One could argue about who started some of the other wars, even though each - even the 1967 war - really began with acts of war by Israel's enemies, but there's not even a hint of ambiguity about start of the 1948 war.

This error should be corrected.

In general, I would advise greater scrutiny of anti-Israel letters, which very often contain false information.

This is not unique to those writing to The Hour. I find, minimally, highly questionable assertions in many letters, commentaries and even news articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, of which we sometimes forget the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is really a consequence and just one part.

David Horovitz wrote an article for the Jerusalem Post, published June 10, with the title "Guess what: Our enemies lie." It's available at . I recommend it.

Mr. Kimmich, in particular, has a track record of writing letters with what might euphemistically be called baseless assertions, references to non-existent entities - such as in this particular letter referring to "1967 borders" (there were not borders at that time, only temporary armistice lines) and "East Jerusalem" (there is and never has been any such locality).

He also resorts to what I consider the promotion of hatred and, at best, the pandering to prejudice, as in the next to last paragraph of this letter: "In contrast, a tiny claque wildly applauds the head of a foreign government dictating policy to the White House and the Capitol." (Note this, too, contains an assertion many would consider a false statement, since obviously no foreign government dictates policy to the United States, but some might argue Kimmich is merely giving an opinion.)

In my opinion, many of Kimmich's letters and op-eds have crossed the line between legitimate opinion and criticism and venomous, bigoted, illegitimate attacks and should not have been published. That, of course, is itself a subjective opinion and it is up to you to determine the standards for your newspaper.

I do request that you seriously take responsibility for determining appropriate standards for The Hour, take extra care in areas where truth is often ignored and red lines crossed and issue corrections in cases such as this when factual errors get by.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein, Ph.D.
President, PRIMER-Connecticut
Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting
www.primerct.org

The following is the response from Mr. Ferrari, sent June 12, 2011.

Please feel free to send a letter to the editor. Would be better handled as
such.
Thanks,
Jerrod

The following is the letter to which the above correspondence refers. It was published in The Hour on June 11, 2011.

Leave apartheid behind, Israel

To the Editor:

Mr. Laitman ( The Hour 5/28) should read Israeli history. With the exception of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, all seven wars that Israel has fought, including the "war for independence," were initiated by Israel.

Mr. Laitman also compared the aftermaths of the U.S.-Mexican war and Israel's 1967 blitzkrieg against its neighbors. Although both wars were aggressive, i.e. conquering territory and subjugating other people, in the 1840s such wars were not called criminal. By 1967, however, the Nuremburg tribunal had ruled that aggressive war by any nation is a supreme crime and that the leaders of such a country should be held accountable.

After 45 years of occupation, blockade and subjugation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel has ipso facto committed a supreme crime for which its leaders are responsible. The fact that the U.S. has blocked prosecution of Israeli leaders does not lessen their guilt and indeed makes the U.S. an accessory to the crime. By caving to the Israel lobby, successive American administrations and legislators have undercut the sovereignty of the United States of America.

As for Iran being a nuclear threat, U.S. intelligence reveals that Iran abandoned its nuclear bomb program in 2003, and Israeli intelligence says that Iran is years away from such a capability. Meir Dagan, who just stepped down as chief of Israeli intelligence, contends that an Israeli attack on Iran would not only be "stupid" but self-defeating. He adds that Israel's leaders should have accepted the 2002 Saudi peace initiative stipulating withdrawal to its 1967 borders and the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, an opinion with which other recently retired top Israeli officials concur.

Despite this bitter opposition in Israel, Netanyahu strutted before a joint session of the U.S. Congress and repeated the same tired lies, and our legislators did everything but kiss his feet! Apparently, allegiance to the Israel lobby and re-election outweighs our own country's national interests.

Jewish Americans overwhelmingly and repeatedly vote Democratic and over the years have opposed the occupation, the building of settlements and the rise of Netanyahu to power.

In contrast, a tiny claque wildly applauds the head of a foreign government dictating policy to the White House and the Capitol.

The entire Middle East is aflame seeking freedom from despotism, of which racist colonialism is the most despicable form. It is high time for Israel, like South Africa before it, to do the right thing and leave apartheid behind.

Scott Kimmich
Norwalk

The following is an analysis of some of the false statements and distortions in the Kimmich letter.

Kimmich begins: "Mr. Laitman ( The Hour 5/28) should read Israeli history. With the exception of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, all seven wars that Israel has fought, including the 'war for independence,' were initiated by Israel."

While one might argue about some of the wars - even though all were precipitated by hostile action, amounting to acts of war by Israel's enemies - there is absolutely no question but that the Arabs started the "war for independence" with an invasion of no fewer than five armies as soon as Israel declared its reestablishment in 1948.

Kimmich writes: "After 45 years of occupation, blockade and subjugation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel has ipso facto committed a supreme crime for which its leaders are responsible."

It is highly questionable about whether the disputed territories were ever "occupied" by Israel in the legal sense under international law, since they were acquired during a defensive war from entities which did not have sovereignty over them.

As pointed out in the Jewish Virtual Library , "Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue."

Also, in any practical sense, any so-called occupation effectively ended near the dawn of the Oslo era, when approximately 95 percent of the Arabs living in the disputed territories came under the control of their own government, the Palestinian Authority.

Kimmich writes: "As for Iran being a nuclear threat, U.S. intelligence reveals that Iran abandoned its nuclear bomb program in 2003, and Israeli intelligence says that Iran is years away from such a capability."

The intelligence report to which Kimmich alludes was widely criticized and the U.S. intelligence community has since acknowledged that even if Iran did halt some parts of its nuclear weapon program in 2003, it has since resumed them.

There are legitimate questions about how far Iran is from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, but there is no credible question but that it is working hard at it. Today's Christian Science Monitor reports on Iran's "announcement this week that it plans to speed up its enrichment of uranium – and to move part of its enrichment process from the desert to a more defensible mountain site."

Kimmich refers to Meir Dagan, former Israeli intelligence chief, saying "Israel's leaders should have accepted the 2002 Saudi peace initiative stipulating withdrawal to its 1967 borders and the return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians." (Kimmich's letter, not a quote from Dagan.)

One may debate how Israel should have reacted to the so-called "peace initiative," but there were not "1967 borders" to withdraw to, only temporary armistice lines which under terms of the armistice agreements were not to have any political significance, and not only is there no such entity as "East Jerusalem," but even the portions of Jerusalem that had been captured from Jordan could not be "returned" to the Palestinian Arabs, since the Palestinian Arabs never had them. It would be possible, albeit probably not very wise or likely, to return them to Jordan, but obviously not to the Palestinian Arabs.

Kimmich absurdly writes: "a tiny claque wildly applauds the head of a foreign government dictating policy to the White House and the Capitol."

Obviously, no head of any foreign government dictates policy to the White House or the Capitol. This is essentially a ploy by Kimmich to appeal to the worst prejudices of those trying to convince bigoted minds of a global Jewish conspiracy.

Kimmich concludes: "It is high time for Israel, like South Africa before it, to do the right thing and leave apartheid behind."

It's obviously impossible for Israel to leave behind a system that doesn't exist.

Put in context, along with the rest of Kimmich's letter, this is an appeal to bigotry. It is also another example of a general truism that when someone accuses Israel of doing something despicable, not only are the charges almost always false, but Israel's enemies are probably guilty of that of which Israel is being falsely accused.

Israel, by far, is the furthest from an apartheid state of any state in the Middle East. For all its faults, it is a liberal, multicultural democracy with equal legal rights for all.

In contrast, one of the basic demands of the Palestinian Arabs, repeated ad nauseum even by the supposedly "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas, is for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the disputed territories. It is already a capital crime for someone in the Palestinian Authority to sell land to a Jew; this was one of the first laws passed by the Palestinian Legislative Council after is came into existence.

Unilateral Declaration of Statehood

2011-06-11T18:40:00.000-07:00

This post is a slightly revised version of an Israeli Citizens Action Network (ICAN) newsletter, written by Stuart Palmer. To subscribe to the newsletter, send a request to stuartp@netvision.net.il.

Palmer's "Haifa Diary" blog may be found at www.haifadiarist.blogspot.com. Palmer is also associated with CoHaV, the Coalition of Hasbara Volunteers, an international umbrella for Israel volunteer advocacy groups.

With the advent of a possible vote at the UN on Palestinian "Independence," it is important to be aware of the facts surrounding this push by the Palestinians to bypass the normal negotiating procedures. These are key talking points.

The PA does not meet the established legal tests for statehood

The Palestinian Authority currently fails the clearly established legal tests for statehood, particularly the test of effective government. The PA exercises varying degrees of control only over Areas A and B of the West Bank. Area C, which under the Interim Agreement constitutes 60% of the West Bank, remains primarily under Israeli control. Moreover, the PA does not have effective control over the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, even though Israel withdrew completely from this area six years ago. Recognition at this time of a unilateral declaration would be premature and could serve as a dangerous precedent in other regions regarding the recognition of new states.

Premature recognition rejects the basic principle of a negotiated peace.

Israel remains keen to engage in bilateral negotiations to resolve the conflict. The Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, has made a decision that it is no longer interested in direct negotiations with Israel, preferring to attempt to force their solution on Israel through international pressure.

A unilateral declaration undermines basic principles of Mideast peacemaking

A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood undermines all internationally accepted frameworks for Mideast peace (UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1850; the Roadmap; Quartet statements, etc.), which call for a mutually-negotiated and agreed resolution of the conflict and have consistently rejected unilateral actions.

A unilateral declaration violates existing agreements

A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would violate existing Palestinian-Israeli bilateral peace agreements, most notably the Interim Agreement from 1995, which expressly prohibits unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza prior to reaching a negotiated permanent status agreement.

Recognizing a Palestinian state now harms true peace

A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would intensify rather than end the conflict. It would not settle any of the key permanent status issues, including borders, Jerusalem and refugees. As has been agreed between the sides and supported by the international community, these complicated issues can only be resolved in direct negotiations between the parties, not by unilateral actions.

Premature recognition would ignore Israel's legitimate concerns, especially regarding security issues. It would also allow the Palestinians to continue to avoid the important step of mutual recognition, which includes Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Premature recognition means recognition of terrorists

In preparation for the unilateral declaration of a state, the Palestinian Authority has signed a reconciliation agreement with the Hamas. Hamas continues to call for the destruction of Israel and rejects the most basic conditions of the international community for recognition as a legitimate actor in the region. Supporting this agreement without any change in position by Hamas would serve as de facto international recognition of Hamas' legitimacy.

Hamas continues to be a recognized terrorist organization, outlawed in numerous states throughout the world, including the UK and the US. It seeks Israel destruction and rejects the three Quartet Principles (recognition of Israel's right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence).

A unilateral declaration of statehood will be exploited for 'lawfare' against Israel

PA President Mahmoud Abbas has pledged to use recognition of a Palestinian state as a springboard to launch a legal war against Israel (as directly stated in his May 2011 New York Times op-ed). Such statements demonstrate the danger of supporting Palestinian efforts to declare statehood unilaterally, as legal maneuvering only stokes the fires of the conflict.

Premature recognition threatens existing Israeli-Palestinian cooperation

The productive and successful legal and administrative frameworks that promote practical Israeli-Palestinian cooperation could unravel with the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Currently, bilateral arrangements exist in over 40 spheres of civilian activity and serve as the basis for real economic, legal and security cooperation, as well as the tax transfers from Israel to the Palestinian Authority. Undermining such vital arrangements, which serve as a platform for the impressive economic growth and stability in the West Bank, could risk tangible economic difficulties and limit the potential for practical cooperation in spheres including in security matters. The tension inevitably following such a contentious unilateral declaration could render such cooperation impossible.

Israel remains committed to the quest for peace

Israel has a long proven track record of making strategic concessions for peace. It has proved its willing to negotiate land transfers, leaving Sinai for peace with Egypt and leaving Gaza and South Lebanon. The fact that Israeli peace steps in Gaza and South Lebanon were answered with rockets and violent attack should be a sobering warning about the risks Israel takes and the importance of reaching a solution that serves the interest of all sides to the conflict.

Israel has done much to improve conditions for Palestinians over the past two years, removing roadblocks and facilitating the improvement of the economy in the West Bank. It also removed restrictions on goods entering Gaza, banning only weapons and potentially dangerous items and taken measures to promote infrastructure improvements for Palestinians.

Premature recognition would render the negotiating process and the ideals of compromise and dialogue meaningless and would undermine Israeli efforts for peace.

Stuart Palmer
Director, ICAN
Blog www.haifadiarist.blogspot.com

Stop Rewarding Palestininian Arabs for Bad Behavior

2011-06-10T07:39:00.000-07:00

This was submitted as a letter to the Hartford Courant but was not published.

It is unfortunate that the article, "Pressure rises for Israel to offer peace plan," published April 21, is mostly accurate; that reality bodes ill for the chances of an Arab-Israeli peace.

The article does contain at least one blatant factual error, incorrectly referring to "1967 borders" despite the fact that no borders, only temporary armistice lines, existed at that time, but that error doesn't negate the general accuracy of the article.

The core of the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been the refusal of the Arabs in the Middle East to accept and live in peace with that modern, liberal, Western-oriented and democratic Jewish state of Israel. In order to promote peace, that rejectionism has to be undermined.

The current so-called impasse has been orchestrated by the supposedly "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, who refuses to even pretend to negotiate and has repeatedly insisted he will never make any meaningful concessions.

Pressuring Israel merely rewards Abbas for his bad behavior. It is bad for Israel, bad for America, bad for the West and it is even bad for the Palestinian Arabs, since it helps perpetuate their self-induced misery.

It's time to stop appeasing Arab rejectionism and start applying pressure where it will be helpful rather than harmful.

Are Young Rabbis Turning on Israel?

2011-06-06T07:01:00.000-07:00

Daniel Gordis — June 2011

Daniel Gordis is one of the most sober and insightful columnists I've read. He's also an excellent speaker. At the recent AIPAC Policy Conference, which featured numerous informative speeches, his was one of the highlights.

Many of his commentaries may be found on his danielgordis.org website, from which one may also subscribe to his dispatches.

This commentary was published in Commentary Magazine and may also be viewed at www.commentarymagazine.com/article/are-young-rabbis-turning-on-israel. It is posted here with the permission of the author.

No day of the year in Israel is more agonizing than Yom Ha-Zikaron—the Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israelʼs Wars. For 24 hours, the countryʼs unceasing sniping gives way to a pervasive sense of national unity not apparent at any other moment; honor and sanctity can be felt everywhere.

Israelʼs many military cemeteries are filled to capacity with anguished families visiting the graves of loved ones. Restaurants are shuttered. One of the countryʼs television stations does nothing but list the names of the 23,000 men and women who gave their lives to defend the Jewish state, some of them killed even before independence was declared and the last of whom typically died only days or weeks prior to the commemoration.

Twice on Yom Ha-Zikaron, once in the evening and once again in the morning, the countryʼs air raid sirens sound. On sidewalks, pedestrians come to a halt and stand at attention, and even on highways, cars slow and stop; drivers and passengers alike step out of their vehicles and stand in silence until the wail of the siren abates. For two minutes each time, the state of Israel surrenders itself to the grip of utter silence and immobility. During that quiet, one feels a sense of belonging, a palpable sense of gratitude and unstated loyalty that simply defies description.
I mused on this fact as I read a recent message sent to students at the interdenominational rabbinical school at Bostonʼs Hebrew College, asking them to prepare themselves for Yom Ha-Zikaron by musing on the following paragraph: “For Yom Ha-Zikaron, our kavanah [intention] is to open up our communal remembrance to include losses on all sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. In this spirit, our framing question for Yom Ha-Zikaron is this: On this day, what do you remember and for whom do you grieve?”

It is the rare e-mail that leaves me speechless. Here, at a reputable institution training future rabbis who will shape a generation of American Jews and their attitudes to Israel, the parties were treated with equal weight and honor in the run-up to Yom Ha-Zikaron. What the students were essentially being asked was whether the losses on Israelʼs side touched them any more deeply than the losses on the side of Israelʼs enemies.

That is a stunning question. Obviously, there are innocent victims on the other side of any conflict. Such is the horrific nature of war. American troops killed many thousands of innocent Germans, Japanese, and others during World War II. But could one even begin to imagine President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saying to Americans, while the Second World War was raging and young American men were clawing and dying their way across Europe and the Far East, that Memorial Day ought to be devoted in part to remembering those among enemy populations who died at our hands? There is, perhaps, a place for such memories. That time is when the conflict has abated, when weapons are set aside, when healing has begun. That time did not arrive during FDRʼs lifetime, and it has not yet come to Israel.

I wrote to the dean who had written this paragraph, a friend from whom Iʼve learned a great deal over the years and whose commitment to Israel and Zionism is sincere. The response was immediate: “It could be that we got this one wrong, Iʼm not sure yet. The only thing Iʼm sure of is that we are trying to engage with these issues and with each other with greater openness, courage, and respect than I think has been possible in most other corners of the Jewish community here.”

The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—the instinct to protect their own people first, or to mourn our losses first. Their instinct, instead, is to “engage.” But “engagement” is a value-free endeavor. It means setting instinctive dispositions utterly aside. And that is precisely what this emerging generation of American Jewish leaders believes it ought to do.

Why, after all, would a genuine supporter of Israel ask students to think about Yom Ha-Zikaron in such a fashion? Probably because without such an accommodation, the dean might have had to deal with a small but vocal minority of students who would be incensed at the overly particularist, Zionist, nationalist nature of Yom Ha-Zikaron, at the narrowness of a day devoted to mourning our own dead and not the dead of our enemies.

This kavanah to rabbinical students was not my first brush with this worrisome phenomenon among those training to be the religious leadership of American Jews. In April, before I learned about this Yom Ha-Zikaron incident, I wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post pointing to the problem of rabbinical students who are increasingly distanced from Israel. I noted an example of an American rabbinical student who had elected to celebrate his birthday in Ramallah, and another who was looking to buy a new prayer shawl and sent out an e-mail asking for advice about where to buy one—with the proviso that the tallith could not have been made in Israel. I said nothing about how widespread the phenomenon is, because we do not know. But it was time to acknowledge the situation, I argued, so that we might begin to address it.

Reaction was swift, and most of it consisted of variations on the theme that such troubling ideas “didnʼt come from my part” of the Jewish world. Many people quickly wrote to say that the phenomenon I was describing must be limited to the Reform movement. But the truth was that not one of those particular examples had come from Hebrew Union College, the institution that ordains most Reform rabbis. Deans of various rabbinical schools from all walks of non-Orthodox Jewish life quickly circled their wagons in response to my column. Two sent an emissary to meet with me in Jerusalem, suggesting that I had exaggerated the problem and accusing me of making their fundraising challenges all the more difficult.

Another dean, who disagreed with my suggestion that the Jewish community provide financial and other support to rabbinical students who are publicly supportive of Israel, wrote, “I want to acknowledge that I am intimately acquainted with—and concerned by—the trend you are describing. But I have to take issue with some of the ways in which youʼve characterized the problem (and therefore the solution).” Still another wrote to students saying: “I am indignant about Gordisʼs article, because I know you. I believe, with every fiber of my being, that each of you is capable of expressing your relationship to the state of Israel, however complicated and challenging it may be, in a thoughtful, nuanced and professional way”—as if the problem lay with a lack of articulate expression among the students and not with their positions. This last note essentially reassured students that as long as they expressed themselves articulately, what they actually said made no difference whatsoever.

But there was another reaction, too, and it came not from the deans, but from students at these schools, as well as from communal professionals and even rabbis out in the field. “I deeply appreciate this article,” one student wrote to me. “I know that in various e-mails and conversations [my school] is trying to deny the validity of your words as representative of them, but I wanted to express how wonderful it felt after...years of pain and struggle over this to read someone else capture the Israel environment on [my] campus.” A communal Jewish professional in the South wrote, “Just yesterday I had a conversation with a synagogue that is interviewing recent graduates of [two rabbinical schools from different movements]. Students from both these schools have expressed opinions that are nothing short of hostile to Israel.”

Then, a rabbi in the field wrote me:

Interesting column. Unfortunately, not an entirely new phenomenon. [Some years] ago, one of the rabbis of [a major New York synagogue] refused to shake my hand when I was introduced as a major in the IDF. And a few years back, [an] avowed Zionist [dean of one of the schools in question] told a group of rabbinical students that if he were around at the time, and had a say, he would have voted against the establishment of the State of Israel.

Students in Jerusalem and in the States asked to meet with me, and on almost every occasion, they spoke about how lonely it can be for an unapologetically pro-Israel student at some of todayʼs rabbinical schools. (This phenomenon is, not surprisingly, almost entirely absent on Orthodox campuses, although, alarmingly, it is becoming an issue on the left end of Orthodoxy, too.)

The number of vocally anti-Israel students is probably small, but their collective impact is far from marginal. These students are shaping the discourse about Israel in Americaʼs rabbinical schools. And worse, because Israel-related conversations are becoming highly charged and many campuses seek to avoid friction at virtually all costs, these vocal students are effectively shutting down serious discourse about Israel. (One campus dean actually instructed students to cease all e-mail discussion of Israel, while every other political topic remained fair game.)

Many readers at this point would want me to “out” the schools, or deans, or students in question. But that, it seems to me, avoids the important work. The players involved will change over time. What needs to be done is not to embarrass individuals, but rather, to do our best to understand what is unfolding on the campuses that are producing Americaʼs future Jewish leaders, why is it happening, and then, perhaps, what might be done to combat it.

What has happened to this generation of young rabbinical students? Why are their instincts so different from those of my generation? Four factors seem to me central.

Memory is the first factor. As I have chatted with these students over the past months, it has become clear that the profound differences in our instincts and loyalties can be traced, in part, to the differences in our formative experiences. I shared with some of them my earliest memory of Israel. It was June 1967, and I was almost eight years old. As on almost every night at dinner, our little black-and-white television was tuned to Walter Cronkite. But on this night, my parents didnʼt eat. They didnʼt even sit at the table. All they did was feed us, watch TV, and pace across the kitchen as the news of the Six Day War unfolded.

“Weʼre not hungry,” my parents said the next evening when they did not eat once again, and I asked them why. But how could they not be hungry at dinner time? And two days in a row? My Zionist commitments have some innate root in the simple fact that with Israel seemingly on the very precipice of destruction, my parents couldnʼt eat.

But when the students with whom I was speaking shared their formative memories of the Jewish state, the differences were profound. One said that his earliest memory was of the day that all the students in his Orthodox day school were summoned together for an assembly, and they watched as Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty. For another, it was the intifada of the mid-1980s, and the images (again, on television) of helmeted IDF soldiers with rifles chasing young boys whoʼd thrown rocks.

My formative memories were of Israel on the verge of extinction, while theirs were of Israel being recognized by its neighbor or of the seeming imbalance of Israeli-Palestinian power. That alone explains a great deal.

Those differences in memory lead to the second major divide: students today cannot imagine a world without a Jewish state. Despite the ongoing conflict, the fundamental goal of political Zionism—the dream of creating a sovereign, secure Jewish state—has been so utterly successful that these students cannot imagine that Israel is actually at risk. After a meeting with a group of rabbinical students in Jerusalem, one of the participants wrote to me: “my classmates shared with me that they had never imagined that Israel could be so fragile as to be fighting for her very existence. Your angle really seemed to hit them hard.” It had never occurred to me, when I reminded these graduate students of Israelʼs ongoing vulnerability, that I was saying anything that wasn't utterly obvious.

Beyond what I believe to be their naïveté about Israelʼs security, however, these rabbinical students also have no sense of how utterly different American Jewish life is from what it would have been without a Jewish state. Whether or not they are supporters of AIPAC, they take it as part of the natural state of things that thousands of American citizens feel comfortable ascending the steps of Capitol Hill on the day its annual policy conference devotes to lobbying. Never do they ask themselves why virtually no one ascended those very same steps between 1938 and 1945 to demand that the United States do at least something to save the Jewish people from extinction. There were millions of Jews in America then. They knew what was happening. Yet American Jews of that era lacked the confidence and the sense of belonging that this generation of students takes for granted. And these students have little sense of how the very existence of a Jewish state contributed to this utter transformation of American Jewish life. Ironically, the very sense of comfort that enables some of these students to work to marginalize Israel is a direct result of the Jewish state itself.

In conversation with these students, thereʼs one word in particular that makes them squirm with discomfort, and it represents the third way in which their generation differs. That word is “enemy.” There is something hard and non-malleable about the term “enemy,” and todayʼs students are loath to use it. They are disturbed by the intractability of the conflict in Israel, but they refuse to draw any conclusions from Palestinian recalcitrance. Dan Kaiman, the student who celebrated his birthday in Ramallah, wrote a piece in the Jerusalem Post in response to my column, explaining that

I chose to have one of my birthday celebrations in Ramallah to honor, respect, and value the relationships I have built with a people and place I care deeply about. I also celebrated my birthday here in Jerusalem for the same reasons. I believe in a Zionism that desires peace, safety, and cooperation among Jews and Arabs. This Zionism is rooted in the ideals and vision of great Zionist leaders such as Chaim Weizmann and Judah Magnes. Their vision was one of cooperation; a vision of Jews and Arabs able to live side by side.

It is a staggering misreading of Zionist history to mention Chaim Weizmann—Israelʼs first president and a lifelong activist for a Jewish national homeland—and Judah Magnes in the same breath. Magnes was a believer in a binational state. He and Weizmann were ideological antagonists, not allies. But when the subject is “peace,” the details of history are subordinated to the furtherance of that all-encompassing agenda.

As Rabbi Scott Perlo, another respondent to my Jerusalem Post column, wrote: “I readily concede that there is a decided slant to the left of center in most of our seminaries....But people misunderstand the nature of this slant. We are not the generation of rabbis hoping to abandon Israel. We are the generation of rabbis who hope that God will give us the merit to be peacemakers.” How a rabbi holding a pulpit in West Los Angeles is going to become a peacemaker in the Middle East is never explained. But one thing is clear from Perloʼs article: peacemaking, this generation believes, requires imagining that we do not have enemies. Neville Chamberlain would have appreciated the company.

And while one can surely forge meaningful relations with people in Ramallah, it requires a stunning suspension of the particular for Kaiman to call Ramallah a “place I care deeply about” and to say that one cares about Jerusalem “for the same reasons.” Does the fact that Ramallah recently dedicated a public square to Dalal Mughrabi—the terrorist who participated in one of the worst attacks on Israeli civilians that killed 37 people—in the presence of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and thousands of other celebrants make no difference? Does the fact that there were PLO posters in the bar where the birthday party was held not make it difficult for a future rabbi to have a beer there? For this, too, Kaiman had an explanation:

I am aware of the [posters] on the walls and the incredible complexity of this conflict....There are also many places in Israel where I feel uncomfortable as a liberal Jew, a Zionist, and an American. Feeling uncomfortable is not an invitation to disengage, close myself off, or stop listening (or, in my specific case, celebrating). I find that by engaging those with whom I may not agree, I am provided with opportunities to learn about myself and others, and begin to transform discomfort into opportunity.

“Engagement” is a gloriously vague notion, so evanescent in its purposes and intentions that it casts a fog over the clarity provided by genuine commitment: to loyalty, or heritage, or love, or sanctity, or duty. It is the sort of benign interaction that one can have even with enemies. Engagement is particularly easy if you refuse to acknowledge that the people who continue to celebrate those who have killed you are your enemies.

If you asked a Jew at any other time in the history of our people whether or not he had enemies, the notion that he should consider the possibility he did not have enemies would have occasioned a blast of the mordant humor that has helped keep our tribe alive through the millennia. Today, however, the discomfort with the idea of “the enemy” and the intolerability of being in a drawn-out conflict has led these students to the conviction that Israel must solve the conflict. The Palestinian position is not going to shift; that much they intuit. But having enemies, and being in interminable conflict, is unbearably painful for them. So Israel must change. And if it will not, or cannot, then it is Israel that is at fault. In which case, it makes perfectly good sense for these future Jewish leaders to refuse to purchase prayer shawls manufactured in Israel and to insist on demonstratively remaining seated as the prayer for Israeli soldiers is recited in their rabbinical-school communities. They will do virtually anything in order to avoid confronting the fact that the Jewish people has intractable enemies. Their universalist worldview does not have a place for enemies.

The final difference between these young Jewish leaders and those who preceded them is perhaps the most disturbing. This new tone in discussions about Israel is so “fair,” so “balanced,” so “even-handed” that what is entirely gone is an instinct of belonging—the visceral sense on the part of these students that they are part of a people, that the blood and the losses that were required to create the state of Israel is their blood and their loss.

Judaismʼs commitment to particularism may be based in instinct rather than ratiocination, but it need not be mindless. No thinking Zionist ought to deny that Israel is deeply flawed or that its leadership makes grievous mistakes. Israel, like all free societies, needs internal criticism in order to improve. The right of these rabbinical students to criticize Israel is not in question. What is lacking in their view and their approach is the sense that no matter how devoted Jews may be to humanity at large, we owe our devotion first and foremost to one particular people—our own people.

All this is simply a reflection of the decreased role of “peoplehood” in Judaism. What we are witnessing is a Protestantization of American Jewish life. By and large, todayʼs rabbinical students did not grow up in homes that were richly Jewish. More often than not, these students came to their Jewish commitments as a result of individual journeys on which they embarked. They sought meaning, and found it. They sought prayer, and learned it. Their Jewish experience is roughly analogous to a Protestant religious awakening. The Protestant religious experience is a deeply personal one, not a communal one. Worship in the Protestant tradition is about reaching for the divine, while in the Jewish tradition, it is no less about creating a bond with other Jews. In Protestant liturgy, history is almost absent, while in the Jewish prayer book, it is omnipresent. The replacement of communal faith by personal journey among todayʼs young Jews is a profound reflection of the degree to which Christianity has colored their sense of what Judaism at its very core is all about.

What American Protestant feels any instinctive loyalty to a Protestant in Taiwan? Can one speak of “the Protestant people?” One canʼt, really. Judaism is different—or, at least, it was different. What these students did not learn on their Jewish journeys, because they were not raised that way, was the instinctive Jewish sense that Judaism is, at its core, still a matter of “us” and “them.” To this generationʼs students, that claim strikes a horribly discordant tone. To be sure, Jewish tradition is extraordinarily nuanced and generous when it comes to the question of how Jews are to treat non-Jews. But it is a simple matter of fact that Jews have always been taught to care, first and foremost, for other Jews.

“Why was Abram called a ʻHebrewʼ?” the Midrash asks, and replies: the word “ivri” (Hebrew) refers to the bank of a river. The Jews were from one bank of the Euphrates; the rest of the world was from the other. There is an “us” and a “them” in Judaismʼs worldview. It doesnʼt make “us” always correct, or “them” automatically wrong. But it actually does mean that Jewish authenticity requires caring about ourselves before we care about others, just as we are to care for our own parents and our own children first. As the Talmud notes in the tractate of Bava Metziah:

If you lend money to any of My people that is poor: [if the choice lies between] my people and a heathen, ʻMy peopleʼ has preference; the poor or the rich—the ʻpoorʼ takes precedence; your poor [relatives] and the [general] poor of your town—your poor come first; the poor of your city and the poor of another town—the poor of your own town have prior rights.

Todayʼs universalism leaves no room for the particularism that has long been at the core of Jewish life. And the evaporating devotion of some portion of todayʼs rabbinical students to Israel is a direct result.

What too many of these students do not understand is that the Jewish tradition makes a bold claim—the claim that we learn caring, and we learn love, from that which is closest to us. To love all of humanity equally is ultimately to love no one. To care about oneʼs enemies as much as one cares about oneself is to be no one. There needs to be priority and specificity in devotion and loyalty. Without them, we can stand for nothing. And without instinctive loyalty to the Jewish people, Jewry itself cannot survive.

What appears to be, at first blush, an issue of weakening Zionist loyalties is thus actually something far more worrisome. The real issue is a traditional Jewish lexicon, which includes notions such as “us” and “them,” which bespeaks concentric circles of loyalty and devotion, which does not deny the indisputable fact that the Jews and their state have real enemies, which understands that not everyone can be loved into submission or peace.

What to do with that lexicon is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ. Israelis differ on those questions, and American Jews (and others) can, and should, as well. But when we have reached the point at which future rabbis can insist on boycotting prayer shawls made by Jews in Israel and yet are permitted to remain rabbis-in-training, something has gone horribly awry. When rabbinical students love Israel and care about Ramallah in the same way, the particularism that has been the hallmark of every functioning Jewish community in history has begun to erode. When PLO posters advocating the death of Jews are no reason not to drink a beer and sing “Happy Birthday” in that bar, we have produced a generation of future leaders whose instincts are simply not the instincts that have any chance of preserving Jewish life.

Responding to this challenge in rabbinical-school settings will be no easy task. It is a matter of admissions and student selection, of curriculum and assigned reading, of how to use the experience of a year of study in Israel—still required by most of them—and more than all, of raising the flag of particularity and distinctive loyalties high and unabashedly, because some portion of todayʼs students need to learn love of peoplehood no less than they need to learn Talmud. Addressing that need is going to require that rabbinical schools cease circling the wagons, and instead acknowledge the depth of the challenge they now face.

I stood silently this year as the siren sounded on Yom Ha-Zikaron. I remembered the too many military funerals that Iʼve attended at Mount Herzl. I thought of my debt to those thousands whose deaths have made our lives here possible. I thought about my son and my son-in-law, both in the army, as well as our next son about to go in, and offered a silent prayer for their safety. But, I will confess, I also thought of those across the ocean who saw fit to mark the day by mourning the losses of our enemies and who did so with the sense that that was the noblest sentiment possible. Intellectually, I can understand them, just as I appreciate the universalist context in which they were raised and in which they were taught to think. But I have come to fear the influence they may have over Jews yet unborn—and over the future of the Jewish people as a whole.

About the Author

Daniel Gordis is the National Jewish Book Award-winning author of Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War that May Never End (Wiley). His next book, coauthored with David Ellenson, is Pledges of Jewish Allegiance: Conversion, Law, and Policymaking in the 19th- and 20th-Century Orthodox Resposa (Stanford University Press). Before moving to Israel, he was the founding dean of the rabbinical school at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.

AIPAC Policy Conference 2011

2011-05-31T07:03:00.000-07:00

This was originally published in my synagogue's June, 2011 Bulletin.

On May 22-24, my wife Marsha and I spent three incredibly important days at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC.

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is the organization that comes to mind when anyone refers to "the Israel lobby." Its primary mission is to preserve and strengthen one of the most important pillars of American foreign policy, the critical strategic relationship binding America and Israel together.

We've been members of AIPAC for more than thirty years, ever since we were part of the Young Leadership Program organized by what was then the Jewish Federation of Waterbury.
In the course of that program, which featured monthly meetings over a period of two years, we learned about most of the key alphabet soup of national and international Jewish organizations. One program featured a speaker from AIPAC; we naturally, along with just about everyone else, joined up and began receiving Near East Report, its then weekly report on American Middle East Policy.

The Near East Report, like many other publications, is now published primarily online and may be read at www.aipac.org/NearEastReport. If you're trying to minimize your reading, it's one of two must-read publications, the other being the Daily Alert put out for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which may be obtained by email or read at www.dailyalert.org.

Although we were members of AIPAC, we never went to its Annual Policy Conference until 2005, when it conveniently took place during spring break. Once we went, we kept going; we haven't missed a Policy Conference since.

The 2005 Policy Conference was by far the largest ever held up until that time, with over 5,000 people attending and hearing then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon talk about the upcoming withdrawal from Gaza. One revelation for me was that Sharon had a wonderful sense of humor.

Everyone thought 5,000 was a big Policy Conference, but it's doubled in size in the short time we've been attending: there were more than 10,000 people at the Conference this May!
This year's highlights included:

President Barack Obama
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
A gala banquet Monday night with more than two-thirds of Congress
For those of us from Connecticut's 4th and 5th districts, a midnight tour of the Capitol with Congressmen Jim Hines and Chris Murphy
Going to Capitol Hill on Tuesday and lobbying Senators and Congresspersons. Along with the rest of the Connecticut delegation, we lobbied Senators Richard Blumenthal and Joe Lieberman, then lobbied Congressman Chris Murphy with the small contingent from the 5th district.

On Sunday morning, President Obama clarified controversial remarks he had made three days before, that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps," saying "by definition, it means that the parties themselves ... will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967." Unfortunately, this still amounted to the abandonment of commitments made to Israel by President George W. Bush prior to the disengagement from Gaza and also ignores the provisions of the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan which specify that the armistice lines would not prejudice the determination of borders.

The polite reception Obama received this year contrasted with the repeated, enthusiastic applause when he spoke at AIPAC three years ago, the morning after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, and proclaimed "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided."

At AIPAC's gala banquet Sunday evening, Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly received standing ovations as he contrasted Israel's desire to make peace with the refusal of the leader of the Palestinian Authority to even sit down and negotiate and he explained the impossibility of ever returning to the temporary armistice lines in effect from 1949-1967.

The climax of every AIPAC Policy Conference comes Tuesday morning, when thousands of delegates take buses to Capitol Hill to lobby Congress. Each year, AIPAC selects three issues to discuss with our representatives. This year, the issues were foreign aid, particularly ensuring the $3.075 billion in defense assistance Israel needs to preserve its ability to safeguard its people; Iran's nuclear weapons program, this year lobbying for the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 strengthening economic sanctions; and adhering to existing law prohibiting aid to the Palestinian Authority if it includes an unrepentant Hamas.

Most people who come to the Policy Conference return again and again, because it combines doing a wonderful mitzvah - helping to ensure the wellbeing of the Jewish homeland - with an incredibly interesting and enjoyable experience.

Next year's Policy Conference will take place in early March. Be there.

Misplaced Assumptions

2011-05-21T09:55:00.000-07:00

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

“The status quo situation is unsustainable… The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. “ President Obama provided us with these assertions and has apparently based his Israel-Arab Conflict policies upon these and other assumptions. Let us examine them.

No context nor any explanation has ever been provided with respect to the unsustainable statement so one can only speculate. Since Israel’s entry to the nation states of the international community she has been under constant attack by her enemies and yet she has not only survived, she has thrived. Outnumbered by population, attacked a minimum of 12 times these last 63 years by our “neighbors” and having withstood thousands of rocket and homicidal bombing attacks, Israel remains the center piece of Democracy in the Middle East. Did you know that today our unemployment is 6% during an international time of recession, we had a 39% increase in high-tech investments during the 1st quarter of 2011 - $479MN invested in 140 companies – the best quarter in two years, compared with $234MN in 91 companies during the 1st quarter of 2010. 28% invested by Israeli investors (Globes, April 14).

Furthermore the following businesses and capital investment funds continue to find their way to Israel:
The London-based Sam Capital and the Minneapolis-based Piper Jaffray participated in a $60MN investment in Israel CleanTech Ventures; Pacific Technology Fund and the Menlo Park-based Bessemer participated in a $26MN 4th round by Israel's Altair (Globes, April 11). The Boston-based Spark Capital and the Menlo Park Bessemer and Redpoint Ventures participated in a $20MN round by Israel's AdaptTV (Globes, March 30); The Boston-based Globespan and the Menlo Park-based Sequoia Capital participated in a $15MN 3rd round by Israel's Kaminario (Globes, May 3). Motorola Ventures, the Needham-based Stata Ventures, the Tulsa-based Argonaut Private Equity, the San Jose-based Stryker Endoscopy and the Japan-based NTT invested $15MN in Israel's Amimon (Globes, March 25); The Waltham-based Northbridge Venture Partners, the Boston-based Egan Venture Capital and the Deerfield-based Vernon & Park Capital invested $4MN in a 3rd round by Israel's CurrenSee (April 21). The Boston-based Schooner Capital participated in a $4MN 1st round by Israel's Zixi (Globes, April 13). The Menlo-Park Benchmark and the Bellevue-based Trilogy Partners and Ignition Partners invested $4MN in a 4th round by Israel's Xeround (Globes, April 6). Eric Schmidt, Google's outgoing CEO invested $1MN in Israel's EyeView (Globes, May 2).(Ettinger).

Since the 1967 6-day war we have had 9 Nobel Peace winners. We have over 120 companies listed on the NASDAQ-this is more than any country outside North America. The list of accomplishments from a country of 7.5 million people go on and on, here is a partial list:

1. The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

2. Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel.

3. The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel.

4. The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.

5. Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

6. Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

7. The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

8. According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. US officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.

9. Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.

10. Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

11. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

12. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin — 109 per 10,000 people — as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

13. In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the second largest number of startup companies after the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

14. With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups, Israel has the highest concentration hi-tech companies in the world — apart from the Silicon Valley, US.

15. Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US.

16. After the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

17. Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

18. On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech startups.

19. Twenty-four percent of Israel's work-force hold university degrees — ranking it third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland — and 12% hold advanced degrees.
AND 20. Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity. Courtesy of the Joint Action Taskforce

It is beyond my comprehension for anyone to suggest that we cannot sustain our way of life. Of course Israel will continue to contribute to humankind in spite of our enemies. Perhaps they should emulate our model for their own citizenry rather than be occupied with their resources trying to eliminate us from our rightful place in the international community.

Finally the idea that a state must have contiguous borders does not pass the test of international boundaries. For example, the USA has two major states, Alaska and Hawaii that are not contiguous with its mainland proper. The fact is that there are multiple countries with non-contiguous land masses: New Zealand; The French territories in/on the Caribbean (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana; Kaliningrad is separated from the rest of Russia by Lithuania and Latvia or Belarus; Spain has Ceuta and Melilla and St. Pierre et Miquelon that is part of France.

Of course I have not begun to discuss the nature of the enclaves of the world. An enclave is a geographical territory that is completely surrounded by foreign territory [including foreign territorial waters]. Such a territory is called an enclave in respect to the surrounding foreign territory and an exclave in respect to the territory to which it is politically attached. (www.vasa.abo.fi) There are 22 countries with enclaves and for the international community to insist that Gaza and the PA in the disputed territories of Samaria and Judea must be connected flies in the face of world reality. Yet, the mantra is these must be “connected”. I suggest that any future “peace plan” consider utilizing the notion of enclave status or as has been done successfully in the USA simply allow Gaza to be politically connected to its future state. This resolves multiple issues not the least of which is that Israel remains whole and not divided into two non-contiguous sections.

I humbly submit that the two afore-mentioned assumptions that are driving policy discussions and hence decisions are patently false. Israel need not nor should it fall prey to the politically driven strategy that rushes it to an unsafe and unwarranted “peace agreement” that is in fact based upon morally wrong assumptions.

The Real Issue: Ethnic Cleansing

2011-05-20T11:47:00.001-07:00

This is from Rabbi Shaul Praver of Congregation Adath Israel in Newtown, Connecticut. Rabbi Praver is also the host of the Rabbi Rock cable access television show and a former "CAMERA Letter Writer of the Year."

President Obama tells Israel to pull back to 1967 borders and allow for a self-governing Palestinian state. Do you agree with this?

In my humble opinion:

This is not the first question that we need to ask. Here is the bigger question which everybody needs to address: Let's say for a moment that the land were divided as President Obama suggested; back to the 67 line, Why can't the Jews who live on the "Palestinian" side of the border continue to live in their homes under the Palestinian flag just like Arab-Muslims live on the Israel side of the border under the Israeli Flag? Why is there a demand for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judah and Samaria?

Moreover, if the "Palestinians" were really for a Palestinian state, they'd respect the rights of their Jewish Minority just as Israel respects the rights of the Arab Muslim minority in Israel. And specifically because there is a demand for total ethnic cleansing of Jews from the communities they've built on the "Palestinian" side of the 67 border, such a two-state solution is being discussed in bad faith, and the move is just trying to prop up the "Palestinian" power base for continued demands and "Para-military" actions directed towards the total ethnic cleansing of Jews from all parts of Israel as clearly spelled out in the Hamas charter. The Hamas charter is now the Fatah charter once again because of the unity government just formed between these two political entities of "Palestinians."

Any kind of real peace between Israelis and "Palestinians" starts with the way in which each group treats the other group of people; as such, the discussion about Land and borders only diverts everyone from the real issue; and that is what is being discussed is not so much a division of land but a negotiated ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the cradle of their civilization.

Whereas, a two state solution could be negotiated if the Palestinians simply acknowledged that the Jews are indigenous to Israel and as such they have a right to live in Israel and "Palestine" just as the Arab Muslims have a right to live in both Israel and "Palestine." The question of borders is easily solved once this basic respect for people is in place.

In conclusion, The "Palestinian" demands for total ethnic cleansing of Jews from "Palestine" show that the real goal is the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Middle East. It all starts with recognition of the Jews and Israel by the "Palestinians." Then everything else is possible.

Let me be clear, the "Palestinian" demand for a state is acceptable, but the "Palestinian" demand for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from "Palestine" is not acceptable. If one has trouble understanding this, just put the shoe on the other foot.

What if Israel said, "OK we'll allow for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from "Palestine" if the "Palestinians" allow for a simultaneous ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Israel?" Of course this can't fly - and so why is the ethnic cleansing of Jews any more acceptable. It is all unacceptable. We can't solve the issue of borders until we solve the issue of people.

(By the way, the only reason I have the word "Palestine and "Palestinians" in quotation marks is simply because at the moment, there is no state of "Palestine" it is being negotiated. If it comes to pass than I will take the quotations marks off those words.)

Mahmoud Abbas Proves Abraham Lincoln Wrong

2011-05-20T07:55:00.000-07:00

Beryl Ratzer is the author of "A Historical Tour of the Holy Land." Information about that book and lots of other interesting stuff may be found at www.ratzer.com.

19th May 2011

To my Family, friends and readers Shalom

The Arab and Moslem world is in a turmoil as citizens revolt against their tyrannical leaders who in turn attempt to deflect the demonstrations with accusations against Israel / Zionists / Jews. It is too soon to know whether there is one guiding hand behind all the uprisings and we can only hope those who predict rigorous Sharia (Moslem law) regimes will be proven wrong.

The recent Naqba protests by "Palestinian refugees" and their supporters have once again thrown the spotlight on Israel. Abraham Lincoln said "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." I think he is about to be proven wrong. To me it seems that as far as the "Palestinian refugee problem" is concerned, all of the people are being fooled all of the time.

So that you won't be counted among the fooled, allow me to bring to your attention some less known facts about the "Palestinian people" and their refugee problem that can easily be verified. And I ask you to do so. Don't take my word for it.

Prior to 1967 there was no such a thing as a Palestinian people / nation. "There is no such a thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." (Prof Philip Hitti, Arab historian to the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, 1946)

"There is no such a country as Palestine. 'Palestine is a term the Zionists invented … Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." (Evidence before the Peel Commission 1937).

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." Ahmed Shukeiri, (Founder of PLO in 1964) UN Security Council, 1956.

The 1954 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica makes no mention of the 'West Bank' and later editions which do, refer to the historical names Judea and Samaria.

Actually the term wasn't invented by the Zionists. It was invented by the Romans who, after two revolts by the Jews against Roman rule wanted to erase the names Israel and Judah from history. Sound familiar? That's what the modern delegitimisation of Israel is all about.

For almost two thousand years, first under Roman and Byzantine rule, when this area was called the province of Palaestina and then under the Arab Caliphs, Mamelukes and Ottoman Empire when it was called Jund Falastin, there was always a Jewish presence.

As agreed by the League of Nations, Palestine, the English form of Palaestina and Falastin, was to be the National Home Land of the Jewish people and was to include the entire area on both sides of the Jordan river. In 1923 Britain unilaterally created the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan on the eastern side of the river.

From then and until 1948 Palestine shrunk to the western side of the Jordan river. All who lived in it were known as Palestinians, Jew and Arab alike. Palestinian Jews served in the British army during WWII. Arab Palestinians, led by the Mufti Haj al Husseini, supported the German Reich.

In a survey of Palestine, prepared by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, the authors use the titles Judea and Samaria when referring to areas now called 'the West Bank'. Resolution 181 of the UN General Assembly passed on 27th November, 1947 refers to Judea and Samaria by their historical names.

That UN resolution called for Palestine to be divided between the Arab and Jewish population, based mainly on demography. Arabs in Palestine and throughout the Arab world rejected the Partition Plan. Jews accepted it with trepidation, desirous of a place to which the survivors of the Holocaust could freely come. (Britain imprisoned survivors trying to reach to shores of Palestine or exiled them to camps in Cyprus or returned them to Europe).

With the establishment of Israel in May 1948 all who lived within its borders would be known as Israeli, Jew and Arab alike. All Jews living in the areas of Palestine which did not come under Israeli rule, including the Old City and many parts of Jerusalem, were expelled. These are part of the forgotten Jewish refugees which include almost a million Jews expelled from Arab countries stretching from Iraq to North Africa.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria which would henceforth be known as the West Bank. Egypt imposed military rule on the Gaza Strip. At no time between 1948 and 1967 did the population of those two areas demand the creation of an independent state. At no time during those nineteen years did we hear of a Palestinian people seeking to fill their national aspirations. They had none.

It is therefore clear that the history of the "Palestinian people" goes back no further than 1967. In fact, UN Resolution 242, in the aftermath of the Six Day War, makes no mention of Palestine or Palestinian refuges.

I would venture to say that virtually "all of the people" have been fooled into thinking otherwise.

Which brings us to the "Palestinian refugees".

"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of the war". Glubb Pasha (John Baggot Glubb, founder of the Arab Legion and its commander between 1939 and 1956 BR), London Daily Mail 12th August, 1948.

"The Arab states encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies". Jordanian Falastin, 19th February, 1949

"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing the partition and the Jewish State. The Arab states agreed on this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem." Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, Beirut Daily Telegraph, 6th September, 1948.

"The Secretary General of he Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine would be as simple as a military parade … he pointed out that …all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw the Jews into the Mediterranean … Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine (note: not the Palestinians BR) to leave their land, homes and property to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down". Habib Issa, The New York Lebanese daily, Al Hoda, 8th June 1951.

That's a rather different picture from the one of cruel, vicious, post-Holocaust Israelis forcibly expelling the Arab population from the newly created Jewish State. I would be remiss if I did not mention that there were Arabs who were expelled from their villages, from which they were launching attacks.

The Arab villages throughout Israel are testimony to the fact that not all Arabs took part in the aggression. Many Arabs did not believe they would be harmed by the Israelis and they did not hearken to the words of their leaders and so they chose not to flee. Today, they and their descendants make up 18% of the Israeli population.

Contrary to accusations that they are the victims of an Israeli apartheid regime, Israeli Arabs vote in elections and have their own representatives in Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

It would appear then that the Naqba, the catastrophe, was of their own making. In 1948 the Arabs of Palestine, having no national identity or aspirations, did not create their own state alongside the State of Israel. The Arabs of Palestine fled at the behest of their leaders and not as the result of Israeli expulsion.

Here too I would venture to say that virtually "all of the people" have been fooled into thinking otherwise.

What exactly is a refugee?

In the aftermath of WWII there were millions of refugees - " persons who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted … are outside the country of their nationality". Clearly the refugee's descendants are not refugees. The creation of India and Pakistan in 1947 and other world conflicts, including the expulsion of almost one million Jews from the Arab countries, added millions more.

The UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, founded in 1944, was replaced in 1947 by the International Refugee Organisation which was in turn replaced by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in 1949.

Its "mandate is to provide, on a non-political and humanitarian basis, international protection to refugees and to seek permanent solutions for them by assisting governments. …. As of 1 January 2007, UNHCR reported a total of 21,018,589 individuals falling under its mandate. As of April 2008[update], the UNHCR employed a staff of 6,351 people in 117 countries". (1 staff member per 3,309 refugees BR) In other words, the aim of UNHCR is to resettle refugees.

In 1949 the UN established a separate agency for Palestinian (Arabs,not Jews BR) refugees, UNRWA, UN Relief and Works for Palestinian Refugees, with a very different definition of refugee and a very different definition of its mandate.

Palestinian refugees are "any Arabs, native or not, who sojourned in Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict … and that right extends to descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948".

In plain English, any Arab who lived in Palestine for a minimum of two years and his descendants for ever onwards can define themselves as Palestinian refugees. No matter if they are happily settled anywhere in the world and have American, Canadian, British etc etc citizenship, they are still Palestinian refugees and brandish large keys to their former homes.

UNRWA's sole mandate is to "provide the Palestinian refugees with humanitarian assistance". In plain English, to perpetuate the problem, not to solve it.

According to World Bank statistics Palestinians receive between ten and thirty times more than starving refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Pakistan whereas their earning capacity is greater in the same ratio.

Who provides this 'humanitarian assistance'? A staff of over 28,000 provide aid to about 4.4 million refugees, a number which has never been verified. (a ratio of 1:157 compared to 1:3,309 for all other refugees BR).

And the budget? Well over 80% from US, Canadian, Japanese, European and 'western' donors. Less than 8% from their oil rich Arab brethren.

Did you know this? Once again, I would venture to say that virtually "all of the people" have been fooled into thinking otherwise.

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe." Falastin al-Thawra, the official journal of the PLO in Beirut, 1976.

Whose words are those?

The same person who said in am interview on Al-Palestina TV in September 2009:

"I am among those who were born in Safed. We were a family of means". Fearing Zionist revenge for the Arab massacre of Jews in Safed in 1929 "we decided to leave. The entire city was abandoned based on this thought. …At night we left by foot from Safed, to the Jordan river and then to Damascus…"

The same person who wrote a PhD thesis denying the Holocaust.

The same person who, together with many other senior PA officials, participated in a recent Fatah event, clapping enthusiastically when a Palestinian singer defined all of Israel as being Palestinian, singing:

"my land, … our coast … spans from Rosh Hanikra in Israel's north to Rafah in the Gaza Strip in the South, and from Haifa on Israel's Western coast to Beit Shean on Israel's Eastern border". The event was re-broadcast on PA TV on 12th May, 2011.

You guessed it!! Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen, Chairman of the Palestinian Authority.

This is the man who is proving Abraham Lincoln was mistaken. Mahmoud Abbas is proving that you can fool all of he people all of the time.

Pressuring Israelis not necessary

2011-05-17T11:50:00.001-07:00

This letter was published in the New Haven Register on Tuesday, May 17, 2011.

Aaron David Miller's Forum column, "Payoff key to taking on Netanyahu," includes highly questionable assertions, but the bigger problem is that he ignores the refusal of the Palestinian Arabs to show any interest in living in peace with America's only real friend in the Middle East.

In response to the death of Osama bin Laden, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades published a statement calling his death a "catastrophe" and those who killed him "gangs of heretics." The group is a branch of Fatah, led by Mahmoud Abbas, who leads the Palestinian Authority, which we support to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Everyone knows Israelis will go along with any reasonable proposal to bring peace. Pressuring Israel is unnecessary and counterproductive, since it simply rewards Arab intransigence. The key to peace is putting pressure on those responsible for the continued conflict, Israel's Arab enemies.

Alan Stein
Waterbury

Arab rhetoric of hate to backfire

2011-05-17T11:49:00.000-07:00

This commentary by Neil Berro was published Tuesday, May 17, 2011 in the New Haven Register.

So now, Hamas and Fatah want to play together in the sandbox. This is, perhaps, the final drop of poison in the witches' brew of what is turning into the Arab spring of repression, hatred and murder.

As someone who dreams of peace for the Middle East, I hoped these two Palestinian factions - best known for acts of killing, kidnapping and rejection - would say this to each other:
Let us renounce violence, terrorism and incitement against Jews, Israel and all who support them.

Let us cease teaching our preschoolers with "Sesame Street"-style characters who extol martyrdom.

Let us cease teaching our elementary school kids mathematics by counting the number of dead Jews killed at bus stations, restaurants, Passover Seders and in homes.

Let us end our textbooks that eliminate Israel and target Jews as victims and scapegoats. -
Let us insist that our religious leaders end their unyielding and uncompromising calls for Islamic rule and supremacy.

Let us stop passing out candy when Americans are destroyed at the World Trade Center or an Israeli family is butchered in a knife attack in their home.

Let us show the Arab and Muslim world that strength and greatness is not in how many Jewish school buses we can blow up, and that the commitment to peace will bring enduring light to all people.

Let us hope Hamas and Fatah will say to all Palestinians: We misled you. We treated you as cannon fodder. While Jews built a nation, gained the respect of the world for their science, modernity, competitive economy, human rights and progressive treatment of women, gays and minorities, we have done the opposite for decades.

Our martyrs are not those who kill Jews who are unable to defend themselves, like Leon Klinghofer, thrown overboard in the Mediterranean; Gail Rubin, an aspiring nature photographer killed by terrorists on an Israeli beach; or Dora Bloch, a grandmother suffocated while helpless in a hospital. Our martyrs are the lost generations who could have become soldiers for peace, equality and liberty.

Palestinians can only look at their Israeli Arab brethren in envy and ask, why not us? It is Israeli Arabs who since Israel's creation in 1948 have enjoyed growth and prosperity, while we taste our very bitter fruit of refusing to accept Israel.

The entire Arab and Muslim world, in a historic convulsion of change, can only look at Israel, and ask, why not us? The answer may start with being honest with oneself.

Prayerfully, may the Palestinians realize that peace is the way and the actions and rhetoric of hate and rejection will backfire.

With the death of Osama bin Ladin, some will want to proclaim peace and seek one-sided concessions from Israel. It would be nice if the diplomats would stare into the reality of Palestinian polemics, starting with the hateful words from Hamas on the death of bin Laden, calling the murderer of thousands a "holy warrior." Peace would then have a better chance.

Neil Berro of New Haven has worked for Jewish and Israeli causes since 1981. Write to him in care of the Register, 40 Sargent Drive, New Haven 06511. Email: nberro@comcast.net.

Double Standards

2011-05-15T10:01:00.001-07:00

This was originally posted by the British Israel Group in its "Articles of the Week" blog. It may be read in its original location by clicking here.

A Tale Of Two Terrorists

Here are some contrasting opinions by leaders of the UN, EU, Britain, France, Norway, the Vatican, Japan and elsewhere, following Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Hamas terrorist organization in 2004 and the killing of Osama bin Laden last week.

Yassin, of course, was proportionately responsible for far more deaths of Israelis than bin Laden was of Americans, particularly the deaths of Israeli children. Yassin had ordered the bombing of school buses, children's birthday parties and so on, and was continuing to order more attacks at the time of his death. Soon after Yassin and his deputy Abdel Aziz Rantissi were killed, there was a sharp decrease in the number of suicide bombings against Israel.

(Among past dispatches on this, please see: "A minute's silence by British MPs for Sheikh Yassin" (April 19, 2004) www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000198.html)

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan: "I condemn the targeted assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Such actions are not only contrary to international law but they do not help the search for a peaceful solution."

Killing Bin Laden:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed Osama bin Laden's death as a key turning point in the struggle against terrorism.

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, described the assassination as "very, very bad news".

Killing Bin Laden:

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said: "I would like to congratulate the U.S., pay tribute to its determination and efficiency in reducing the threat posed by terrorists and underline the close cooperation between the EU and U.S. in the fight against terrorism."

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "Israel is not entitled to go in for this kind of unlawful killing and we condemn it. It is unacceptable, it is unjustified and it is very unlikely to achieve its objectives."

Killing Bin Laden:

Prime Minister David Cameron said that bin Laden's death would "bring great relief" around the world.

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

French President Jacques Chirac "unreservedly condemned" Israel's assassination of Hamas terror leader Yassin. French Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous also said: "France condemns the action taken against Sheikh Yassin, just as it has always condemned the principle of any extra-judicial execution as contrary to international law."

Killing Bin Laden:

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said on that bin Laden's death is a "victory for all democracies fighting the abominable scourge of terrorism. France, the United States and European states work closely together to fight terrorism, so I'm overjoyed at the news."

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen: "This act will contribute to increased tensions in the area and will make it more difficult to implement an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza."

Killing Bin Laden:

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre called the death of bin Laden "a break-through in the fight against terror".

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

"The Holy See unites with the international community in deploring this act of violence that cannot be justified in any state of law. Lasting peace cannot come from a show of force."

Killing Bin Laden:

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said that while Christians "do not rejoice" over a death, bin Laden's death serves to remind them of "each person's responsibility before God and men" and "bin Laden must answer to God for having killed an innumerable number of people and exploiting religion".

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said Israel's actions were "thoughtless and reckless, and cannot be justified."

Killing Bin Laden:

Japan's Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto said today that the country welcomed the death of Osama bin Laden as "significant progress of counter-terrorism measures. I pay respect to the US officials concerned."

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

The Brazilian government said it "deplored the murder of Sheik Ahmed Yassin."

Killing Bin Laden:

Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said the death of Al Qaeda's leader Osama bin Laden is "important and positive".

Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin:

Malaysia strongly condemned the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin: saying the action was a manifestation of terrorism.

Killing Bin Laden:

Malaysian Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said he hopes that the death of bin Laden would help bring universal peace and harmony.

***This list could go on and on...

South Africa, Hamas-PLO Reconciliation And Gilad Shalit

2011-05-10T19:33:00.000-07:00

This letter from Maurice Ostroff to the South African Ambassador to Israel, H.E. Mr. Ismail Coovadia may also be viewed at http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id338.html. That site also contains the statement by the South African government welcoming and supporting the efforts of the Hamas and Fatah terrorists to set up a transitional unity government. The letter is posted here with the permission of the author.

May 9, 2011

Dear Ambassador Coovadia,

I thank you for sending me a copy of the statement by the South African government on the rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas and I enthusiastically endorse the sentiment expressed "we urge all Palestinian factions to unite behind a reformed Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) so as to carry forward the hopes and aspirations of all Palestinians for freedom, self-determination and human dignity".

I believe you will agree that Israel and the Palestinians can gain from studying South Africa's successful bloodless transition and that the united PLO-Hamas government to which you refer would make a giant step towards peace if it adopted a new combined charter based on the the ANC's Freedom Charter.

Unfortunately the hate-filled PLO and Hamas covenants bear no similarity at all to the ANC Charter which states “South Africa shall strive to maintain world peace and the settlement of all international disputes by negotiation - not war”. By stark contrast, the Hamas charter declares that there is absolutely no room for peaceful negotiation. Article 13 unambiguously states so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences contradict its principles and are a waste of time since there is no solution to the Palestinian problem except jihad; such conferences are used by the infidels to prevail over Muslim land.

The imaginative irrationality of the Hamas concept, so different from the sober tone of the ANC Charter, is illustrated by obsessive phobia about and promises to obliterate freemasons, rotary clubs, Lions and similar organizations. They are accused of everything from control of the world media, stirring the French Revolution, the Communist revolution, World War I and even of forming the League of Nations. They are alleged to have been behind World War II, and instigating replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council. It is difficult to believe that these fanciful ideas are actually written in the Hamas charter.

I believe you will confirm sir, that this type of irrationality has no place in ANC thinking. Nor would the ANC tolerate the type of incitement to violence which has been emanating for years from the mosques and PA controlled media and taught in schools from the earliest age.

And now with great respect sir, I suggest a confidence building measure that could create an immediate atmosphere of goodwill and encourage serious negotiations towards peace. Putting political considerations aside for the moment in favor of plain humanity,I suggest that in accordance with the concern for human dignity inherent in the ANC Charter and its noble aspirations, it would be fitting if the government of the Rainbow Nation would insist that as a condition of its support, Hamas must immediately end the savage torture of their prisoner Gilad Shalit and his family; an unbearable torture that has continued 24 hours per day, 7days a week for nearly five years in flagrant violation of human decency, international law and the Geneva convention.

I am calling merely for compliance with the Third Geneva Convention that provides for humane treatment and the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross, as well as the right to send and receive monthly letters and cards. Even the Nazis respected this provision for prisoners of war, but not only does Hamas deny these rights to Shalit, they have held him incommunicado for the entire period of his incarceration.

By way of contrast, Palestinian prisoners in Israel enjoy visitation rights, including conjugal visits, access to telephones, newspapers, television and radio broadcasts, lawyers' visits and even academic studies at state expense.

The continued mental torture of Shalit’s family compounds the crime immeasurably. What greater torture can there be than tormenting parents with unrelenting continuous anxiety for nearly five years about whether their son is dead, or if alive, in what condition?

The Shalit family continues to live this horrendous nightmare, not knowing if Gilad is dead or alive and fearing that he is possibly being tortured. To compound the heinous crime, Hamas held a public rally during which a boy dressed in IDF uniform masqueraded as Gilad Shalit reading a letter in Hebrew, telling the jeering crowd, how he misses his parents. No human being with a conscience can refuse to protest this diabolical cruelty.

As mental torture is included in the UN ban on torture, the politicians dealing with Hamas cannot ignore the deliberate torture of Gilad’s family. Clearly acts of torture are violations of both International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law. Amnesty International describes every act of torture as a crime under international law.

Article 1 of the UN “Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person….” and a study by scientists published on March 6, 2007 in “News in Science” describes mental torture as bad as physical.

South Africa's intervention in this humanitarian matter would be greatly appreciated by the entire civilized world and it would certainly contribute to an atmosphere of trust and goodwill, so essential to meaningful negotiations towards a peaceful settlement.

I will be very grateful if you will kindly forward a copy of this email to President Zuma.

Sincerely

Maurice Ostroff

Senators Call for Evaluation of U.S. Relations with Fatah-Hamas Government

2011-05-09T05:30:00.001-07:00

This was a press release issued by U.S. Senator Bob Casey. Of course, our government continues to pretend that Fatah is not a terrorist group.

Casey, Menendez and Colleagues Call for Evaluation of U.S. Relations with Fatah-Hamas Government, Possible Suspension of Aid to Palestinian Authority

Friday, May 6, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC— U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today sent a letter to President Obama asking him to evaluate the U.S. relationship with the Palestinian Authority and consider taking stronger measures in condemnation of the recently formed Fatah-Hamas unity government. In the letter signed by 27 Senators, the Senators urged the Administration to stand by its refusal to work with any Palestinian government that includes Hamas and consider cutting aid should the U.S. designated terrorist group remain in the government. Preconditions in U.S. law prevent aid from being provided to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless the government and all its members have publicly committed to the Quartet principles.

“It is imperative for you to make clear to President Abbas that Palestinian Authority participation in a unity government with an unreformed Hamas will jeopardize its relationship with the United States, including its receipt of U.S. aid. As you are aware, U.S. law prohibits aid from being provided to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless the government and all its members have publicly committed to the Quartet principles. We urge you to conduct a review of the current situation and suspend aid should Hamas refuse to comply with Quartet conditions,” wrote the Senators.

The full text of the letter is below.

Dear Mr. President:

The decision of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas to form a unity government with Hamas – a designated terrorist group – threatens to derail the Middle East peace effort for the foreseeable future and to undermine the Palestinian Authority’s relations with the United States.

Hamas rejects peaceful efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and continues to call for the destruction of the State of Israel. Soon after this agreement was signed, senior Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar declared that "our plan does not involve negotiations with Israel or recognizing it." Hamas and other Iranian-backed terrorist groups in Gaza have also stepped up their smuggling of Iranian arms and increased their mortar and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, firing more than 130 during the past month alone and nearly 300 this year. Hamas’ response to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, condemning “the assassination and killing of an Arab holy warrior” is emblematic of Hamas’ ideology and underscores Hamas’ continued support for terrorism.

The United States should stand by its refusal to work with any Palestinian government that includes Hamas. We welcome statements from the Administration recognizing that Hamas is a terrorist organization and insisting that it accept the Quartet conditions (of recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and endorsing previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements). We strongly support Secretary Clinton’s 2009 Statement that: “we will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that include Hamas until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority.”

It is imperative for you to make clear to President Abbas that Palestinian Authority participation in a unity government with an unreformed Hamas will jeopardize its relationship with the United States, including its receipt of U.S. aid. As you are aware, U.S. law prohibits aid from being provided to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless the government and all its members have publically committed to the Quartet principles. We urge you to conduct a review of the current situation and suspend aid should Hamas refuse to comply with Quartet conditions.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of any peace process must always be weighed against the assurances Israel needs for its security and the security of the region. Hamas’ participation in the Palestinian government eliminates the trust and commitment to peace that must exist between the parties to move forward and therefore, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated, the choice is between “peace with Israel or peace with Hamas” because “there is no possibility for peace with both.”

As fellow Democrats, we thank you for your continued commitment to and investment in Israel’s security. We urge you to make clear to President Abbas and the international community the United States’ opposition to a Fatah-Hamas unity government that does not fully accept the Quartet principles. Such a government will prove fatal to the peace effort, as well as to efforts to establish a Palestinian state, and will severely harm relations with the United States. The Palestinian Authority needs to get back to the negotiating table rather than pursue futile and harmful efforts to join with Hamas or seek recognition of Palestinian statehood at the UN.

Sincerely,

Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Senator Robert Menendez
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Ben Nelson
Senator Mark Pryor
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Senator Al Franken
Senator Joe Manchin
Senator Christopher Coons
Senator Richard Blumenthal
Senator Claire McCaskill

So What Else Is New? New York Times Gets It Wrong Again

2011-05-07T19:35:00.001-07:00

Sent to The New York Times April 25, 2011.

Re the editorial "President Obama and the Peace Process," published April 25:

One wonders where the editors of The New York Times have been the last 64 years.

The United Nations put forth a proposal back in 1947. The Zionists accepted it; the Arabs rejected it and launched a war. Little has changed since.

Israel has put forth proposal after proposal, the latest, absurdly generous one less than three years ago. The Arabs, including the Palestinian Arabs, have rejected them all - or not even bothered to respond. The supposedly "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas refuses to even pretend to negotiate and insists he will never make any concessions on any of the core issues.

The United States has also put forth numerous plans, including President Clinton's proposals in 2000. None has done any good, because of the intransigence of the Arabs.

Rather than continuing the counterproductive policy of appeasing the Palestinian Arabs every time they reject peace and while they continue to promote hatred and glorify brutal terrorists, President Obama should give Mahmoud Abbas the phone number of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and tell him to pick up the phone when he's ready to talk about peace.

Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut

Renee Montgomery Update From Israel

2011-05-05T11:26:00.000-07:00

For more updates and information from Renee, visit her website at www.r21m.com.

Hello there Good People... It's been awhile since I blogged, I feel like I say that every time I blog but I guess it's true. It's been a scary couple of days for me.

I am in Israel right now playing for Macabi Ashdod in the second round of the playoffs (we are up 1- 0). Two nights ago I was eating dinner at my teammates house when I hear an alarm. I ask "what is that?" and everyone gets quiet and hears it then says its a bomb alarm. Needless to say we start freaking out and ask the only Israeli there with us what we should do and she has no idea. (When a bomb alarm goes off you have a minute to get to a safe place before the bomb hits) My other American teammate, Ambrosia Anderson (Broski), lives there and tells us that they have a "safe room" so we, meaning Ashley Robinson, Tamara James (TJ), and I, run into the safe room and TJ tries to close the door multiple times but it wont shut. I’m looking at TJ like what is going on, you need to wait for our other teammates! But when TJ had looked out the door she saw that Broski was icing a cake. No, I did not type the wrong thing. This woman was icing the cake because she said "it was fresh out of the oven and the icing melts best that way." Hearing her say this lets me know that Broski has lost her mind. Our other teammate Katia Levitsky (Ms. Lewinsky) sat on the couch and watched the news to "see what was going on" while we ran to the safe room. She too must have been drinking from the same crazy juice that Broski was sipping. We sit in the safe room for about 5 minutes and nothing happens.

Now our team owners and teammates are calling us asking us if we are ok, and also telling us that our apartment doesn’t have a safe room so do we want to stay with them. Huh? Now Im thinking, why in the world is our apartment the only one that doesn’t have a safe room. They are telling me, its no big deal I can go to the stairwell and walk down one floor and I will be ok.

Now after hearing this, I’m beginning to think that Ashley, TJ, and I are the only sane people in Israel. If bombs are coming, I do not want to be standing in a stairwell.

So things die down for A DAY and now today, I’m sound asleep in my bed taking a pre-game nap when I hear "Renee!" I jump up and Ashley is like "the bomb alarm" so I get out of bed and run out the apartment, without any shoes or socks on. (Now a lot of you don’t know me well, but I’m not a fan of germs, so for me to walk barefoot out of my apartment is unheard of). We get into the hallway and our neighbor is trying to get her children, (there were about 6 of them) into the stairwell. We were in the stairwell for about 2 minutes when we hear a boom. After the boom, all the Israeli's start leaving so we leave too but at this point I've had about enough. Our coach calls us a half hour later and tells us that our game has been cancelled and that they are moving us out of Ashdod.

I was mad that our game was cancelled because now we are prolonging our time here in Israel but I was happy to get out of Ashdod. So we pack our bags and head to Tel Aviv, and when I say pack, we acted like we were packing to go back home to America, but we are women so what do you expect? So now I am sitting here in my hotel room safe and sound. When things like this happen in other countries it makes me realize how blessed I am to live in America where we don't have to worry about war on our home soil. Below is a summary from a yahoo article about the details of what’s going on here in Israel. But I’m going to end with this... Pray for Israel and also pray for me because I’m greedy and like to receive as many prayers as I can : ) Until next time... Be Blessed

Renee Montgomery

JERUSALEM – Israeli aircraft struck the Gaza Strip on Thursday in response to militant rocket and mortar attacks, stoking concerns that a grave new round of hostilities will fill the vacuum left by an impasse in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Two years of relative calm have been unraveling in recent weeks with acts of violence against Israelis — including a deadly bombing in Jerusalem on Wednesday that killed a British tourist — and Israeli reprisals against Gaza militants, which in one case killed four Palestinian civilians. Militants operating near the Israeli border sent at least nine rockets and mortars — including two rockets that reached the city of Ashdod — flying at Israeli communities throughout the day, drawing an Israeli airstrike in retaliation. No injuries were reported on either side.

Received from
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Hating While Declaring "I Shall Not Hate"

2011-04-20T18:00:00.000-07:00

This letter was published in The New Britain Herald on April 6, 2011 under the misleading headline "Reader takes issue with peace activist." The headline was misleading because the letter explained how the self-described "peace activist" is really promoting conflict rather than peace.

It's disappointing that Izzeldin Abuelaish, while promoting a book entitled "I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza Doctor's Journey on the Road to Peace and Human Dignity," effectively endorses the Arab terrorism that led to the unfortunate deaths of three of his daughters while spreading misinformation.

In the article published in The New Britain Herald March 31, Abuelaish is quoted as saying: "Get rid of the occupation and there would be no need for the rockets."

The rockets for which Abuelaish asserts a need are being launched from Gaza and are aimed at Israeli cities and towns.

This, by any reasonable definition, is terrorism. Anyone endorsing or excusing them, as is Abuelaish, is not promoting a message of either peace or human dignity.

Furthermore, according to the definition of occupation under that nebulous body called international law, Israel was never an occupier of Gaza. Even if one uses the term occupation loosely, any so-called occupation of Gaza by Israel ended in 2005, nearly six years ago.

I sympathize with Abuelaish's grief; nobody should suffer the loss of children. But that loss was a consequence not of any occupation, but of the thousands of Kassam rockets launched from Gaza at innocent civilians in Israel, even after Israel left Gaza, lock, stock and barrel.

Let us not hate; let us embark on a road to peace and human understanding. This is the road Israel and its supporters are trying to travel; obviously Abuellaish is not. I hope that changes.

Alan Stein
President
PRIMER-Connecticut
Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting
www.primerct.org

An open letter to members of the Goldstone mission who have "turned"

2011-04-19T06:23:00.000-07:00

This is excerpted from an open letter from Maurice Ostroff to members of the UN Fact-finding mission to Gaza Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers. Click here for the complete letter.

April 18, 2011

I am astonished by the report in the Guardian of April 14 that, in response to Judge Goldstone's recent oped in the Washington Post, you have "turned on him", accusing him of misrepresenting facts in order to cast doubt on the credibility of your joint report. It is regrettable that you did not explain what facts you accuse him of misrepresenting, so that the reader can reach an informed opinion. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/un-gaza-report-authors-goldstone)

I trust you will agree that every intellectually honest person will willingly review previously held convictions if and when relevant new evidence becomes available. To his credit, that is exactly what Judge Goldstone has done.

By contrast, your evident inflexible belief in the immutability of every sentence in your 500-plus page Report reflects an attitude reminiscent of those who refused to look at the evidence presented by Galileo and condemned his heliocentrism as contrary to Scripture.

Regards

Maurice

The Passover Story as Reported by The New York Times

2011-04-17T10:33:00.001-07:00

The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. "It is simply impossible to report when you can't see an inch in front of you," complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. "I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid enough evidence for me."

While the Jews contend that the plagues are justified given the harsh slavery imposed upon them by the Egyptians, Pharaoh, the Egyptian leader, rebuts this claim. "If only the plagues would let up, there would be no slavery. We just want to live plague-free. It is the right of every society."

Saeb Erekat, an Egyptian spokesperson, complains that slavery is justifiable given the Jews' superior weaponry supplied to them by the superpower God.

The Europeans are particularly enraged by the latest Jewish offensive. "The Jewish aggression must cease if there is to be peace in the region. The Jews should go back to slavery for the good of the rest of the world," stated an angry French President Jacques Chirac.

Even several Jews agree. Adam Shapiro, a Jew, has barricaded himself within Pharaoh's chambers to protect Pharaoh from what is feared will be the next plague, the death of the firstborn. Mr. Shapiro claims that while slavery is not necessarily a good thing, it is the product of the plagues and when the plagues end, so will the slavery.

"The Jews have gone too far with plagues such as locusts and epidemic which have virtually destroyed the Egyptian economy," Mr. Shapiro laments. "The Egyptians are really a very nice people and Pharaoh is kind of huggable once you get to know him," gushes Shapiro.

The United States is demanding that Moses and Aaron, the Jewish leaders, continue to negotiate with Pharaoh. While Moses points out that Pharaoh had made promise after promise to free the Jewish people only to immediately break them and thereafter impose harsher and harsher slavery, Richard Boucher of the State Department assails the latest offensive.

"Pharaoh is not in complete control of the taskmasters," Mr. Boucher states. "The Jews must return to the negotiating table and will accomplish nothing through these plagues."

The latest round of violence comes in the face of a bold new Saudi peace overture. If only the Jews will give up their language, change their names to Egyptian names and cease having male children, the Arab nations will incline toward peace with them, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah declared.

Too Many Palestinians Support Atrocities Against Children

2011-04-13T17:44:00.001-07:00

This letter was published in the Waterbury Republican-American on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.

Imagine the quite justified worldwide uproar that would ensue were a poll to find a third of Israelis supported slash ing the throats of Arab children. Yet when a poll taken by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found a third of Palestinian Arabs sup ported an attack in which terrorists murdered three Israeli children and their parents, including slashing the throat of a 3-month-old, the headline in the April 7 Republican-American read, "Palestinians opposed attack."

Any society in which a third of its members support slashing the throats of infants is sick. The message in the headline and the tenor of the article inverted an unfortunate reality that was reinforced the same day when terrorists from Gaza aimed an anti-tank missile at a school bus and hit their target.

When Arab children in Gaza are sick, the Israelis often bring them to Israeli hospitals to cure them; when Israeli children are healthy, Palestinian Arabs in Gaza try to kill them. That goes to the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and illustrates what needs to change if there is to be peace.

Linwood Fleischer
Waterbury

Israeli Robotics Competition

2011-04-10T15:35:00.000-07:00

By Jon Mittelman

FIRST is all about inspiration. Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway and many other devices, wanted to inspire kids to enter careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) to make an impact on the problems facing today's world. That's why he and Woodie Flowers, MIT Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, created FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) in 1992 as a competition for high school kids in the US. Initially just in the United States, FIRST now spans the globe with programs for kids from age 4 to 18.

I have recently returned from the Israel Regional FIRST Competition held in Tel Aviv. With 50 teams participating including teams from Bosnia and the US, the excitement was palpable as this year's competition played out.

The game is played by an alliance of three teams playing against a different alliance of three teams in an arena that resembles a major sporting event. Each round of the game lasts 2 minute and 15 seconds beginning with a 15 second period when the 120+ pound robots try to place inner tubes on a scoring rack without operator assistance. Then human operators guide their robots to pick up 3 different shaped tubes and place them on a rack to make the FIRST Logo. The finale of the event is when the teams launch their minibot to race each other up 10 foot towers. There is lots of action with six robots on the field!

Every year the game is different and every team has the same six weeks to create a robot to compete in the game. Every team starts with the same limited selection of parts and the same budget limitations. Working with teachers, mentors, parents, and engineers from sponsoring corporations, the kids work long hours to learn computer aided design, machining, electrical wiring skills, and programming in order to design and build their robots. As Woodie Flowers said "This is the hardest fun you will ever have. One of the goals is to make your brain hurt.” This model has proven very successful. In one study, kids who participated in FIRST were twice as likely to enter careers in science and engineering.

It has been so successful in fact, that then-Vice Premier Shimon Peres, currently President of Israel, called Dean Kamen in 2003 to ask him to bring FIRST to Israel. In 2005, a pilot program had 12 teams competing. At the 2011 regional, there were 48 Israeli teams, a Bosnian team and an American team. In addition, 150 FIRST Lego League (FLL) teams rocked the house at Nokia Stadium. There were teams from all sectors of Israeli society including Druze and Israeli-Arab villages. One of the Arab villages is home to Team Tamra, 1946. Their mentor, Mohammed Fadwah, was presented the Woodie Flowers award, a cherished honor given to an outstanding mentor. His team is composed 70% of girls; each year several of his students go on to the Technion (Israel's MIT) and other universities.

This is the sort of success that has some US educators demanding to have FIRST in all of their schools. Michigan, Rhode Island and Hawaii have set education goals to have a FIRST program in every high school district in their state. Seed money for new teams generally comes not from taxpayers but from corporations eager to see students enter STEM careers and fill their need for educated workers. Current problems have to do with local school districts cash-strapped to provide teacher coverage, transportation and tech-ed support. Luckily, in Region 18, support from all levels of the community have aided the success of the Lyme-Old Lyme High School TechnoTicks. They won the 2009 Chairman's Award, given to the team doing the best job pursuing the goals of FIRST. As the team motto explains “It’s in our blood!”. One of the new teams here in Connecticut we have helped this year is from the New London Science and Technology Magnet School. They were able to start thanks to a monetary grant from JC Penny. But their continued success depends on community support.

You can catch the excitement at the Connecticut Regional FIRST Competition this weekend April 1-2, 2011 at the Connecticut Convention Center in Hartford. Cheer on the New London team! Admission is free, but you must bring your children! Inspiration is contagious!

Note: This article was written prior to the Connecticut Regional FIRST Competition.

Letter to Tamar

2011-04-05T11:45:00.000-07:00

This letter is posted with the permission of the writer. Please consider adding your name and sending it to Denis at maceoin@btinternet.com. When I first saw it, it contained the following introduction:

As some of you will already know, my letter to Tamar Fogel has been translated into Hebrew and will be given to her later next week in time for pesach. It will go under my name, because the letter itself must remain personal and direct. However, I have already received many e-mails from people who have been moved by the letter and who share in Tamar’s grief. If possible, I’d like to put as many names together to add as an appendix to the letter, names of people whose hearts have warmed to one little girl’s anguish and courage. This e-mail contains the original letter I English and the Hebrew translation by Tal Rockman. I’d like as many of you as possible to send it on and to ask your contacts to send me their names, which I can put into one document. It might be nice if they could add their country or city of residence, and perhaps the names of their own children. E-mail addresses etc. will never be included.

Dear Tamar,

We have never met, nor are we likely to. I am not a Jew nor an Israeli, though for many years I have defended both Jews and Israelis from the physical and political attacks that are made on them. I live in England, though I'm Irish. The Irish used to be great enemies of the English, who did bad things to us, but who gave us their language, something in which we excel. But many years ago, long before you were born, the enmity between the Irish and the English faded. We are not the same people, but we no longer hate each other, and the English Queen will soon make her first visit to Ireland, in a gesture that the past is past, that we are now allies, not enemies.

The most important thing for you is to be sure that the only guilty parties were the terrorists who carried out the slaughter. And I need not tell you that these were not the first Palestinian terrorists to take out their hate, their resentment, and their jealousy on helpless Jews living on Jewish land.

I have watched you in two videos, the first time when Binyamin Netanyahu came to visit you and your grandparents, and I still remember the force with which you challenged him, such an important man and such a young girl. And after that your tears. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now that the dead are at peace, and your two living brothers may grow up with less dark memories, but that you above all are old enough and aware enough to carry the most terrible memories through the rest of your life. But I also saw a second video in which you spoke to a reporter from Israeli National Television, and here your tears gave way to a most articulate, awesomely mature, and moving assertion of your right to live in Samaria. I wish every Palestinian could watch that video with an Arabic voice-over. Perhaps there and then they might see that their fight against Israel is worthless, that you will never surrender, that you will not let yourselves be led to the slaughter as happened all those years ago. Rabbi Chaim Potok once wrote that there are no more gentle Jews. He did not mean that Jews are no longer kind or good, but that they now know how to fight back. Kol Hakavod for every word you spoke.

You will grow up among strong people, and you will finally marry and have children of your own. That may seem far off to you, but to someone much older like myself, it will happen in no time at all. When that happens, and when your two brothers find wives and have children, there will soon be more Fogels than before. They cannot substitute for the dead, but they can stand up and speak for them down the long years to come. Your life, however much you may wish it otherwise, will be overshadowed by the terrible event that has fallen on you. You will ask questions and you may find answers. After the Shoah, many rabbis tackled the question of hester panim, asking why HaShem had seemed to turn his face away from his people. I am not a Jew, and I cannot provide easy answers to those questions. You must seek your own answers from your rabbis and in your scriptures. One answer may be found in a short sound recording that was made in Belsen shortly after its liberation by British forces. It was made by the BBC and contains at the end description of a Shabbat service held by a British rabbi, at the end of which the survivors stand and sing HaTikva. They are weak, they are out of tune, some of them will still die: but they are singing in open defiance of the very great Nazi evil that had overwhelmed them and their families. Three years after that, the state of Israel was established.

I'm writing, first because I'm a writer and that's how I express my feelings best. But also because I want to convey just how many people's thoughts are with you. You have your grandparents and aunts or uncles, and after that you have your small and concerned community of I'tamar, but beyond that you have a world of people, Jews and non-Jews, who stand with you in your grief. We feel helpless, not knowing what we can or should do to help, yet longing to do so. How many people can say they truly love the murderers who came to your house that night? Some may hand out candies and dance in the streets, but how meaningful is that? They love themselves and their own dreams of glory, but who can truly love men of blood, people who kill infants in their cradles?

For you the greatest problem of the next few years may be this: you are still a child and you deserve to be reading funny books and watching films and playing games and going to your youth club; but many will treat you as an adult before you are entirely ready for adult responsibilities. You do seem older than your years, but you should not be rushed into adulthood. I am sure your grandparents and others will understand this and will do their best to protect you from those who want to take your childhood away from you.

Enough of the advice! Everyone likes to give advice. You don't have to listen to any of it, and advice isn't really the reason I've written. You are in my thoughts and in the thoughts of millions of other people because the murder of your family has gone so deeply into so many people's hearts.

The list of atrocities carried out on Jews, not just in Israel but beyond, is very long. As a result, it's easy to let them all blur together into one mass. But every so often one death or a group of deaths stands out and demands special attention. One day there will be a memorial to the sacrifice your family made. People from far away may come to visit it. Photographs of it will appear in the press. But the true memorial will be you, an ordinary girl, with a torn heart and a wounded soul, going to school, going to shul, making friends, baking bread, sewing, cooking, reading, blushing when a certain young man comes to speak to you, going to Kever Yosef to marry him, giving birth to your first child. I just mean to say that no-one expects from you heroic deeds, no-one wants you to have to shoulder resistance to all the evils you know better than most. It is your ordinary deeds, the day-to-day living of an ordinary life that are for the creators of horror the most painful thing of all, that Jews will continue to live on land sanctified by Jewish blood. At the end of that recording made in Belsen, someone calls out 'Am Yisrael Chai'. By living, the killers only bring eternal disgrace on themselves, their families, and everyone who shelters them. By living, you make clear to everyone that the People of Israel live, that their light will not be snuffed out, and that when your enemies have gone to dust and seen a darkness beyond measure engulf them, the light of the Jews will illuminate the nations. Grow and be happy and tell us what you see on your journey.

Denis MacEoin

תמר היקרה,
מעולם לא נפגשנו וכנראה שגם לא ניפגש. למרות שאינני יהודי או ישראלי, מזה שנים
רבות אני מגן הן על יהודים והן על ישראלים מפני ההתקפות הפיסיות והפוליטיות
עליהם. אני חי באנגליה, למרות שאני אירי. האירים היו פעם אויבים מושבעים של
האנגלים, אשר עשו להם דברים רעים, אך גם נתנו לנו את השפה, דבר שבו אנו
מצטיינים. אך לפני שנים רבות, הרבה לפני שנולדת, האיבה בין האירים והאנגלים
נמוגה. אנחנו אמנם לא אותם האנשים, אך איננו שונאים זה את זה יותר, ובקרוב תעשה
המלכה האנגלית את ביקורה הראשון באירלנד, כמחווה לכך שהעבר הוא עבר, וכי עתה
אנו בני ברית ולא אויבים.
הדבר החשוב ביותר הוא שתהיי בטוחה בכך שהצדדים האשמים היחידים הם המחבלים
שביצעו את הטבח. ואינני צריך להגיד לך שאלה לא היו המחבלים הפלסטינים הראשונים
שהוציאו את שנאתם, את טינתם ואת קנאתם על יהודים חסרי אונים החיים על אדמה
יהודית.
צפיתי בך בשני קטעי וידאו, בפעם הראשונה כאשר בנימין נתניהו בא לבקר אותך ואת
הסבים שלך, ואני עדיין זוכר את העוצמה שבה עמדת מולו, כזה איש חשוב וכזו נערה
צעירה. ואחר כך את דמעותייך. נראה היה לי אז, ונדמה לי גם כעת, כי המתים מצאו
את מנוחתם, וכי שני אחייך שנותרו בחיים יגדלו עם פחות זכרונות קשים ואפלים, אך
את, מעל לכל, כבר מספיק בוגרת ומודעת כדי לשאת את הזכרונות האיומים לשארית
חייך. אך גם צפיתי בהקלטה נוספת, שבה דיברת עם כתב מהטלוויזיה הישראלית, וכאן
פינו דמעותייך דרך לקביעה כל כך ברורה, כל כך בוגרת ומרגשת על זכותך לחיות
בשומרון. הלוואי וכל פלסטינאי יכול היה לצפות באותו הוידאו עם דיבוב בערבית.
אולי אז היו רואים כי המאבק שלהם נגד ישראל הוא חסר תועלת, וכי לעולם לא
תיכנעו, כי לא תתנו לעצמכם להיות מובלים לטבח כפי שקרה לפני שנים. הרב חיים
פוטוק כתב פעם, כי אין יותר יהודים עדינים. כוונתו לא היתה כי יהודים הם כבר לא
אדיבים או טובים, אלא שהם יודעים עכשיו איך להשיב מלחמה. כל הכבוד לך על כל
מילה שאמרת.
את תגדלי בין אנשים חזקים, ולבסוף תנשאי ויהיו לך ילדים משלך. אולי זה נראה לך
עוד רחוק, אך לאדם מבוגר יותר כמוני, זה יקרה כהרף עין. וכאשר זה יקרה, וכאשר
שני אחייך ימצאו בנות זוג וילדו ילדים, יהיו יותר פוגלים מאשר קודם. הם לא
יוכלו למלא את מקומם של המתים, אך הם יוכלו לעמוד ולדבר עבורם למשך שנים רבות
וארוכות. חייך, עד כמה שתבקשי אחרת, תמיד יהיו בצל אותו אירוע נוראי שעברת. את
תשאלי שאלות ואולי תמצאי תשובות. אחרי השואה דנו רבנים רבים בשאלת הסתר פנים
ושאלו מדוע נראה כאילו השם מעלים פנים מעמו. אינני יהודי, ואיני יכול לספק
תשובות קלות לשאלות אלה. עלייך לחפש את תשובותייך אצל הרבנים ובכתובים שלך.
ניתן אולי למצוא תשובה אחת בהקלטת שמע שנעשתה במחנה הריכוז ברגן בלזן זמן קצר
לאחר שחרור המקום על ידי הכוחות הבריטים. ההקלטה היא של רשת ה-בי'בי'סי' ובסופה
יש תיאור של קבלת שבת שערך רב בריטי, שבסופה עמדו הניצולים ושרו "התקווה". הם
אמנם חלשים, מזייפים, וחלקם עוד ימותו; אך הם שרים תוך התנגדות גלויה ועמידה
איתנה לנוכח הרוע הנאצי העצום שהכניע אותם ואת משפחותיהם. שלוש שנים לאחר מכן
נוסדה מדינת ישראל.
אני כותב, ראשית בגלל שאני סופר וזוהי דרכי להביע את רגשותיי בצורה הטובה
ביותר. אך גם בגלל שרציתי להעביר לך עד כמה אנשים חושבים עלייך. יש לך את הסבים
והדודים והדודות שלך, ואחר כך יש לך את הקהילה הקטנה והדואגת באיתמר, אך מעבר
לכך יש לך עולם מלא באנשים, יהודים ולא יהודים, אשר עומדים אתך בצערך. אנו
עומדים חסרי אונים, ואיננו יודעים מה אנו יכולים או צריכים לעשות כדי לעזור לך,
אבל אנחנו ממש מבקשים לעשות זאת. כמה אנשים יכולים לומר כי הם באמת אוהבים את
הרוצחים שבאו באותו לילה לביתך? מעטים אולי יחלקו סוכריות וירקדו ברחובות, אך
איזו משמעות יש לזה באמת? הם אוהבים את עצמם ואת חלומות התהילה שלהם, אך מי
באמת ובתמים יכול לאהוב אנשי דם, כאלה שרוצחים עוללים בעריסותיהם?
הבעיה הגדולה ביותר עבורך בשנים הקרובות עשויה להיות זו: את עדיין ילדה ומגיע
לך לקרוא ספרים מצחיקים ולצפות בסרטים ולשחק במשחקים וללכת לתנועת הנוער שלך;
אך יהיו רבים שיתייחסו אלייך כבן אדם בוגר לפני שאת מוכנה לגמרי לאחריות של אדם
בוגר. את אמנם נראית בוגרת יותר מגילך, אך לא צריך להאיץ בך להגיע לבגרות. אני
בטוח שהסבים שלך ואחרים יבינו זאת ויעשו הכל כדי להגן עלייך מפני אלה המבקשים
לגזול את ילדותך.
מספיק עם העצות! כולם אוהבים לתת עצות. אינך צריכה להקשיב לדבר, ומתן עצות היא
לא הסיבה שאני כותב לך. את במחשבותיי ובמחשבות של מיליוני אנשים אחרים, כי הרצח
של משפחתך נכנס כל כך עמוק לליבם של אנשים. רשימת הזוועות שביצעו ביהודים, לא
רק בישראל, אלא גם בחו"ל, היא ארוכה מאוד. כתוצאה מכך, קל להניח להן להטשטש זו
בזו. אך מדי פעם בולטים מוות אחד או מספר מקרי מוות ודורשים תשומת לב מיוחדת.
יום אחד יוקם אתר זיכרון לקורבן שהקריבה משפחתך. אנשים ממרחקים יפקדו אותו.
יופיעו תמונות שלו בעיתונות. אך את תהיי מצבת הזיכרון האמיתית - נערה רגילה, עם
לב שבור ונפש פגועה, שהולכת לבית הספר, לבית הכנסת, משחקת עם חברים, אופה לחם,
תופרת, מבשלת, קוראת, מסמיקה כאשר איזה עלם צעיר בא לדבר אתך, הולכת עמו לקבר
יוסף כדי להינשא, יולדת את ילדך הראשון. אני רק מבקש לומר, שאף אחד אינו מצפה
ממך למעשי גבורה, אף אחד אינו מבקש ממך לעמוד ולהתנגד לרוע שאותו את מכירה יותר
טוב ממרבית האנשים. דווקא מעשייך הרגילים, החיים היומיומיים והשגרתיים הם הם
הדבר הכואב ביותר עבור יוצרי הזוועות, שיהודים ימשיכו לחיות על אדמה המקודשת
בדם יהודי. בסוף אותה ההקלטה מברגן בלזן, מישהו צועק "עם ישראל חי". באמצעות
החיים יביאו המרצחים רק כלימה נצחית על עצמם, על משפחותיהם ועל כל מי שמגן
עליהם. באמצעות החיים, את מבהירה לכולם כי עם ישראל חי, כי לא יכבה אורו, וכי
כאשר יהפכו אויביך לאפר וייבלעו בחשכת צלמוות, יאיר אור היהודים את כל העמים.
תגדלי ותהיי מאושרת ותספרי לנו מה את רואה בדרכך.
דניס מק'יואן

Inconvenient truths about Middle East: The Original

2011-04-04T16:32:00.000-07:00

A shortened version of this was published in the Waterbury Sunday Republican on March 27, 2011 and also appears on the PRIMER Blog. This is the original as submitted by Attorney Gary L. Broder.

The continuing chaos in the Arab world should give us all a great deal of concern. It also should cause us to examine some "inconvenient truths" about the Arab Middle East.

One would like to be hopeful, for example, about the possibility of real democracy in Egypt. However, in at least 4000 years of Egyptian history, there has never been a democratic government there. Mubarak's dictatorship took over from Sadat's dictatorship, which took over from Nasser's dictatorship, which took over by military coup from a King. Was Mubarak really that different from the Biblical Pharaoh?

In fact, there is only one real democracy in the Middle East - Israel. All the other countries are either dictatorships (military or civilian), kingdoms or principalities. Ironically, the country in the Middle East where Arabs enjoy the greatest amount of freedom is Israel. Arabs born in Israel are Israeli citizens. Arabic is one of the official languages of Israel. There are Arab political parties and Arab members of the Knesset (Parliament). One would like to say the same reciprocal relationship exists for Jews who live in Arab lands. Unfortunately, despite the fact that Jews lived for hundred of years in countries like Algeria, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, they were forced out or fled.

The United States has only one real ally in the Middle East - Israel. All of the Arab countries there either engage in terrorism, fund terrorism (either openly or secretly) or allow terrorists to operate out of their country with impunity.

The Arab Middle East hates Israel, and, frankly, doesn't feel that much better about the United States. This is based on two factors.

One is anti-semitism (and please don't tell me Arabs can't be anti-semites because they are semites as well). This is denied by Arab countries, who claim they are not anti-semites, just anti-Zionists. Although on could distinguish the two theoretically, in reality there is no difference. The modern State of Israel has been in existence for over 60 years. It is not going away.

The second reason is not often discussed in the media. The Arab countries hate Israel because Israel is Western and they are not. Despite Israel's physical location, it is much more like the United States that its Arab Neighbors. By any measure or criterion, Israel is seen by the Arab world as America's outpost in the Middle East. In other words, the very facts that make Israel America's only ally in the Middle East make the Arab world hate Israel and distrust the United States.

I would not dare to predict what will happen in the Arab world. Obviously, once again, our CIA wasn't very good in that regard. I think only Yogi Berra makes any sense right now. However, there are some conclusions to be drawn and lessons to be learned.

First, America is partially at fault. Once again, we backed stability over democracy. Indeed, this has been our foreign policy for most of the 20th century, not only in the Middle East, but in most of the world. I understand that politics is not that simplistic, but by the very choices we have made, we engage on a national level in the kind of immorality that the Arab world accuses us of on a personal level.

Second, we have sold our souls for Arab oil for decades. When are we going to learn? We know what we need to do, and we have started to do it. We need to accelerate the pace: Alternative fuels, greater energy efficiency, reduction in consumption, etc.

Third, cut back on most foreign aid, especially in the form of military armaments, to non-democratic Arab countries. Put in real controls to prevent those countries' leaders from stealing it for themselves. Let wealthy Arab nations provide economic assistance to their poorer brethren. If the United States still thinks assisting these countries is in our national interest, dramatically increase the Peace Corps presence there, which will better provide direct help to those who need it most.

Fourth, the media (including this newspaper) need to stop calling terrorists "militants". If groups in Canada started firing rockets across the border into Maine, would we call them "militants" or terrorists? And if those attacks continued, and the Canadian government said it couldn't control them, how long do you think we would wait before we went over the border into Canada and did something about it?

Fifth, the media need to increase the amount of their coverage of foreign affairs, not just when there is a crisis. We could do this by cutting back on the incredible amount of junk we now broadcast as news and entertainment. Isn't our concept of "reality TV" an oxymoron? Unfortunately, the media are cutting back on their coverage of foreign affairs, not increasing it.

Sixth, since Israel is our only real ally in the Middle East, start treating it more like that were true. That revolves mainly around the issue of the so-called "Palestinians". I say "so-called" because there are really no such people. I am not being facetious. There are obviously thousand of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, but who are they? Where did they come from? How long have they been in existence? If one used the term "Palestinian" between 1917 and 1948, then one would be referring to Jews living in the land of Israel. The so-called Palestinians have no claim to any of the land they now seek because it was never theirs. What they are really saying is that they are the representatives of all Arabs in the Middle East who have waged war against Israel in the past. But, how many times can you attack a country, lose the war and then pretend that it never happened and that there are no consequences? Israel's historical claim to the Land of Israel, as detailed in the Torah over 3,300 years ago, not only includes present-day Israel, Gaza and the so-called West Bank, but also parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The so-called Palestinians can ask for anything they want, but that does not translate into historical entitlement.

The American failure to correctly assess this situation is based upon two misconceptions. The first is that appeasement of the so-called Palestinians will stop their commitment to terrorism and the destruction of Israel. It will not. The second is that the other Arabs really care about the so-called Palestinians. They do not. They are incapable of running their own countries. If they did care, they would have taken them into their own countries, provided them with financial assistance (other than illicit military equipment), etc.

Now is the time to insist on justice in the Middle East, but real justice, based upon principles that only the United States and Israel currently share in common.

Inconvenient truths about Middle East

2011-03-28T06:55:00.000-07:00

This was published in the Waterbury Sunday Republican on March 27, 2011

Inconvenient truths about Middle East

By Gary L. Broder

The continuing chaos in the Arab world should give us all a great deal of concern. It also should cause us to examine inconvenient truths about the Arab Middle East.

One would like to be hopeful, for example, about the possibility of real democracy in Egypt. However, in at least 4,000 years of Egyptian history, there has never been a democratic government there. Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship took over from Anwar Sadat's dictatorship, which took over from Abdul Nasser's dictatorship, which took over by military coup from a king. Was Mubarak really so different from a biblical pharaoh?

There is only one real democracy in the Middle East: Israel. All of the other countries are military or civilian dictatorships, kingdoms or principalities. Ironically, the country in the Middle East where Arabs enjoy the greatest freedom is Israel. One would like to say a reciprocal relationship exists for Jews who live in Arab lands. But although Jews lived for hundreds of years in countries like Algeria, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, they were forced out or fled.

The United States has only one real ally in the Middle East - Israel - and should start treating it as such. The Arab Middle East hates Israel, in part because of anti-Semitism, but also because Israel is seen by the Arab world as America's outpost in the Middle East. The very facts that make Israel America's only ally in the Middle East make the Arab world hate Israel and distrust the United States.

I would not dare predict what will happen in the Arab world. Obviously, once again, our CIA didn't do its job. But there are some conclusions to be drawn and lessons to be learned.

First, America is partly at fault for backing stability over democracy. This has been our foreign policy for most of the 20th century, not only in the Middle East but in most of the world. By the very choices we have made, we engage on a national level in the kind of immorality the Arab world accuses us of on a personal level.

Second, we have sold our souls for Arab oil for decades. When are we going to learn? We know what we need to do, and we have started to do it. We need to accelerate the pace: alternative fuels, greater energy efficiency, conservation, etc.

Third, cut back on most foreign aid, especially in the form of military armaments, to nondemocratic Arab countries. Put in real controls to prevent those countries' leaders from stealing it for themselves. Let wealthy Arab nations provide economic assistance to their poorer brethren. If the United States still thinks assisting these countries is in our national interest, dramatically increase the Peace Corps presence there, which will provide direct help to those who need it most.

Fourth, the media need to increase their coverage of foreign affairs, not just when there is a crisis. We could do this by cutting back on the incredible amount of junk we now broadcast as news and entertainment. Unfortunately, the media are cutting back on foreign coverage, not increasing it.

Fifth, Israel has a historical claim to the Land of Israel, as detailed in the Torah more than 3,300 years ago. It not only includes present-day Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, but also parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians can ask for anything they want, but that does not translate into historical entitlement.

America's failure to assess the situation in the Middle East correctly is based upon two misconceptions. The first is that appeasement of the Palestinians will stop their commitment to terrorism and the destruction of Israel. It will not. The second is that the other Arabs really care about the Palestinians. They do not. They are incapable of running their own countries. If they did care, they would have taken the Palestinians into their own countries and provided them with financial assistance, other than illicit military equipment.

Now is the time to insist on justice in the Middle East, but real justice based upon principles that only the United States and Israel currently share in common.

Gary L. Broder is a lawyer who lives in Waterbury.

Unity

2011-03-26T17:40:00.000-07:00

This was a guest דרש‎ given by Alan Stein on March 26, 2011 at Beth El Synagogue in Southbury, Connecticut.

One important point, not included in the דרש, is that there is no shortage of self-examination and criticism (both legitimate and illegitimate) regarding Israel within the Jewish community. In fact, if there was a tenth as much self-criticism within the Arab and Muslim communities as much as there is within the Jewish and general pro-Israel communities, there might be a realistic chance of peace.

This week's parshah is שמיני, since it begins "ויהי ביום השמיני" - "And it came to pass on the eighth day." This came after seven days of consecration of the כוהנים, the priests, preparing them for their service as כוהנים. It describes various sin offerings, goats, calves, lambs, oxen, rams.

To us, today, those sacrifices seem crude, barbaric. But they must be seen in the context of the times.

This was a seminal time of the formation of the Israelites and the Jewish people, the Jewish nation. We needed to develop our own rituals and traditions, but we did not do so in a vacuum. Our rituals were, naturally, adapted from those of the other peoples in those times, and sacrifice was a basic part of religious life.

The sacrifices of other peoples were not goats and lambs; they were human sacrifices. Thus the practices, as adapted by the Israelites, barbaric as they seem to us today, were a giant step forward in that time.

When the Jewish kingdom was established and the Temple built by King Solomon, the Temple became the center of Jewish ritual and remained the center, with interruptions, political and religious disputes and crises, including the split into Northern and Southern kingdoms following the death of King Solomon, for more than a thousand years.

A new crisis, an upheaval arose, with the Roman conquest, the destruction of the second Temple and the ethnic cleansing - they didn't call it that in those days, but that's what it was - of Jerusalem. A Judaism that had been built around the core of a sovereign Jewish state and a holy Temple in Jerusalem had to adapt to the loss of both, or fade away.

The solution was the creation of rabbinic Judaism, the form of Judaism that has kept the Jewish people together for nearly two millennia.

This is discussed in an article, "Halacha's Moment of Truth," by Evelyn Gordon and Hadassah Levy, in the current issue of Azure, a journal I get sent because of my membership in SPME, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. (In Hebrew, azure is "techelet," the mysterious blue dye for tallitot referred to in the Torah. Azure is available online at .)

According to Gordon and Levy, in rabbinical, halachic Judaism, "The Temple service was replaced by prayer. Holidays were reinterpreted. A fixed calendar was instituted. Torah study became the supreme value, compensating for all the commandments that could no longer be performed. And the importance of sovereignty was downplayed: for the sake of Jewish survival, the message had to be that sovereignty was not essential so long as rabbinic leadership remained."

According to Gordon and Levy, we now face another shift of "tectonic" proportions: Judaism must reconstitute itself as the religion of a sovereign nation, Israel.

Many of the important questions are already in play. Early on, the rabbis had to reconcile the commandment to keep the Sabbath with the necessity of an army protecting life on Shabbat. Other issues are proving more difficult and problematic, including the laws of shmita (letting land lie fallow every seven years), regulation of marriage and divorce, rules for acquiring citizenship, "who is a Jew?"

Shortly after Marsha and I joined Beth El back in 1977 - has it been that long? - our rabbi at that time, Joel Chazin, spoke on just this theme, saying the greatest theological issue of the day was the reestablishment of the sovereign state of Israel. He said Judaism had not yet begun to deal with it. Since then I've heard very little said about it until this article in Azure.

The editor's introduction to this issue of Azure is entitled "The Zionist Imperative." It deals with the Jewish connection to Israel in context of traditional Jewish community solidarity. It mentions the principle called Areivus, כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה, every Jew is responsible for every other Jew.

The first GA, General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations, which I attended just before becoming president of the Jewish Federation in the late 1980s, had the slogan "We Are One," affirming the oneness of the Jewish people, in America, in Israel and around the world.

That unity was part of the thrust in the change of the name of the Jewish community newspaper to Chavurah, a name proposed by Gary Broder, who became the first editor of Chavurah. Gary included the catchphrase, "Do Not Separate Yourself from The Community," under the masthead, although that was unfortunately removed several years ago.

The sacrifices with Aaron in the desert were part of the beginning of that unity, and the reestablishment of a sovereign Jewish state should be reinforcing that unity, providing a focus for that unity.

Unfortunately, there are some who are separating themselves from our community, even while doing so in the name of Judaism.

We have fringe groups of Jews, including JStreet, which misleadingly and inappropriately calls itself "the pro-peace, pro-Israel lobby," falsely implying the mainstream Zionist groups like AIPAC, Hadassah and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs are not pro-peace, while JStreet's alleged pro-Israel stance is questionable enough to be debated in the Knesset.

We have the misleadingly named "Jewish Voices for Peace," determined by the Anti-Defamation League to be one of the top ten organizations working to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the Jewish state.

We even have the "Neturei Karta," self-declared as Orthodox Jews united against Zionism. The Neturei Karta align themselves with the most fanatical forces pledged to the destruction of Israel, advising Yasser Arafat, going into Gaza to demonstrate solidarity with Hamas and participating in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Denial conference in Iran.

While there can be honest disagreement and there should be honest, good-faith debate about how Israel can best defend itself against determined enemies who remain bent on its destruction, the Jewish people must remain united, as one, in its support of the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The parsha Shemini, and all of Vayikra, deals with the formation in the desert of our people. Later in Shemini, it is described how, on the day that should have been the most glorious in the life of Aaron, the High Priest, Aaron's eldest sons, נדב and אביהוא, made an offering to God אשר לא צבה אתם, which was not commanded to them, ותצא אש מלפני השם ותאכל אותם, and there came forth fire from before the Lord and devoured them. One may argue by going beyond that commanded by God, Aaron's sons separated themselves from the community and the consequence was they were devoured by fire.

We survived for nearly 2,000 years without our own sovereign state, but even during that time the dream of Israel remained at the core of our being as a people and at the heart of our religion, so much so that both our Yom Kippur service and our Passover seder, coming in just a few weeks, end with the chant לשנה הבאה בירושלים - Next Year in Jerusalem.

We survived the destruction of the Temple, an earthshaking event for Judaism.

We are still in the midst of the theological earthquake involving the reestablishment of our state of Israel.

The destruction of Israel would be another earthquake.

Our capacity for surviving theological earthquakes is not necessarily unlimited.

We are obligated, as Jews, to keep the land of Israel in our hearts and to support Israel in its miraculous and continuing fight for survival.

Connect the Dots: Palestinian Authority Incitement Leads to Murders

2011-03-24T21:53:00.000-07:00

Dennis Ross, the most prominent American mediator during most of the Oslo process, has recognized a primary reason for its failure was the way America ignored Palestinian Arab incitement. In his informative book, The Missing Peace, he writes about "the Palestinians' systematic incitement in their media, an educational system that bred hatred, and the glorification of violence."

That incitement, a systematic indoctrination of hatred by the Palestinian Authority, continues unabated under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, even though he is almost always referred to as being "moderate."

The bloody consequences of Abbas' duplicity has been documented by the Palestinian Media Watch, which monitors the official Palestinian Authority outlets and translates some of their content into English.

Within the last few weeks:

Palestinian Authority television broadcast a program honoring Ahlam Tamimi, the woman who drove a suicide bomber to the Sbarro pizza restaurant in Jerusalem in 2001, where he murdered fifteen people.

Palestinian Authority television honored Fahami Mashahara for driving a suicide bomber to the Gilo neighborhood in Jerusalem, where he murdered nineteen people and injured more than a hundred others.

Abbas himself awarded a presidential grant to the family of Khaldoun Najib Samoudy, a terrorist recently killed as he was preparing a terrorist attack at the Hamra checkpoint.

The Palestinian Authority announced plans for the "Shahida of Honor, Wafa Idris Tournament." Idris was the first Palestinian Arab female suicide bomber, blowing herself up in Jerusalem in 2002, injuring more than 150 people and killing one.

Besides glorifying the murderers of innocent Israeli civilians, a few days ago Abbas recently announced he would be going to Gaza to meet with the leaders of Hamas in an attempt to reconcile with them. One wonders why he is so eager to meet with the fanatical Islamists destroying Gaza while he continues to refuse to meet with Israeli leaders who actually want to make peace.

Among the recent consequences of Abbas' duplicity:

On March 23, another bomb exploded at a bus station in Israel's capital of Jerusalem. Dozens were injured and at least one woman was killed.

On March 12, a Palestinian Arab terrorist murdered five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, some of them as they slept. Not content with mere murder, according to some reports, they beheaded the Fogel's three month old baby.) Just a few weeks before, Palestinian Authority television had honored Habash Hanani for murdering three high school students in the same town in May, 2002. Undoubtedly, after the murderer of the Fogel family is found, he too will be glorified by the Palestinian Authority.

No wonder, during the two months I recently spent in Israel, I could not find anyone with any real hope for peace within the next generation.

In Israel, the children are taught about peace and reconciliation. People try to understand the Arab perspective. Government leaders, even those considered "hard-line," are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to induce their Arab neighbors to agree to live together in peace.

In the Palestinian Authority, children are still taught to hate. They are taught to blow up rather than grow up. Even so-called "moderate" leaders like Mahmoud Abbas insist they will never make any concessions, standing fast with outlandish demands that effectively call for the elimination of Israel. And, for the last two years, except for a brief, three-week, interlude, Abbas has refused to even pretend to negotiate with Israel.

America gives a large amount of assistance to the Palestinian Arabs. We have even increased that assistance during the last two years, even as the Palestinian Authority has steadfastly refused to negotiate and continued to do its best to torpedo peace prospects.

We continue to make the same mistakes Dennis Ross wrote about.

It's time to learn and to change. If we can use our leverage to induce the Palestinian Authority to create a generation open to peace rather than indoctrinated to hate, there will be a chance that Israeli and Palestinian Arab children will grow up rather than blow up.

Unethical, Unacceptable and the Prostitution of Journalism

2011-03-22T05:14:00.000-07:00

By Angela M. Epstein

Angela Epstein is a former News Correspondent for the Univision Network and former Anchor of NBC's Canal de Noticias.

Today it is the Colombian in me who writes, as it was the journalist I once was who convinced me that I needed to do so after watching the documentary "Out of Cordoba" produced by Jacob Bender, who has made a name working on inter-faith relations. The documentary explores the relationships between Jews and Muslims and asks if those two people "are incapable of peaceful coexistence."

Mine is not a religious or political argument and instead I will discuss here the producer of the documentary and his journalistic practices, something of which I know more than about religion. This January 31, I walked out the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut from what could have been a night of enlightenment and education about respect for cultures and religions within the frame of honest reporting and film documentary. At least it is what I was sold. Instead I left the room deeply upset after watching the documentary whose producer" humbly" described himself as a "starving journalist."

The loose use of the word journalist deeply disturbed me; this is where my excitement wore out and my questioning began. The part that prompted me to sit and write this piece was Bender's denouncing of the Israeli West Bank security fence and the subsequent editorialization of his feelings of frustration, supported by the interview with an activist Rabbi. I had no problem with that; the producer's obligation is to do so. Where I found a serious ethical problem from someone who calls himself a journalist was the total absence of any type of background related to the building of the fence and the one-sided presentation of the issue.

I did not understand why he did, openly, omit giving a reason for why it was built. At the very least I was expecting very basic journalistic practice: both sides of the story are always a must. But Mr. Bender disregarded his obligation. When I asked him why, he told me his was a "deliberate" decision. Omitting some critical facts was "deliberate." His, was a poor explanation I could not understand and he could not elaborate well.

To me this is unacceptable and unethical regardless of how we look at it and it does not help the same cause he claims he is working for. But why did Mr. Bender make a "deliberate" decision, as he asserted to me, to not include any reason as to why the fence is there while simultaneously denouncing it? Why was his explanation so ambiguous and unconvincing?

Some would argue it was because of the nature of some of the funds and access given for this film, I argue that he is not a journalist and should stop calling himself that. I also call these types of "deliberate decisions" the prostitution of journalism, a passion for which many reporters in my country have been killed. So, as a former reporter with dead friends, I do not think, as some do, that the producer is being intellectually dishonest. I think he is a whore, and a very clever one.

In a different context, Mr. Bender reminded me so much of the dark days of our recent Colombian history when some journalists presented the facts depending of the size of the check or the threat received. That was a common practice and the only one who benefited was Pablo Escobar, the infamous narco-dealer, not the peace process that divided the country so much.

Jacob Bender has been acclaimed for this film and he is savoring the fruits of convenience, self-censorship and omission. I only see his personal self-interest. I did not see where and how this position is in the best interest of interfaith relations that he uses to get the limelight. If Mr. Bender is inserting himself in the process of interfaith relations and reconciliation between Jews, Christians and Muslims (of which I know nothing, I must confess), he should expose the facts with transparency. Please note, I am not debating the wall here; this is not my dilemma today. My dilemma today is journalistic ethics.

I was not expecting Bender to say that the motivation of the security fence was safety because the tactic of suicide bombing attacks carried out of the West Bank had been successfully used on Israeli civilians for several years claiming many lives, or that since the building of the fence there has been, according to Israeli sources, a 90% decline of attacks. Or that the fence has even caused Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah complain to the Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq that the fence "limits the ability to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks."

History has told us that, like in journalism, in the process of reconciliation the facts are exposed from both sides. It happens everywhere these processes take place in in the search for healing. I ask myself if hiding facts is a way to promote dialogue. "Deliberate" decisions like the one Mr. Bender made ignite conflict; they do not appease it.

I must admit I learned about the very interesting lives of two highly enlightened religious philosophers of the Jewish and Muslim faiths, Maimonides and Averroes, two people of whom the world should learn more, but that is another subject. It could have been a nice documentary. Too bad it was tainted.

Israel willing to make concessions to reach peace agreement with Arabs

2011-03-17T09:49:00.000-07:00

This letter was published on March 16, 2011 in The Hour from Norwalk, Connecticut.

Israel willing to make concessions to reach peace agreement with Arabs

To the Editor:

Much of what Kathleen Mary Tepper writes in her letter, "Jerusalem became both an eternal and a universal city," published Friday, March 11, is simultaneously true yet highly misleading. For example, she refers to "native Palestinians" owning property, living and work ing in "more than 90 percent of what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza" prior to 1947 but fails to mention that in those days when one referred to Palestinians one generally meant the Jews living in Palestine; at that time the Arabs living in Palestine rejected the idea that they were a people separate from the general Arab nation.

Her statement also falsely implies that Arabs owned more than 90 percent of the land. Then, as it is now, the overwhelming bulk of the land was publicly owned.

In referring to the fact that the United Nations Partition Plan, violently rejected by the Arabs, apportioned to the Jewish people roughly 55 percent of what is today Israel and the disputed territories, she omits the fact that roughly 78 percent of Palestine had already been transferred to the Arabs. Thus, the plan actually called for the Arabs getting roughly 88 percent (the 78 percent comprising Transjordan plus 45 percent of the remainder) and the Jews only getting roughly 12 per cent. Unfortunately, while the Jews gladly accepted those crumbs, for the Arabs 88 percent of the loaf was insufficient. The result has been more than six decades of war, terrorism, death and dislocation.

For the first two of those six decades, Jordan occupied portions of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, and despite signed agreements barred Jews from any access to those holy sites. Since the reunification of Jerusalem during the 1967 War, the holy sites of Jerusalem have been open to all. With that reunification, it again became "both an eternal and universal city," limited only to the extent made necessary by Arab terror.

The brutal murder, on the same day Tepper's letter appeared, of five members of the Fogel family as they slept in their beds in Itamar is a reminder of how necessary Israel's security measures remain. That the terror attack occurred just a month after Israel removed the nearby Hawara checkpoint is also a reminder both of how Israel bends over backwards, putting the lives of its own citizens at risk as it attempts to improve the lives of its Palestinian Arab neighbors and of how so often those Israeli gestures are reciprocated with murderous attacks.

Israel, as always, remains prepared to make painful concessions to reach a meaningful peace agreement with its Arab neighbors, including those who now call themselves Palestinians. The so-called "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Mahmoud Abbas, rejected an offer of the equivalent of 100 percent of the disputed territories and has for the last two years refused to even sit down and negotiate. The peace Israel and its supporters yearn for will only become possible when its neighbors start putting their own welfare ahead of their desire to destroy Israel.

Alan Stein
president, PRIMER-Connecticut
Waterbury

A Plea From Edith and Abe Lieberman

2011-03-17T09:43:00.000-07:00

Edith was my "boss" the last two winters while I volunteered at Laniado Hospital in Netanya. Edith and her husband Abe are amazing people and when she tries to get a message across to people I can't do anything other than try to help. - Alan Stein

Dear family, friends, donors to Laniado Hospital, my former students and Bnei Brith/Hadassah volunteers,

I can safely state that you most likely share with me the same frustrations and disappointments with the daily news as we watch even right leaning Fox News, which broadcasts in Israel world events, and Israel's painful and serious news is hardly given coverage, even by the media favorable to Israel.

For sure, we are all upset and feel helpless as human beings cannot control natural disasters which devastated Japan, New Zealand, and other areas of the World. Our hearts are broken and we cry out to the world to hear and see about the massacre of the five members of the Fogel family, butchered in Itimar, Israel, by inhuman people.

Daily rockets land in various areas of Israel, and only through G-d's intervention lives are spared. Now, a ship, laden with a large cargo of deadly weapons, was captured by the Israeli Naval Forces, which was intended to be brought to Egypt... there, G-d forbid, it would have been smuggled into Gush Kativ and Gaza for the purpose of destroying Israel – where are the Governments in Europe and America, and other parts of the world, including the UN, which were demanding Israel to stop building settlements, and advance a process whereby Israel would have to give up part of its

G-d given land?

Why has there been no mention, as yet, of the ship, with its dangerous cargo, by any of the main news media, including Fox News. If not for my older son contacting Glen Beck on Fox News, there may have been no mention at all of the Fogel family massacre.

You know what I am trying to tell you without actually spelling it out – you and I cannot waste time ...we must act now to speak out loud and clear to the US Congressmen and Senators, those of you in America, and we, in Israel, must contact the Knesset Members of all political parties ...... Israel must cease all peace talks, for now the world has seen the proof and truth that there are no intentions of any Arab governments to make peace with us, or to recognize our Nation's existence.

Let us pray that Hashem will continue to stand by us and guide us.

Let us enjoy the holiday of Purim while keeping in mind that we must act quickly and effectively to influence the leaders in America and Israel that Israel must remain on its G-d given land to protect its nation's future and be enabled to remain the only true ally to America in the Middle East.

From my heart I wish you, one and all, good health and happiness, together with all your loved ones, be strong, have the courage to fight for what you believe in, and let us share with one another only happy tidings.

Edith and Abe Lieberman and family

Call it what it is: Absurdity beyond the pale

2011-03-13T13:10:00.000-07:00

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Today’s headline reads:

UN: New settlement building not 'conducive to peace'

AND this was followed with these audacious comments: “UN special coordinator Robert Serry was "concerned" by media reports of 500 new housing units to be constructed in the West Bank, AFP reported Serry's spokesman Richard Miron as saying Sunday.”

Serry was further quoted as saying he felt that this decision to build more units was not conducive to efforts to renew negotiations regarding peace-huh? He shared the requisite “condemnation” statement and then he attributed the actions to acts of extremists. What hollow words these are and how inaccurate they are indeed.

Juxtapose these with the following:
1. The murderer went room to room stabbing the parents, a three-month girl (slashed her throat for G-d’s sake) and then methodically butchered two young boys.
2. Hamas described the attack as a “heroic operation” and handed out sweets and candies to their people who joined the celebration.
3. The Palestinian Authority just three weeks ago glorified on television to “their people’ a terrorist who murdered three Israelis back in 2002. Yes, the “moderate ones, those the current USA government has declared as “peace partners” socially approved of such behavior.
4. PA Chairman Abbas awarded $2000 to the family of another murderer who attacked and tried to kill Israeli soldiers within the last two months; this is moral?
5. Abbas’s advisor, the day before this horrendous attack upon a sleeping family said it was necessary to turn their weapons upon the main enemy-Israel.
6. A Fatah group claimed responsibility for this inhumane murder spree.
I can cite multiple scenes of immoral actions taken by not only the “other side” that flies in the face of the UN’s irrational claim that we in Israel are to blame. Yes, implicit within Serry’s audacious claim is the mantra of, “If Israel would only refrain from building, then peace would break out all over the territory.”

How can any caring, thinking human being arrive at the conclusion that the aforementioned acts of savagery can be described and classified as being an act of morality? For G-d’s sake, the despicable act of slashing a few month’s old infant, asleep in her crib, is precisely what it truly is, an act of barbaric human behavior.

What is equally disturbing is major Western media outlets choose, yes, it was a choice, to spin the event as an action taken in response to the existence of Israeli “settlements” thereby excusing, providing social and political cover for individuals who profess to be humanistic people.

You mean to tell me, you actually have the audacity to suggest that a thee month old innocent infant, by virtue of her geography and ethnicity was reason enough to perpetrate such an act of human degradation? Yet, this is precisely what one is meant to believe if you read their representation of the murders.

Let’s call this reporting what it is, let’s us take our anger, our rage and state the truth. The Western media buried the true nature of the event and choose to align it with the “settlement” issue-you know what, here is my reply” How dare you!!

Contrary to the UN’s improper and insensitive statement today, Abbas has intentionally chosen not to pursue peace. You know the history of the last 14 months. He instead tossed out another strategy to see if it would “fly”. It resonated with his Arab colleagues and even now with certain Western leaders: unilaterally call for statehood and it has gained traction. Why then speak as if he cared about negotiations? Call this what it is, a form of extortion and blackmail while lying to the Western leaders that he really would like to talk peace with the Israelis, but, well, you know, those Israelis refuse to give more land/territory and after all they keep building or want to build…

By the way, Abbas’ move is illegal according to international law. Of course, it is convenient to ignore this given the media and academic cover he is being afforded in the West. How shameful is this? Apparently there is no shame among those willing to de-legitimize Israel’s right to exist and to exist on its historical homeland. I know, I know, it really is not ours to begin with, is it my Islamic friends?

There is no motivation to resume talks, let us be quite honest, for a change. Look at the data; Abbas et al have ramped up the rhetoric to invalidate our very existence and where are our “international friends”? Ah, like junior high school students, they give way to the bullies of the middle East out of fear for possible results of standing up like ethical men and women and supporting our human values. The audacity is truly beyond the pale and you should be ashamed, really ashamed of your actions.

The Forgotten Legitimacy of Israel

2011-02-25T07:02:00.000-08:00

By Barry Shaw

Barry Shaw lives in Netanya, Israel. He relates that he is releasing a new book in April entitled "Israel Reclaiming the Narrative," explaining "Anyone active with supporting Israel, or frustrated with not having the answers to the "Hate Israel" campaigners must arm themselves with a copy of this book. It is a prosecution of the liars and hypocrites by exposing who they are, details their deceit, and highlights their hidden agenda."

Barry may be reached by email at netre@netvision.net.il.

In an era in which the main battlefield against Israel is the campaign to delegitimize the very existence of the Jewish state it is of vital importance to challenge the false narratives that are being thrown into the public discourse and gradually being accepted by governments and also, as a consequence, by a wider audience.

The narrative tells of a dispossessed Palestine whose rights have been usurped by colonial invaders who have conquered their land through the Zionist enterprise. They are, in is claimed, made to suffer by the imposition of a European Holocaust which has left them paying the price. Driven out of their land by Jewish interlopers the remnants have been occupied and oppressed by a brutal 'Nazi-like regime.

That, in a nutshell, is the Palestinian case that has resounded around the world. Magnified by its repetitive telling, it has gained ground in mainstream thinking. The Israeli response has been prevarication, ranging from reminders of biblical heritage to the opinion that Jewish Israel does not need to stake any claim for possessing its own land. The time has come to address and pronounce the legitimacy of Israel.

No country has a greater legitimacy, under international law, to exist than Israel. If Israel does not possess that legal right to sovereignty then no nation on earth can claim greater legitimacy than Israel. To fully understand this, one needs to fully understand the unfolding of modern history and the international resolutions that give Israel its full and exclusive right to sovereignty.

Current perceptions have been formed partially to defray a troublesome region of the Middle East that has seen nothing but war, terrorism, and upheavals for decades. Statements have been made and accepted, resolutions have been passed, without taking into consideration legal rulings that give clear status to disputed territories.

Central to the Israel-Palestinian issue is the matter of Jerusalem. Khaled Mashal, the Hamas representative in Damascus, said that "Jerusalem's fate will be settled by holy war." Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, said in Bethlehem in 2009 that East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine and that this is a red line that no Arab may cross. President Obama has declared that East Jerusalem must become the capital of Palestine and Jewish settlements there are illegitimate. The Arab League has said that all the territory up to the 1967 border must go a new Palestinian state. The United Nations has stated that all the territory is not Arab but Palestinian territory. Iran says that all of Palestine must be liberated. Hizbollah's Nasrallah has declared that Palestine is part of the Islamic nation and jihad is the only way to redeem it. All these statements are false in legal terms.

To say that the West Bank is occupied is correct. It was occupied by the British as part of their obligation as a Mandated power. It is today occupied by Israel as part of the Jewish territory legally bestowed upon it by international law. To fully understand the legal implications that have been swept under the rug by interested parties let me take you back in history and show you the unfolding of events.

If you go back to the maps of Jerusalem from Roman times, when the might of Rome defeated the Jewish kingdom, you will see the outline of the Old City of Jerusalem not dissimilar to today's contours. Examining maps and lithographs throughout the ages show a remarkably similar pattern. There was virtually no construction outside the ancient walls of Jerusalem for centuries. True Jerusalem is the Old City of Jerusalem.

For those that say that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (and this is an essential part of the Palestinian and Islamic narrative) not only defies Judeo-Christian history and heritage, it also defies concrete evidence to the contrary. One need not believe the findings of centuries of archeologists and historians to justify the claim of Jewish Jerusalem dating back to Roman times. Simply go to Rome and visit the triumphant Arch of Titus. There, carved into the stones, are scenes depicting the removal of the Jewish menorah, stolen from the Jewish Temple, being brought by Jewish slaves, defeated and exiled from their homeland, to Rome.

The prayer to return to Zion has resounded throughout many centuries, captured in liturgies and recited in prayers. "Next Year in Jerusalem" repeated year by year as a cornerstone of the Passover service in Jewish homes. The breaking of the glass at Jewish wedding ceremonies reminds the celebrating participants of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. All this longing to be delivered back to an ancient homeland proves and unbreakable bond, but it does not give legal legitimacy. This came later.

Modern Zionism began in the Nineteenth Century. Moshe Hess in 1862 insisted that Jews had to keep alive the hope of the rebirth of the Jewish people and the restoration of the Jewish state. The suffering of the Jewish people in Europe throughout the years highlighted their statelessness and lack of belonging in any of the European nations. Anti-Semitism attacked them even in places that should have appreciated their contribution to society. Things were little different in Arab cultures where Jews were kept in dhimmi status when they were not being victimized and persecuted. Such anti-Semitic attacks generated the secular Theodor Herzl to understand that Jews would not find an expression of self determination and freedom except in their own country. He wrote "Der Judenstaat" (The Jewish State) and became the first international public diplomat for the Jewish cause that became Zionism.

One needs to understand that the right to exist as a Jewish People in our National Home is not the problem of the Jews. It is the problem of the nations that should be ashamed of themselves for the despicable way they persecuted their Jews. Today, many of those nations, and other that did not exist themselves at that time, want to remove what belongs to us. It may be worth reminding them that their legitimacy is on shakier ground than that of Israel.

Herzl dies and Chaim Weitzman takes over the mantle of the Zionist cause. His work led to the famous Balfour Declaration which declared;
Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,‚

(Signed) Arthur James Balfour

This was a pledge from the British Government to support the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, given in 1917 at the time of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Those that say that the British did not have the right to give what was not theirs to give would be correct. The Balfour Declaration was not a legally binding document.

Everything turned around from a legal standpoint in 1919. The Paris Peace Conference at the Quai d'Orsay was the setting where all the claimants to territories held by the Ottomans could state their case before the principle Allied Powers. For six months different parties put their claims for parts of the post Ottoman territories. Concentrating on the Arab and Jewish claims, the Arabs were led by the Hashemite family, father and three sons. The Jewish claim was put by the Zionists led by Chaim Weitzman. Feisal met with Weitzman in Paris and they entered into an agreement. They agreed that the Jewish and Arab claims were national and not imperialist. The Arabs wanted a large contiguous Arab state. The division of land to be agreed was that the Jews would receive Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea and including what is today Jordan, and the Arabs would receive the Arab Peninsular and what is today Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq (Mesopotamia at that time).They wanted this large tract of territory so much that they were willing to support the Jewish claim in respect of Palestine. Feisal went so far as to write in a letter to Felix Frankfurter, President of the Zionist Organisation of America, on March 3, 1919,
"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper."

Both Feisal and Weitzman determined to work jointly for the mutual development of both the Arab and the Jewish states;

Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann

3 January, 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:

Articles:

Article I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Article III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

Article IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V
No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

Article VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Article VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

Article IX
Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen

Chaim Weizmann and Feisal Ibn-Hussein.

Feisal did make one reservation that his agreement was pending on the Arab independecne in other territories being honoured by the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs. More of this later.

The Allied Powers, representing the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, met to listen to all the claims to territory. It is important at this stage to point out that there was no Palestinian delegation. There was no Arab claim to Palestine. It was clear to the Jewish representatives that, given the hope that they would be awarded Palestine on which to re-establish the Jewish National Home, they did not have the funds, the infrastructure in place, the immediate manpower, to fully and immediately create a nation. They were aware that this venture needed to be nurtured and developed over time. Palestine had to be given the political, administrative, economic conditions to ensure the modern establishment of the Jewish National Home and ultimately render possible the creation of an "autonomous Commonwealth."

There was no decision taken in Paris. They decided to reconvene in San Remo, Italy, not to accept any new claimants but to decide on the applications received in Paris.

According to the minutes taken at the San Remo Conference at the Villa Devachan on April 25, 1920, it was agreed that;
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The wording of this resolution reflects accurately the text of the Balfour Declaration on 1917. This, in effect, converted the Balfour Declaration into a binding legal document. It was no longer the whim of a British Government with no rights but now incorporated into international law by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. There is no veracity to the notion that such a body has no right to initiate internationally binding laws. One only has to look at many other binding decrees by other Principle Allied Powers in other stages of recent history to see that such an instrument is, indeed, legally binding.

The Balfour Declaration was adopted at San Remo for the Mandated administration of Palestine. Borders were not fixed at San Remo but an order was given that historical cartographer, George Adam Smith, should delineate the boundaries according to the ancient biblical outlines. They were later used by General Allenby and David Lloyd George to define the territory of Palestine.

The Mandated areas of Syria and Mesopotamia were also approved at San Remo. It is also most significant to stress that Israel does not draw its legal existence solely out of the United Nations Partition Plan Resolution on 1947 but from the San Remo Resolution which led to the Treaty of Sevres and then confirmed and legally stamped at the League of Nations in 1922.
The clauses of the San Remo Declaration were inserted into the Treaty of Sevres four months later on August 20, 1920 which legally vested the administration of the various territories into Mandatory powers. It is important to note that no specific people or nation was defined with regard to the administration of the Mandated Syrian and Mesopotamian regions. Those areas only referred to "people of the area." It was only the Mandate of Palestine, in Article 2, that specifically noted that the territory was to be for the Establishment of the National Home of the Jewish People "as laid down in the preamble", and the development of self-governing institutions. This is highly significant. The preamble becomes a key component of international law;
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historic connection of the Jewish people within Palestine and to the grounds for re-constituting their national home in that country."

Were the legally granted territorial rights of the Jewish People honoured by the Prinicipal Allied Powers? No. Winston Churchill placated the Hashemites by carving a huge chunk out of the Mandated Palestine designated to become the new Jewish state and appended it to Emir Feisal to become Trans-Jordan.

Weitzman explained in 1947, "A postscript was also included in this treaty. This postscript relates to a reservation by King Feisal that he would carry out all the promises in this treaty if and when he would obtain his demands, namely, independence for the Arab countries. I submit that these requirements of King Feisal have at present been realized. The Arab countries are all independent, and therefore the condition on which depended the fulfillment of this treaty, has come into effect. Therefore, this treaty, to all intents and purposes, should today be a valid document."

The San Remo Declaration and the Treaty of Sevres were confirmed unanimously by the fifty one states at the League of Nations on July 24,1922. The unanimous declaration repeated the text of the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Sevres, namely;
"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

The Mandate for Palestine became international law. The right of legal ownership of Palestine, the right of sovereignty, was legally and invested in the Jewish people.

Article 2 of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate states;
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

Article 4 states;
"An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population of Palestine and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country."

An abbreviated addition to Article 4 states;
"The Zionist Organisation shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

Articles 5 and 6 are particularly important in the current circumstances. They clearly state;
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power."

"The Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

The Mandatory administration passed into the hands of the State of Israel and the restriction of not allowing any ceding or leasing of any territory to any foreign power could be defined as including a Palestinian Authority that had no existence at the time of the enacting of this international law and, therefore, could be construed as being a foreign power.

The second clause clearly gives legal rights for the Jews of Israel to establish settlements of all lands defined as Palestine, the national home of the Jewish people. It certainly contradicts all claims that Jewish settlement is illegal.

This, in itself, gives sufficient grounds to prove that Israel possesses exclusive sovereignty rights to the territory under international law, a law that has not been rescinded since. But there is more, much more, that strengthens Jewish legitimacy to all the territory that was known as Palestine.

With the violent objection of the Arabs to the Jewish progress towards statehood and self determination in Palestine and what was to become the Jewish State of Israel, The United Nations decided to impose a partition plan on the parties, thereby reducing the land legally granted under international law to the Jewish people. On November 29, 1947 the General Assembly of The United Nations passed Resolution 181 that would divide the territory of what was left of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Reluctantly Israel agreed to the unfavourable decision. The Arabs rejected the proposal. However, war broke out and the partition plan was never implemented by the Security Council. On March 5, 1948, the United Nations Security Council reached an impasse when it refused to pass a resolution which would have accepted the partition plan as a basis for Security Council action.

It is worth pointing out that for any United Nations Resolution to be enacted into law it must pass in to the Security Council and be voted on. Resolution 181 reached an empasse when it reached the Security Council on March 5, 1948. They refused to vote on the Resolution effectively making the partition proposal null and void. UN Resolution 181 therefore, has no relevance in international law despite all claims to the contrary. All statements denouncing Israel's "illegal" construction is incorrect. Similarly, all statements claiming that Palestinians have legal or sovereign rights to any of the territory are legally incorrect.

The rejection of UN Resolution 181, and its failure to progress in the Security Council, leaves the League of Nations 1922 law in effect to this day.

The Jewish people have never renounced their rights to Jerusalem. They have never formally abandoned their rights to title and sovereignty. The Jewish people have the legal right to live and remain in every part of the territory which was part of the Mandated territory of Palestine, now Israel. They have the right to give up what is legally theirs, but they cannot be forced out. Any other claim to legal title is fraudulent and has no standing in international law that can replace the existing Jewish claim. Nations may refuse to accept Israel's legitimate rights because of other political or vested interests but these defy Jewish justice and legitimacy. Neither is it possible to retroactively apply legal principles that remove prior standing in international law. The nations have reneged on the obligation they embraced at the 1922 League of Nations. Under the law of nations, under international law, Israel has a solid, valid, claim which ought to be honoured by the nations of the world today.

The international community, led by the anti-Israel hardliners, have taken Israel's historic rights and international legitimacy for self determination in their land and thrown it into the garbage bin of history as if it was irrelevant. They have replaced international law by ignoring it and replacing it with a contrary narrative. They have promoted this invention for decades and have persuaded a naive Western world and a broader international community to invest billions of dollars into creating a fiction that has become a political nightmare. They have pressured a pliant Israel into making high risk concessions that expose its very existence to jeopardy.

Israeli governments, for their sins, have failed to state the legal justifications for its total sovereignty. It has failed to prosecute the lie of Palestinian rights to the land. They don't have any. It's as simple as that. By not doing so they have opened themselves up to the charge that Israeli actions, development, construction, expansion, population of the land is illegal. This claim needs to be, must be, refuted vigorously. To reclaim legitimacy is to reclaim the narrative. Reclaiming the narrative is to reclaim justice to Israel and expose the lies and hypocrisy that have fooled the world for decades.

It is quite appalling that successive Israeli governments have failed to impose Israel's clear legal rights and sovereignty. Nor have they demanded that these rights be fully recognized as a precondition for any negotiations with regard to territory. It is only by international acknowledgement of Israel's legal rights to sovereignty and to exist as the recognized Jewish State of Israel, including by Palestinian Arab representatives, that any pragmatic progress be made in any future peace talks.

It is the rejection of this legal fact that has kept the region, and the world, in turmoil for decades and threatens to keep it there for decades to come.

If Egypt becomes real democracy, it can keep Sinai

2011-02-25T06:49:00.000-08:00

Ed Berns

This article by Ed Berns was published as an op-ed in The New Haven Register on February 22, 2011. It is posted here with the permission of the author.

There is a cartoon making the rounds about the democratization of Egypt. It poses the question: If Egypt breaks the peace
agreement with Israel, does Israel get back Sinai.?

This raises an interesting point: Israel has given much in its quest for peace with its neighbors, the Sinai Peninsula included, and it is entitled to the benefit of its bargain.

Under Hosni Mubarak's rule, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt. An autocratic, Mubarak-led Egypt might have been better for Israel than the new Egypt will be. Realistically, Israel's relations with its Arab neighbors reflect a balance between those who tolerate the Jewish state and those who believe its existence remains the ultimate Arab humiliation. The great unknown is where a revamped Egypt will fall on that scale.

The Sinai is emblematic of the risks Israel has proven it is prepared to take for lasting peace. Captured from Egypt during the 1967 Six Day War, the 26,000-square-mile peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the peace treaty with Israel.

The exchange was an enormous gamble that is taken for granted today. By giving up land that represented a huge defensive buffer against the strongest of the Arab armies, Israel also displaced its citizens and returned oil fields that would have provided it energy independence.

The Sinai Peninsula isn't the only land Israel has exchanged for peace. There is also Gaza.

Gaza also was captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Within two weeks of cessation of hostilities, Israel offered to exchange all the land it captured for peace with its Arab neighbors. The Arab response was the notorious "three nos" of the Khartoum Resolution: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.

Having conquered Gaza, Israel was stuck with it. Golda Meir, Israel's prime minister then, expressed national frustration by asking: "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."

In 2005, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Israel pulled out of Gaza, uprooting more than 8,500 of its citizens. Even the Jewish cemeteries were removed.

Following internecine fighting, the Palestinian Authority was overthrown by the popularly elected Hamas, an avowed enemy of Israel and designated as terrorist by the United States.

What did Israel get for its transfer of Gaza? From 2005 through 2008, more than 8,600 rockets were fired indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel from Gaza. Despite countless warnings and with no alternative, Israel reluctantly sent its army into Gaza to stem the attacks. Ultimately, there was a drastic reduction of the attacks.

Yet, in an impressive feat of reverse engineering that has proven as frustrating to refute as trying to nail Jell-O, Israel's defense of its citizens has been intentionally mischaracterized by anti-Israel factions as evidence of Israeli oppression of Gaza .

Last year, Robert L. Bernstein - founder of Human Rights Watch, which is frequently critical of Israel - gave a lecture at the University of Nebraska that went far to set the record straight. He took to task Human Rights Watch and similar organizations for their treatment of Israel compared to other countries in the Middle East. "If you talk about freedom of speech, the rights of women, an open education and freedom of religion, there is only one state in the Middle East concerned with those issues: Israel," he said.

Israel represents the role model for which millions of democracy-seeking citizens of Arab nations, most recently Egypt, dream.

As demonstrated by the advent of rule by mullahs in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, change in the Middle East seldom bodes well for Israel. If history is a guide, Egypt's transition to a democracy is far from a sure thing.

Still, as Sallai Meridor, Israel's former ambassador to the United States recently commented in The Washington Post, if a real democracy, committed to the values of freedom and peace, were to emerge, Israelis would overwhelmingly support it.

And, Egypt could keep Sinai.

Edward J. Berns is chairman of the Israel Affairs Committee of Temple Beth Sholom in Hamden. He may be reached by email at redberns@sbcglobal.net.