This letter was published in the Connecticut Jewish Ledger April 16, 2010.
Mayor Ed Koch is right ("All the King's Horses and All the King's Men" by Ed Koch, April 2, 2010). Barack Hussein Obama's anti-Israel hostility is clear. First, Obama fails to take effective action against Iran's nuclear threat, instead appeasing Iran and pressuring Israel not to attack that threat. He thus places Israel in mortal peril.
Second, he seized on an Israeli "gaffe" to condemn publicly and humiliate Israel for simply building in her eastern, historic and Jewish part of her capital, while failing to condemn the Palestinian Arab Authority for honoring an Arab terrorist who had killed at least 37 persons, including an American and 13 children. At the same time Obama ignored Israel's prior sacrifices for peace, which cost her 1000 killed, over 4000 wounded and maimed, and unremitting rocket attacks.
Third, he humiliated Israel's leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, at the White House, by barring any public ceremony, instead issuing ultimatums such as ending building in eastern Jerusalem and withdrawing Israeli forces to positions held in September, 2000, prior to the second Arab terror onslaught - without any regard to Israel's legitimate security interests. As Washington Post correspondent Jackson Diehl stated, "Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship...."
As a result, Obama has stalled Israel-Arab negotiations because Palestinian Arabs believe they need not make concessions because "Obama will force them all from Israel."
As a Jerusalem Post commentator has stated, "American Jews face a president who radiates hostility towards Israel. Will they have the courage to stand up."
Daniel R. Schaefer
Hartford
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What the US Should and Shouldn't Do in the Middle East
In the inaugural issue of the Jewish Review of Books, Shlomo Avineri wrote an interesting review, entitled "What the US Can and Can't Do in the Middle East," of the recent book "Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East" by Dennis Ross and David Makovsky.
Not yet having read the book itself, I can't yet tell where the authors' ideas end and the reviewer's positions begin, but it's clear the book makes an important contribution towards debunking the fantasies of the mis-named "realists" that all would be well in the Middle East if America would just force Israel to give in to all Arab demands and self-destruct.
On the other hand, too much credit is given to America for some past actions which, contrary to the assertions in the review, were harmful rather than helpful.
Example 1: The United States is given credit for planting the seeds for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty by forcing Israel to stop fighting in 1973 before completely defeating Egypt.
Rather than helping, this was just one more in a serious of moves which have taught the Arabs we (America) will make sure they won't have to pay much of a price for aggression, that we'll always save them.
Similarly, credit is given to Jimmy Carter for helping to seal the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, when it likely would have been signed earlier and resulted in a less-cold peace had Carter not kept pressuring Sadat to stick to all his demands while pressuring Begin to make concession after concession.
Similarly, credit is given to President Clinton for bringing Rabin and Arafat to Washington for the famous handshake, but it was the pressure Clinton exerted for the premature ceremony which virtually ensured the abject failure that Oslo became. Most critically, he let Arafat weasel out of the commitment to amend the PLO Charter prior to the ceremony, setting the stage for Arafat weaseling out of virtually every commitment he made and doing so without any real penalty from us.
In the review, Bush I is also given credit for preventing Israel from defending itself from the Scuds launched by Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.
This was both morally indefensible and a strategic blunder harming both America and Israel. We gave in to blackmail by the very people we were defending, demonstrating a weakness, despite our military strength, that decreased respect for America.
It also began the counterproductive era of Israeli restraint, which continues to this day, encouraging Arab terrorism as well as intransigence. This was another important factor in the failure of Oslo and already has cost thousands of lives, both Israeli and Arab.
In another one of the many ironies in the Middle East, many statements made are often true, but in a way different from that intended. Recently, David Axelrod said that part of friendship involves stating yourself bluntly. Unfortunately, that message was directed at Israel, when it is to the Arabs that America needs to speak bluntly and finally send the message that their aggression, rejectionism and intransigence will no longer be accommodated with more and more pressure for more and more Israeli concessions.
That is a necessary ingredient in truly abandoning America's myths and illusions and "finding a new direction for America in the Middle East."
Not yet having read the book itself, I can't yet tell where the authors' ideas end and the reviewer's positions begin, but it's clear the book makes an important contribution towards debunking the fantasies of the mis-named "realists" that all would be well in the Middle East if America would just force Israel to give in to all Arab demands and self-destruct.
On the other hand, too much credit is given to America for some past actions which, contrary to the assertions in the review, were harmful rather than helpful.
Example 1: The United States is given credit for planting the seeds for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty by forcing Israel to stop fighting in 1973 before completely defeating Egypt.
Rather than helping, this was just one more in a serious of moves which have taught the Arabs we (America) will make sure they won't have to pay much of a price for aggression, that we'll always save them.
Similarly, credit is given to Jimmy Carter for helping to seal the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, when it likely would have been signed earlier and resulted in a less-cold peace had Carter not kept pressuring Sadat to stick to all his demands while pressuring Begin to make concession after concession.
Similarly, credit is given to President Clinton for bringing Rabin and Arafat to Washington for the famous handshake, but it was the pressure Clinton exerted for the premature ceremony which virtually ensured the abject failure that Oslo became. Most critically, he let Arafat weasel out of the commitment to amend the PLO Charter prior to the ceremony, setting the stage for Arafat weaseling out of virtually every commitment he made and doing so without any real penalty from us.
In the review, Bush I is also given credit for preventing Israel from defending itself from the Scuds launched by Iraq under Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.
This was both morally indefensible and a strategic blunder harming both America and Israel. We gave in to blackmail by the very people we were defending, demonstrating a weakness, despite our military strength, that decreased respect for America.
It also began the counterproductive era of Israeli restraint, which continues to this day, encouraging Arab terrorism as well as intransigence. This was another important factor in the failure of Oslo and already has cost thousands of lives, both Israeli and Arab.
In another one of the many ironies in the Middle East, many statements made are often true, but in a way different from that intended. Recently, David Axelrod said that part of friendship involves stating yourself bluntly. Unfortunately, that message was directed at Israel, when it is to the Arabs that America needs to speak bluntly and finally send the message that their aggression, rejectionism and intransigence will no longer be accommodated with more and more pressure for more and more Israeli concessions.
That is a necessary ingredient in truly abandoning America's myths and illusions and "finding a new direction for America in the Middle East."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Hartford Courant Refuses to Correct Errors and Even Refuses to Publish Letter About Them
We have previously blogged about an error-filled commentary, Amid Repression, Provocations Of Palestinians, It's Business As Usual by Bessy Reyna published March 21 in The Hartford Courant: Crossing the Line: Journalistic Irresponsibility at The Hartford Courant and Hartford Courant Again Publishes and Refuses to Correct Blatant Errors.
The latter included an email from The Courant's Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach concluding "We would welcome a letter from you in response to Ms. Reyna's piece that offers your perspective on the issues she raises," albeit with the qualification that it had to keep within 200 words even though a concise listing of just some of Reyna's factual errors would take far more than 200 words.
I took Mr. Pach up on his "invitation," even giving The Courant a choice of two different letters, but he apparently wasn't very sincere: The Courant has made it clear it will not publish letters about the blatant factual errors in Reyna's screed unless they pretend facts are merely opinions.
In a conference call with no fewer than three Courant Editors (Editorial Page Editor Carolyn Lumsden, Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach and Letters Editor Lewis Bresee), The Courant's editors used Orwellian logic to insist there were no errors in Reyna's piece and they would not publish a letter that stated there were.
One can almost understand The Courant's editors can hear incorrect terminology, such as "East Jerusalem," so many times they start to believe it's not incorrect. As PRIMER quotes Joseph Goebbels, "A huge lie repeated often enough is accepted as truth.
However, The Courant editors went beyond the absurd in defending Reyna's falsely describing the planned addition of homes within the existing neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo as being a "new settlement." He even referred to Ramat Shlomo itself as a "new settlement," although Ramat Shlomo was built back in 1996 and, with about 20,000 residents, hardly conjures up images of a "settlement."
Of course, The Courant editors are entitled to their own biases and misconceptions. What is of concern to those who believe newspapers serve a vital role in a democracy is the same editors who repeatedly publish hateful, error-filled articles by Bessy Reyna not only refuse to publish their own corrections but refuse to publish critical letters unless they're rewritten as to lose all meaning.
In this particular case, they even rejected the suggestion of the writer that they include their own Editor's Note expressing their opinion about the content of the letter.
One last note before the texts of the rejected letters: Reyna's columns contained many other factual errors in addition to the those contained in the one phrase discussed in the letter. Some of those were mentioned in an earlier correspondence with The Courant, but given the attitude of the editors it seemed pointless to again point them out over the telephone.
The rejected letters:
Dear Editor:
It's disturbing that the Hartford Courant on March 21 not only published yet another error-filled commentary by Bessy Reyna but has refused to issue corrections for any of those errors, even though such corrections are called for by both the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
It's further disturbing that the Courant refused to allow sufficient space for a letter to adequately explain the errors, restricting such a letter to its standard 200 word limit, woefully insufficient for even a concise listing of all the errors.
Consider one, typically error-filled phrase in Reyna's commentary: "… the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
There is no place named "East Jerusalem" and the constructions will be in northern, not even eastern, Jerusalem.
It won't be a new "settlement." Israel hasn't even built any new "settlements" since the start of the Oslo Process in 1993.
A more substantial explanation of this phrase and myriad other errors, of fact and omission, misrepresentations and distortions is unfortunately not available through The Courant but may be found at.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut
The following is an alternate if you don't want to publish the greatly preferred letter above.
Dear Editor:
The commentary by Bessy Reyna published by The Hartford Courant on March 21 contained numerous factual errors, errors of omission, distortions and misrepresentations.
Because of The Courant's strict 200 word limit on letters, I only have space to incompletely analyze one phrase, but a more substantial analysis my be viewed on the PRIMER website at.
Reyna misleadingly refers to: " … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
For one thing, there is no place named "East Jerusalem." The construction won't even be in eastern Jerusalem. It will be in northern Jerusalem, in an area that might reasonably be called northwestern Jerusalem, being directly north of the heart of the area meant when people refer to west Jerusalem.
It's also false to refer to the plans as being for a new "settlement." The plans are simply for additional apartments in the long established neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which already contains about 20,000 residents. Indeed, Israel hasn't built any new "settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo Process, way back in 1993.
It's unfortunate The Courant published such a misleading commentary, filled with so many errors, distortions and misrepresentations.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut
The latter included an email from The Courant's Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach concluding "We would welcome a letter from you in response to Ms. Reyna's piece that offers your perspective on the issues she raises," albeit with the qualification that it had to keep within 200 words even though a concise listing of just some of Reyna's factual errors would take far more than 200 words.
I took Mr. Pach up on his "invitation," even giving The Courant a choice of two different letters, but he apparently wasn't very sincere: The Courant has made it clear it will not publish letters about the blatant factual errors in Reyna's screed unless they pretend facts are merely opinions.
In a conference call with no fewer than three Courant Editors (Editorial Page Editor Carolyn Lumsden, Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach and Letters Editor Lewis Bresee), The Courant's editors used Orwellian logic to insist there were no errors in Reyna's piece and they would not publish a letter that stated there were.
One can almost understand The Courant's editors can hear incorrect terminology, such as "East Jerusalem," so many times they start to believe it's not incorrect. As PRIMER quotes Joseph Goebbels, "A huge lie repeated often enough is accepted as truth.
However, The Courant editors went beyond the absurd in defending Reyna's falsely describing the planned addition of homes within the existing neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo as being a "new settlement." He even referred to Ramat Shlomo itself as a "new settlement," although Ramat Shlomo was built back in 1996 and, with about 20,000 residents, hardly conjures up images of a "settlement."
Of course, The Courant editors are entitled to their own biases and misconceptions. What is of concern to those who believe newspapers serve a vital role in a democracy is the same editors who repeatedly publish hateful, error-filled articles by Bessy Reyna not only refuse to publish their own corrections but refuse to publish critical letters unless they're rewritten as to lose all meaning.
In this particular case, they even rejected the suggestion of the writer that they include their own Editor's Note expressing their opinion about the content of the letter.
One last note before the texts of the rejected letters: Reyna's columns contained many other factual errors in addition to the those contained in the one phrase discussed in the letter. Some of those were mentioned in an earlier correspondence with The Courant, but given the attitude of the editors it seemed pointless to again point them out over the telephone.
The rejected letters:
Dear Editor:
It's disturbing that the Hartford Courant on March 21 not only published yet another error-filled commentary by Bessy Reyna but has refused to issue corrections for any of those errors, even though such corrections are called for by both the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
It's further disturbing that the Courant refused to allow sufficient space for a letter to adequately explain the errors, restricting such a letter to its standard 200 word limit, woefully insufficient for even a concise listing of all the errors.
Consider one, typically error-filled phrase in Reyna's commentary: "… the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
There is no place named "East Jerusalem" and the constructions will be in northern, not even eastern, Jerusalem.
It won't be a new "settlement." Israel hasn't even built any new "settlements" since the start of the Oslo Process in 1993.
A more substantial explanation of this phrase and myriad other errors, of fact and omission, misrepresentations and distortions is unfortunately not available through The Courant but may be found at
Sincerely,
Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut
The following is an alternate if you don't want to publish the greatly preferred letter above.
Dear Editor:
The commentary by Bessy Reyna published by The Hartford Courant on March 21 contained numerous factual errors, errors of omission, distortions and misrepresentations.
Because of The Courant's strict 200 word limit on letters, I only have space to incompletely analyze one phrase, but a more substantial analysis my be viewed on the PRIMER website at
Reyna misleadingly refers to: " … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
For one thing, there is no place named "East Jerusalem." The construction won't even be in eastern Jerusalem. It will be in northern Jerusalem, in an area that might reasonably be called northwestern Jerusalem, being directly north of the heart of the area meant when people refer to west Jerusalem.
It's also false to refer to the plans as being for a new "settlement." The plans are simply for additional apartments in the long established neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which already contains about 20,000 residents. Indeed, Israel hasn't built any new "settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo Process, way back in 1993.
It's unfortunate The Courant published such a misleading commentary, filled with so many errors, distortions and misrepresentations.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein
President, PRIMER-Connecticut
Monday, April 5, 2010
Article Misstated Latest Developments In The Middle East
This letter was published Monday, April 5 in the Waterbury Republican-American. Unfortunately, he title didn't accurately reflect the contents.
It's a sad commentary when the continued reluctance of Israel's Arab neighbors to make peace is considered news ("Arab leaders back peace efforts," March 29).
The Arab League rejected pressure from Syria and Libya to with draw support for indirect talks between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel, and to "resume armed resistance." Apparently, the terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza, including the rocket that killed an innocent worker in Israel on March 18, aren't considered "armed resistance."
Those indirect talks, which the supposedly moderate leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Abu Mazen, still refuses, would be a step backward to the pre-Oslo situation when the Palestinian Arabs refused to talk directly to Israel. The article also falsely refers to Arab "opposition to Israeli plans for new Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem."
The Israeli government hasn't built new "settlements" anywhere in the disputed territories or Jerusalem since the start of the failed Oslo Process.
The writer was inaccurately refer ring to plans for additional housing in Ramat Shlomo, an existing Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem that, far from being a "settlement," is an established community larger than any of Waterbury's suburbs, and conceded even by the Palestinian Arab leadership as destined to remain within Israel under any conceivable agreement.
Alan Stein
Waterbury
The writer is president of PRIMER-Connecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting; www.primerct.org).
It's a sad commentary when the continued reluctance of Israel's Arab neighbors to make peace is considered news ("Arab leaders back peace efforts," March 29).
The Arab League rejected pressure from Syria and Libya to with draw support for indirect talks between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel, and to "resume armed resistance." Apparently, the terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza, including the rocket that killed an innocent worker in Israel on March 18, aren't considered "armed resistance."
Those indirect talks, which the supposedly moderate leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Abu Mazen, still refuses, would be a step backward to the pre-Oslo situation when the Palestinian Arabs refused to talk directly to Israel. The article also falsely refers to Arab "opposition to Israeli plans for new Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem."
The Israeli government hasn't built new "settlements" anywhere in the disputed territories or Jerusalem since the start of the failed Oslo Process.
The writer was inaccurately refer ring to plans for additional housing in Ramat Shlomo, an existing Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem that, far from being a "settlement," is an established community larger than any of Waterbury's suburbs, and conceded even by the Palestinian Arab leadership as destined to remain within Israel under any conceivable agreement.
Alan Stein
Waterbury
The writer is president of PRIMER-Connecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting; www.primerct.org).
Sunday, April 4, 2010
To advance peace, Obama should encourage construction
Published in the Connecticut Jewish Ledger March 31, 2010.
In the last issue of The Ledger, Harry Schwartz and Miriam Kurland both wrote very similar, very misguided letters, both taken in large measure from the web site of Americans for Peace Now.
There is one sentence in the "AIPAC doesn't speak for me" page on the Peace Now web site at <peacenow.org/entries/ aipac_doesnt_speak_for_me> included verbatim in Kurland's letter, with which I agree. APN says: "We know that peace for Israel is more important than the expansion of settlements."
Unfair as it would be, acceding to the Arab demands that Judea and Samaria join Gaza in being judenrein would be worth the price if it really would bring peace. Unfortunately, the reality is just the opposite.
President Obama's fixation on what are misleadingly maligned as "settlements" has already encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to waste another year. His apparently deliberate crisis-creation over a routine announcement about building ordinary apartments in Ramat Shlomo, inaccurately referred to by Kurland as being in "East Jerusalem" and by Schwartz as being in "Arab East Jerusalem," neither of which exists, led to Abbas reneging even on his agreement to conduct "proximity talks," which themselves would have been a step backwards two decades.
Our current president has accomplished something I had previously thought almost impossible: he has outdone his predecessors in rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for obstructing peace. Now, more than ever, they are learning that promoting violence and rejecting even dialog pays.
A more productive policy would be to encourage construction by Israel in the disputed territories while sending a clear message to the Palestinian Arabs that, rather than being rewarded for rejecting peace, the longer they delay the less territory with which they will ultimately wind up.
Whereas among the Arabs, the major disagreement between the extremists and the so-called "moderates" is whether pretending to be interested in peace is a useful tactic, among Israel and its supporters the major disagreement is over what strategy is most likely to induce the Arabs to finally make peace. Decades of unreciprocated concessions by Israel, as still advocated by APN, have failed disastrously. A more balanced approach is also unlikely to succeed in the near future, but seems a better bet than the failed and counterproductive approach of President Obama and APN.
Alan Stein
Waterbury
In the last issue of The Ledger, Harry Schwartz and Miriam Kurland both wrote very similar, very misguided letters, both taken in large measure from the web site of Americans for Peace Now.
There is one sentence in the "AIPAC doesn't speak for me" page on the Peace Now web site at <peacenow.org/entries/ aipac_doesnt_speak_for_me> included verbatim in Kurland's letter, with which I agree. APN says: "We know that peace for Israel is more important than the expansion of settlements."
Unfair as it would be, acceding to the Arab demands that Judea and Samaria join Gaza in being judenrein would be worth the price if it really would bring peace. Unfortunately, the reality is just the opposite.
President Obama's fixation on what are misleadingly maligned as "settlements" has already encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to waste another year. His apparently deliberate crisis-creation over a routine announcement about building ordinary apartments in Ramat Shlomo, inaccurately referred to by Kurland as being in "East Jerusalem" and by Schwartz as being in "Arab East Jerusalem," neither of which exists, led to Abbas reneging even on his agreement to conduct "proximity talks," which themselves would have been a step backwards two decades.
Our current president has accomplished something I had previously thought almost impossible: he has outdone his predecessors in rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for obstructing peace. Now, more than ever, they are learning that promoting violence and rejecting even dialog pays.
A more productive policy would be to encourage construction by Israel in the disputed territories while sending a clear message to the Palestinian Arabs that, rather than being rewarded for rejecting peace, the longer they delay the less territory with which they will ultimately wind up.
Whereas among the Arabs, the major disagreement between the extremists and the so-called "moderates" is whether pretending to be interested in peace is a useful tactic, among Israel and its supporters the major disagreement is over what strategy is most likely to induce the Arabs to finally make peace. Decades of unreciprocated concessions by Israel, as still advocated by APN, have failed disastrously. A more balanced approach is also unlikely to succeed in the near future, but seems a better bet than the failed and counterproductive approach of President Obama and APN.
Alan Stein
Waterbury
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Hartford Courant Again Publishes and Refuses to Correct Blatant Errors
The Hartford Courant has a history of publishing columns by Bessy Reyna which are not only heavily-biased against Israel (which is permissible in an opinion piece), but which are filled with blatant errors and misrepresentations (which is not permissible even in an opinion piece).
In the past, PRIMER has pointed this out to The Courant, which has always refused to issue corrections despite its ethical obligation to do so. It has also offered to act as a resource so The Courant could find errors before publication, but The Courant has never availed itself of PRIMER's offer.
On March 21, The Hartford Courant published yet another commentary by Bessy Reyna, filled with errors of commission and omission, misrepresentations and distortions, entitled Amid Repression, Provocations of Palestinians, It's Business As Usual.
PRIMER quickly sent a message to the editorial page editor of The Courant, listing some of the blatant factual errors and requesting corrections be issued. Such corrections are mandated both by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
The Courant not only refused to issue any corrections, but also told PRIMER it would not publish a letter longer than 200 words, even though a concise, partial listing of errors, without even giving context, took 225 words.
A letter is being sent to the letters editor of The Hartford Courant. It, of course, addresses only a miniscule portion of the errors and misrepresentations in Reyna's commentary, not to mention the unwillingness of The Courant to issue corrections. The letter is not included here.
The following is the text of the exchange of emails between PRIMER President Alan Stein, Courant Editorial Page Editor Carolyn Lumsden and Courant Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach. Portions of some of the messages quoted earlier messages; for the sake of clarity and brevity, those portions are replaced by ellipses (…).
I was disappointed to see yet another Bessy Reyna commentary about Israel published, the second of which I'm aware since our 2008 meeting at which we were told she had been instructed to stop writing on that subject.
Besides her expected extreme bias and sins of omission which go beyond any responsible commentary, Reyna again included several blatant factual errors. On behalf of PRIMER-Connecticut and in line with the responsibility of newspapers when factual errors are published, I request that corrections be issued.
Among the factual errors:
•" … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
The plans are not for a "new settlement." They are for additions to an existing community. (The Israeli government hasn't approved any "new settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo process.)
There also is no entity by the name of "East Jerusalem," despite the widespread, but incorrect use of that term. Ramat Shlomo is not even in the eastern portion of Jerusalem; it's actually in northwest Jerusalem.
It's also highly questionable to refer to the area as occupied, since it isn't even in the portion of Jerusalem that had been occupied by Jordan but it's in what had been a "no man's land" between the Israeli portion and the portion occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967.
•" … prompted by Israel's decision to name the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron- a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century - and the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah in Bethlehem as Jewish heritage sites, thus limiting Muslims' access to their own mosques."
Including these sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites (which they clearly are) in no way limits the access of Muslims. Indeed, the improvements planned will actually increase the accessibility for Muslims. (One might consider the latter assertion as a matter of opinion, but Reyna's statement was asserted as fact and is clearly false.)
It's also false to refer to the first as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century," since it is indisputable that there was no "Palestinian people" at that time.
What Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Ibrahimi Mosque" is the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It has had some significance to Muslims, but that is predated by millennia by the holiness to Jews, something Reyna completely omits.
Similarly, what Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah" is actually Rachel's Tomb, similarly revered by Jews long before Islam arose.
These omissions may not technically be factual errors, but are certainly misleading distortions which qualify as egregious violations of journalistic responsibility.
•…"The peaceful demonstrations which have resulted as a reaction to the taking of these mosques …"
The demonstrations were far from peaceful. Some of them involved throwing stones at people trying to worship at the Western Wall. (This affected me personally, since I happened to be in Jerusalem at the time, was planning to visit the Western Wall and changed those plans primarily because of the violent demonstrations.)
To refer to "the taking of these mosques" is also totally false; nothing has been taken.
•"Known as the Goldstone Report, it concluded that there was strong evidence confirming that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza from Dec. 27, 2008, to Jan. 17, 2009."
This is also false and contradicted by the words of the author of the report. Judge Goldstone himself has stated "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven."
One can reasonably question the wisdom of certain Israeli actions, but like Reyna's previously commentaries on the Arab war against the existence of the only Jewish state in the world, this column was venomous, goes far beyond the line of reasonable criticism, contains unacceptable distortions resulting from what can only be inferred to be the deliberate omission of highly relevant facts and contains blatant factual errors.
Again, on behalf of PRIMER, I request The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors and in the future refrain from staining its pages by publishing additional commentaries which so blatantly cross the line separating legitimate criticism from hateful screeds.
Dear Mr. Stein: Thank you for your thoughtful email. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I had told Bessy Reyna to stop writing entirely about Israel. I had asked her to write about topics closer to home. Her Sunday op-ed had the kind of hometown angles that do localize an international topic.
Peter Pach researched Bessy's article thoroughly. I understand and appreciate that you disagree with much of it. We strive for a lively exchange of opinion. We've had many letters on both Bessy's op-ed and Mr. Fuchs'. You might want to consider that avenue as well.
As always, we appreciate your writing us.
I guess I, along with the others at that meeting, had incorrectly inferred her being told to write on topics closer to home meant she had been told to not write on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
…
Letters in response, along with other columns, are indeed an appropriate avenue for an exchange of opinion, but that is not what my previous message was about. Indeed, I barely mentioned the opinions with which I disagree.
My previous message was primarily about blatant factual errors, of which I listed at least four. (The actual number depends on how one counts multiple factual errors in the same sentence.)
My interpretation of the "Be Accountable" portion of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, where it says "Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each otther" and "Journalists should: ... Admit mistakes and correct them promptly" as well as the "Truth and Accuracy" portion of the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, where it says "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" is that factual errors such as those I pointed out should be officially corrected by the newspaper itself.
I thus repeat the request I made in my earlier message, that "The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors."
I would also recommend that if in the future there are any questions about factual accuracy, knowledgeable persons be consulted. I am certainly willing to assist. I think it is certainly preferable to catch errors prior to publication.
…
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to reading appropriate corrections in The Courant.
I will also, in a separate email, submit my own column for your consideration. Although I am sure Ms. Reyna would disagree with my opinions, I'm confident she won't find any factual errors.
Dear Mr. Stein,
Carolyn Lumsden has passed your e-mails concerning the piece written by Bessy Reyna along to me for review. Of course, I am familiar with your long involvement with the contentious politics in the Middle East and read your concerns about the piece closely.
Although you take issue with her on a number of statements, these appear to be areas that revolve around point of view rather than settled fact and not matters for a correction. The location of the proposed building of 1,600 housing units, for example, is widely reported to be in East Jerusalem, a reference used by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, publications in Israel and many others. Some say it is in northern or northeastern Jerusalem. You are the only source I have found that says the proposed building is in northwest Jerusalem. Maps I have consulted show the area to be north and to the east of the city’s midpoint. But, as you know, this debate goes beyond geography.
We would welcome a letter from you in response to Ms. Reyna’s piece that offers your perspective on the issues she raises.
…
That is incorrect.
There are certainly several additional statements which one might consider revolving around a "point of view," but I specifically mentioned at least four clear factual errors.
1. While one might argue over whether Ramat Shlomo is in northern or northwestern Jerusalem (it is almost directly north of the "Golden Triangle" (bounded by King George, Yafo and Ben Yehuda, considered the center of western Jerusalem), there is no such place as "East Jerusalem." That some others also incorrectly refer to a nonexistent entity does not change that fact.
2. The housing being planned is not a new settlement.
3. Including Jewish heritage sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites doesn't limit the access of Muslims. (If Reyna asserted that Muslims feared that Israel might, at some point in the future, restrict their access that would be an opinion; what she stated was stated as fact and is simply false.)
4. The Tomb of the Patriarchs could not possibly have been "a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century" since there were no Palestinians (in the sense obviously meant) until relatively recently. (I will concede one could argue that by the seventh century the Romans had renamed the area and the fact that there were then Jews worshipping there - as they and their forefathers had for millenia - made it a "Palestinian place of worship" in a geographic sense. If so, that's clearly not the impression Reyna sought to create and thus itself merits an clarification by The Courant.)
I again request that The Courant observe the journalistic standards I previously cited and issue corrections of these clear, factual errors.
If you decline, then I request you at least give me sufficient space to adequately respond in a letter, recognizing even the very brief listing of the errors given above took about 225 words, already above your usual limit of 200 words for letters, without even including the context or any reference to the myriad misrepresentations and errors of omission, such as failing to even mention the generally recognized names for the sites and the way their importance to Jews predates Islam by millenia.
Dear Mr. Stein,
You are welcome to write a letter within the usual word limit in regard to Bessy Reyna’s column. We have already printed three letters concerning the column including one that challenged her view of the religious shrines that have been listed as Jewish heritage sites. You might want to emphasize other points not mentioned in that letter but that would be up to you.
The following are brief comments produced by PRIMER after Reyna's commentary was published.
Reyna falsely refers to Israel's building plans as being for a "new settlement." The apartments being planned are for an existing Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, Ramat Shlomo, which already has about 20,000 people living in it.
Reyna also refers to it as being in "occupied East Jerusalem." Ramat Shlomo is actually in northwest Jerusalem, as is much of what's so often referred to as "East Jerusalem." It also is not in an area that had been previously occupied by Jordan, being in what had been a no-man's land between Israel and territory occupied by Jordan.
Reyna falsely refers to the "Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron" as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century. There were no "Palestinians" in the seventh century, as the Palestinian identity has only recently been forged as a reaction to the reestablishment of Israel. It has been a place of worship for Muslims, but Reyna omits the fact that the Machpelah Cave, the burial place of the Jewish patriarchs, was holy to the Jews millenia before the onset of Islam and doesn't even refer to its Jewish name.
Her reference to Rachel's Tomb, which she refers to as the "Mosque of Biai ibn Rabah," is similarly misleading.
Meanwhile, her assertion that Israel's naming them Jewish heritage sites would limit Muslis' access is simply false. (As is typical, this false anti-Israel accusation reflects the reality of what the Arabs are trying to do to the Jews.)
One might ask whether Reyna denies that the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb are holy to the Jewish people?
In the past, PRIMER has pointed this out to The Courant, which has always refused to issue corrections despite its ethical obligation to do so. It has also offered to act as a resource so The Courant could find errors before publication, but The Courant has never availed itself of PRIMER's offer.
On March 21, The Hartford Courant published yet another commentary by Bessy Reyna, filled with errors of commission and omission, misrepresentations and distortions, entitled Amid Repression, Provocations of Palestinians, It's Business As Usual.
PRIMER quickly sent a message to the editorial page editor of The Courant, listing some of the blatant factual errors and requesting corrections be issued. Such corrections are mandated both by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
The Courant not only refused to issue any corrections, but also told PRIMER it would not publish a letter longer than 200 words, even though a concise, partial listing of errors, without even giving context, took 225 words.
A letter is being sent to the letters editor of The Hartford Courant. It, of course, addresses only a miniscule portion of the errors and misrepresentations in Reyna's commentary, not to mention the unwillingness of The Courant to issue corrections. The letter is not included here.
The following is the text of the exchange of emails between PRIMER President Alan Stein, Courant Editorial Page Editor Carolyn Lumsden and Courant Op-Ed Editor Peter Pach. Portions of some of the messages quoted earlier messages; for the sake of clarity and brevity, those portions are replaced by ellipses (…).
March 21, 2010. From Alan Stein to Carolny Lumsden:
I was disappointed to see yet another Bessy Reyna commentary about Israel published, the second of which I'm aware since our 2008 meeting at which we were told she had been instructed to stop writing on that subject.
Besides her expected extreme bias and sins of omission which go beyond any responsible commentary, Reyna again included several blatant factual errors. On behalf of PRIMER-Connecticut and in line with the responsibility of newspapers when factual errors are published, I request that corrections be issued.
Among the factual errors:
•" … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
The plans are not for a "new settlement." They are for additions to an existing community. (The Israeli government hasn't approved any "new settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo process.)
There also is no entity by the name of "East Jerusalem," despite the widespread, but incorrect use of that term. Ramat Shlomo is not even in the eastern portion of Jerusalem; it's actually in northwest Jerusalem.
It's also highly questionable to refer to the area as occupied, since it isn't even in the portion of Jerusalem that had been occupied by Jordan but it's in what had been a "no man's land" between the Israeli portion and the portion occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967.
•" … prompted by Israel's decision to name the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron- a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century - and the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah in Bethlehem as Jewish heritage sites, thus limiting Muslims' access to their own mosques."
Including these sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites (which they clearly are) in no way limits the access of Muslims. Indeed, the improvements planned will actually increase the accessibility for Muslims. (One might consider the latter assertion as a matter of opinion, but Reyna's statement was asserted as fact and is clearly false.)
It's also false to refer to the first as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century," since it is indisputable that there was no "Palestinian people" at that time.
What Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Ibrahimi Mosque" is the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It has had some significance to Muslims, but that is predated by millennia by the holiness to Jews, something Reyna completely omits.
Similarly, what Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah" is actually Rachel's Tomb, similarly revered by Jews long before Islam arose.
These omissions may not technically be factual errors, but are certainly misleading distortions which qualify as egregious violations of journalistic responsibility.
•…"The peaceful demonstrations which have resulted as a reaction to the taking of these mosques …"
The demonstrations were far from peaceful. Some of them involved throwing stones at people trying to worship at the Western Wall. (This affected me personally, since I happened to be in Jerusalem at the time, was planning to visit the Western Wall and changed those plans primarily because of the violent demonstrations.)
To refer to "the taking of these mosques" is also totally false; nothing has been taken.
•"Known as the Goldstone Report, it concluded that there was strong evidence confirming that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza from Dec. 27, 2008, to Jan. 17, 2009."
This is also false and contradicted by the words of the author of the report. Judge Goldstone himself has stated "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven."
One can reasonably question the wisdom of certain Israeli actions, but like Reyna's previously commentaries on the Arab war against the existence of the only Jewish state in the world, this column was venomous, goes far beyond the line of reasonable criticism, contains unacceptable distortions resulting from what can only be inferred to be the deliberate omission of highly relevant facts and contains blatant factual errors.
Again, on behalf of PRIMER, I request The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors and in the future refrain from staining its pages by publishing additional commentaries which so blatantly cross the line separating legitimate criticism from hateful screeds.
March 25. Carolyn Lumsden to Alan Stein:
Dear Mr. Stein: Thank you for your thoughtful email. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I had told Bessy Reyna to stop writing entirely about Israel. I had asked her to write about topics closer to home. Her Sunday op-ed had the kind of hometown angles that do localize an international topic.
Peter Pach researched Bessy's article thoroughly. I understand and appreciate that you disagree with much of it. We strive for a lively exchange of opinion. We've had many letters on both Bessy's op-ed and Mr. Fuchs'. You might want to consider that avenue as well.
As always, we appreciate your writing us.
March 28. Alan Stein to Carolyn Lumsden:
I guess I, along with the others at that meeting, had incorrectly inferred her being told to write on topics closer to home meant she had been told to not write on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
…
Letters in response, along with other columns, are indeed an appropriate avenue for an exchange of opinion, but that is not what my previous message was about. Indeed, I barely mentioned the opinions with which I disagree.
My previous message was primarily about blatant factual errors, of which I listed at least four. (The actual number depends on how one counts multiple factual errors in the same sentence.)
My interpretation of the "Be Accountable" portion of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, where it says "Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each otther" and "Journalists should: ... Admit mistakes and correct them promptly" as well as the "Truth and Accuracy" portion of the Statement of Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, where it says "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" is that factual errors such as those I pointed out should be officially corrected by the newspaper itself.
I thus repeat the request I made in my earlier message, that "The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors."
I would also recommend that if in the future there are any questions about factual accuracy, knowledgeable persons be consulted. I am certainly willing to assist. I think it is certainly preferable to catch errors prior to publication.
…
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to reading appropriate corrections in The Courant.
I will also, in a separate email, submit my own column for your consideration. Although I am sure Ms. Reyna would disagree with my opinions, I'm confident she won't find any factual errors.
April 1. Peter Pach to Alan Stein:
Dear Mr. Stein,
Carolyn Lumsden has passed your e-mails concerning the piece written by Bessy Reyna along to me for review. Of course, I am familiar with your long involvement with the contentious politics in the Middle East and read your concerns about the piece closely.
Although you take issue with her on a number of statements, these appear to be areas that revolve around point of view rather than settled fact and not matters for a correction. The location of the proposed building of 1,600 housing units, for example, is widely reported to be in East Jerusalem, a reference used by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, publications in Israel and many others. Some say it is in northern or northeastern Jerusalem. You are the only source I have found that says the proposed building is in northwest Jerusalem. Maps I have consulted show the area to be north and to the east of the city’s midpoint. But, as you know, this debate goes beyond geography.
We would welcome a letter from you in response to Ms. Reyna’s piece that offers your perspective on the issues she raises.
April 1. Alan Stein to Peter Pach:
…
That is incorrect.
There are certainly several additional statements which one might consider revolving around a "point of view," but I specifically mentioned at least four clear factual errors.
1. While one might argue over whether Ramat Shlomo is in northern or northwestern Jerusalem (it is almost directly north of the "Golden Triangle" (bounded by King George, Yafo and Ben Yehuda, considered the center of western Jerusalem), there is no such place as "East Jerusalem." That some others also incorrectly refer to a nonexistent entity does not change that fact.
2. The housing being planned is not a new settlement.
3. Including Jewish heritage sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites doesn't limit the access of Muslims. (If Reyna asserted that Muslims feared that Israel might, at some point in the future, restrict their access that would be an opinion; what she stated was stated as fact and is simply false.)
4. The Tomb of the Patriarchs could not possibly have been "a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century" since there were no Palestinians (in the sense obviously meant) until relatively recently. (I will concede one could argue that by the seventh century the Romans had renamed the area and the fact that there were then Jews worshipping there - as they and their forefathers had for millenia - made it a "Palestinian place of worship" in a geographic sense. If so, that's clearly not the impression Reyna sought to create and thus itself merits an clarification by The Courant.)
I again request that The Courant observe the journalistic standards I previously cited and issue corrections of these clear, factual errors.
If you decline, then I request you at least give me sufficient space to adequately respond in a letter, recognizing even the very brief listing of the errors given above took about 225 words, already above your usual limit of 200 words for letters, without even including the context or any reference to the myriad misrepresentations and errors of omission, such as failing to even mention the generally recognized names for the sites and the way their importance to Jews predates Islam by millenia.
April 2. Peter Pach to Alan Stein:
Dear Mr. Stein,
You are welcome to write a letter within the usual word limit in regard to Bessy Reyna’s column. We have already printed three letters concerning the column including one that challenged her view of the religious shrines that have been listed as Jewish heritage sites. You might want to emphasize other points not mentioned in that letter but that would be up to you.
PRIMER Comments on Reyna Commentary
The following are brief comments produced by PRIMER after Reyna's commentary was published.
Reyna falsely refers to Israel's building plans as being for a "new settlement." The apartments being planned are for an existing Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, Ramat Shlomo, which already has about 20,000 people living in it.
Reyna also refers to it as being in "occupied East Jerusalem." Ramat Shlomo is actually in northwest Jerusalem, as is much of what's so often referred to as "East Jerusalem." It also is not in an area that had been previously occupied by Jordan, being in what had been a no-man's land between Israel and territory occupied by Jordan.
Reyna falsely refers to the "Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron" as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century. There were no "Palestinians" in the seventh century, as the Palestinian identity has only recently been forged as a reaction to the reestablishment of Israel. It has been a place of worship for Muslims, but Reyna omits the fact that the Machpelah Cave, the burial place of the Jewish patriarchs, was holy to the Jews millenia before the onset of Islam and doesn't even refer to its Jewish name.
Her reference to Rachel's Tomb, which she refers to as the "Mosque of Biai ibn Rabah," is similarly misleading.
Meanwhile, her assertion that Israel's naming them Jewish heritage sites would limit Muslis' access is simply false. (As is typical, this false anti-Israel accusation reflects the reality of what the Arabs are trying to do to the Jews.)
One might ask whether Reyna denies that the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb are holy to the Jewish people?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Letter to the Editor - Financial Times
As has been documented by CAMERA and HonestReporting, the Financial Times never lets the facts get in the way of its Israel-bashing.
Kudos to Ed Kohl for sending the Financial Times this excellent letter.
Kudos to Ed Kohl for sending the Financial Times this excellent letter.
To the editor,
Regarding Tobias Buck's March 26, "Netanyahu pressed to resist US amid anger at treatment" there is one glaring error that requires clarification.
The error "The issue at the heart of this crucial divide is the fate of occupied East Jerusalem." Unfortunately, facts get in the way of reporting. To educate your reporter and the FT editors here are some facts.
In a letter from President George Bush to Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek, (March 20, 1990). "The basis of our position remains that Jerusalem must never again be a divided city."
In 1990, Congress passed a resolution declaring that "Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel".
During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton said: "I recognize Jerusalem as an undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel, and I believe in the principle of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."
Congress overwhelmingly passed Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. This landmark bill declared that, as a statement of official U.S. policy, Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided, eternal capital of Israel.
Israel's building in their capital city, Jerusalem, is no different than building in the Chinese capital city Beijing, or Russia's Moscow or Sarkozy's Paris.
As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated "The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital."
Jerusalem is not "occupied".
Regards,
Ed Kohl
West Bloomfield, MN
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Wanting to believe
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
March 28,2010
Numbers, numbers everywhere, what do they mean? In today’s world of information dissemination all sides of a political argument seem to find security in the “right set of numbers”. Focus groups, language analysis experts and pollsters are at the call of the seller-there is no end to the flood of data we are receiving.
For example, one poll posted today says that USA Jews prefer Obama to Netanyahu (15% more popular). Inside this same poll Obama maintained his popularity with 59% of American Jews even after the President displayed disrespect to PM Netanyahu. Another stat that caught my eye was the pollster Gerstein indicated that 55% of American Jews supported Obama criticizing Israel. 1 One would conclude that the USA Jewish population is distant from Israel’s political stance and Israel should take heed. Permit two of many points to be made: 1. Nowhere in the “news” story were the details of the poll presented, i.e., target population polled, design of poll. 2. The poll was sponsored, e.g., paid for, by none other than J-Street. This is a professed Progressive or Left Wing organization that indicates it is pro-Israel. To say this is under dispute is putting it mildly. This poll is in direct contrast with polls in Israel that find only 9% of Israelis think Obama is pro-Israel. Like I said one can find numbers to support any narrative.
Why all the fuss over “the numbers”? Simply put they are used as propaganda to support one’s position and thereby develop and promote public opinion that is hopefully listened to by the elected officials. More often than not, in a democracy, these eventually help to shape the policies of respective countries. Of course politicians use these same tactics to influence the general population-it is a two-way street.
Besides the numbers we know that rhetoric can be even more powerful as a tool to have the public believe in a perspective and/or current leader. Certainly how one delivers a speech dramatically influences how one is perceived and in recent history how one is elected. Mr. Obama was elected because of the perception he was different, cared more about people and was sensitive to America’s “miserable” standing on the world stage. He even convinced people that he supported and continues to support Israel. Let us set aside “the numbers” and the eloquent rhetoric of the President and examine what he has actually done, i.e., actions speak louder than words.
An old saying shared often to me by my parents when I was younger, “you become who you choose as friends”. There are multiple variations of this and they all mean that we are dramatically influenced by the people we admire and associate with-is this not your experience? Did you not “hang out” with individuals you enjoyed and/or yearned to be with or accepted by? This is a perfectly human behavior. So who were Mr. Obama’s “friends” who in turn may have helped shape his points of view? By now you know many on this list, from his Pastor Wright to his extreme left wing colleague charged with bombing public buildings (Bill Ayers). These were not casual acquaintances; he interacted with them for decades. Here are some additional influences upon his evolving view of social justice in the world: Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Bernardine Dohrn, and even the anti-Semitic Farrakhan.2
Many others have discussed this part of Obama’s social and intellectual associations. Suffice it to say, given these individuals, his documented university experiences and his only “work experience as a community organizer, coupled with his long term interaction with ACORN through to his Presidency present an individual, over time, who associated with those who were and are to this day anti-Israel and frankly do not care for Jews. No conservative Jews among his “posse.”
The preceding certainly influenced Mr. Obama as he put together his team of advisors. Only a fraction of his desired appointees and actual appointees are to follow-please notice the nature of their backgrounds, philosophies and previous activities.3
Charles Freeman-aborted appointment to Chair of President’s National Intelligence Council -This is the man who declared on more than one occasion that he thinks all of America's problems with the Islamic world can be traced to its supposed open-ended support of the Jewish state.
Samantha Power is a product of the International Crisis Group, a think tank heavily funded by billionaire George Soros. She stopped short of saying Israel committed genocide in 2002 in Gaza.
Robert Malley is a good friend with Bashir Assad of Syria-has been close since 2006. It does appear that Mr. Malley has quite the influence over Obama and his decisions. Seems that Malley persuaded Obama to suspend enforcement of sanctions against Syria-remember they were on our terror list. He even had Obama reopen a US Embassy in Damascus-remember why we closed it?
Frederic Hof-this is the man Obama has recommended for the post in Damascus. He is an Arabist. He called the territories of Judea and Samaria “a cancer killing the Oslo Process.”
Chuck Hagel was appointed as an Intelligence Aide to the President. This is the same man who spoke at the pro-Arab J-Street “conference”. This is part of what he said: “…meeting the demand of the Palestinian Authority for a new Arab state within Israel’s current borders “is central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism.” He also said that the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel “must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships.”4
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft are two “unofficial” advisors to Obama. You remember them, yes? Brzezinski is a former member of the carter Administration and works with Samatha Power on the board of the anti-Israel International Crisis Group. He ridiculed Israel’s concern for Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. Scowcroft was the hard line advocate against Israel during his days with George H.W. Bush. Scowcroft, Board member of US Middle East Project created a Board including 7 Arab members that favored imposing a Fatah/Hamas regime in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
It has been Mr. Scowcroft who has advocated loudly and continuously to keep the Palestinian plight on the front burner. He is very influential with Mr. Obama and we witness this every day. There are so many others to mention such as General James Jones and Susan Rice. Jones and other Obama officials who embarrassed IDF COS in Washington about a year ago-does this not sound familiar? Rice, she immediately asked for a seat on the UN’s “Human Rights Council”-this is hardly a pro-Israel group. For more thorough analysis of these advisors please read Bill Mehlman’s article listed in my endnotes.
The point is obvious-President Obama has surrounded himself with individuals who do not like Israel and suggest the USA begin a separation process. Several of his “advisors” border on being anti-Semitic. He hears every day, from “his people”, comments that bash Israel and their dislike for Jews. These are people who tell him to appease, appease, appease the Arabs and with several useful idiot type Jews pushing him on, it is no wonder Obama has arrived at his current stance vis ‘a vis Israel.
What messages would you be hearing each day if you had these and others with like viewpoints in your ear all the time? Let’s face it, the President has many items on his daily agenda and does not have time to do the research. This is the role and responsibility of his “team”. Couple this fact of life with his predisposition to the ideology of socialism and his years of tutelage by far left wing individuals his current actions are not surprising.
Let me ask you, when you invite a friend to your home for an evening of good discourse and dinner do you actually sit down with your guests and break bread with them? Would you consider it rude to tell your guests that you and your wife, upset with some things you may have discussed, are having dinner alone in the dining room-your guests can eat in the kitchen. This is how you treat a friend? Oh, then you announce this to your entire neighborhood and send out tweets and messages on facebook what you have done; you think this is how to act with a true friend?
Yet this is precisely what Mr. Obama did with the PM of Israel last week-you all heard some version of the story. This has become a tactic used by him and members of his staff. If you do not get what you want or do not like what you are told, then create a humiliating scene. I remember this from my upper elementary, junior high school days.
Let’s be honest and at least acknowledge that those we choose to associate with over time influence us. Our beliefs are formed by what we learn and what we experience. Ideologies are formed, learned and then these become the lens through which we view the world. Mr. Obama is no different than any of us in this regard-simply notice who he has chosen to make up his support team and group.
I understand the need to believe in something and/or someone. I also know needing and wanting to believe are two different modes of viewing the world. I offer that needing to believe takes personal power away from the individual and puts it into the hands of others. Wanting something really is about conveying information to another person understanding that in the end it is up to the individual (to me) to make a choice/decision. For multiple reasons Americans needed to believe in someone different than the previous leaders-I get it.
However, the very act of needing gave away your personal responsibility to know the facts. To hang onto your belief, that the current Administration from Obama through his advisors to his worker bees in the field, authentically support Israel is the perfect storm for “Needing to believe” in something that is simply not born out by the facts. Yes, I do understand that operating out of a position of need does not initially enable one to recognize or even acknowledge this possibility.
As someone who chooses to live in Israel, is an owner of two small businesses employing Jewish, Arab and Christian Israeli citizens I do challenge everyone to step back for a moment and consider the possibility the preceding is correct. Perhaps there are other solutions than the Obama Administration is opting to use. Maybe it is possible to coexist-I know that the path the President wants us to travel is not going to lead us to peace and harmony. Unfortunately, he is on a well-trodden path so many have been down before him!
Endnotes
1. Benhorin,Yitzhak. “Poll: US Jews prefer Obama to Netanyahu”, YNET News, March 28, 2010.
2. Haltman, Michael. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-41853
3. Mehlman, Bill. “Detailed Expose Of Obama's Anti-Israel Appointees In Key National Security Positions”, http://www.rightsidenews.com/200904304607/culture-wars/detailed-expose-of-obamas-anti-israel-appointees-in-key-national-security-positions.html
4. Aggregated by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu. “Anti-Israel Appointees in Key National Security Positions,” Chuck Hagel as Intelligence Aide”, http://www.israelated.net/node/84210 March 15, 2010
March 28,2010
Numbers, numbers everywhere, what do they mean? In today’s world of information dissemination all sides of a political argument seem to find security in the “right set of numbers”. Focus groups, language analysis experts and pollsters are at the call of the seller-there is no end to the flood of data we are receiving.
For example, one poll posted today says that USA Jews prefer Obama to Netanyahu (15% more popular). Inside this same poll Obama maintained his popularity with 59% of American Jews even after the President displayed disrespect to PM Netanyahu. Another stat that caught my eye was the pollster Gerstein indicated that 55% of American Jews supported Obama criticizing Israel. 1 One would conclude that the USA Jewish population is distant from Israel’s political stance and Israel should take heed. Permit two of many points to be made: 1. Nowhere in the “news” story were the details of the poll presented, i.e., target population polled, design of poll. 2. The poll was sponsored, e.g., paid for, by none other than J-Street. This is a professed Progressive or Left Wing organization that indicates it is pro-Israel. To say this is under dispute is putting it mildly. This poll is in direct contrast with polls in Israel that find only 9% of Israelis think Obama is pro-Israel. Like I said one can find numbers to support any narrative.
Why all the fuss over “the numbers”? Simply put they are used as propaganda to support one’s position and thereby develop and promote public opinion that is hopefully listened to by the elected officials. More often than not, in a democracy, these eventually help to shape the policies of respective countries. Of course politicians use these same tactics to influence the general population-it is a two-way street.
Besides the numbers we know that rhetoric can be even more powerful as a tool to have the public believe in a perspective and/or current leader. Certainly how one delivers a speech dramatically influences how one is perceived and in recent history how one is elected. Mr. Obama was elected because of the perception he was different, cared more about people and was sensitive to America’s “miserable” standing on the world stage. He even convinced people that he supported and continues to support Israel. Let us set aside “the numbers” and the eloquent rhetoric of the President and examine what he has actually done, i.e., actions speak louder than words.
An old saying shared often to me by my parents when I was younger, “you become who you choose as friends”. There are multiple variations of this and they all mean that we are dramatically influenced by the people we admire and associate with-is this not your experience? Did you not “hang out” with individuals you enjoyed and/or yearned to be with or accepted by? This is a perfectly human behavior. So who were Mr. Obama’s “friends” who in turn may have helped shape his points of view? By now you know many on this list, from his Pastor Wright to his extreme left wing colleague charged with bombing public buildings (Bill Ayers). These were not casual acquaintances; he interacted with them for decades. Here are some additional influences upon his evolving view of social justice in the world: Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Bernardine Dohrn, and even the anti-Semitic Farrakhan.2
Many others have discussed this part of Obama’s social and intellectual associations. Suffice it to say, given these individuals, his documented university experiences and his only “work experience as a community organizer, coupled with his long term interaction with ACORN through to his Presidency present an individual, over time, who associated with those who were and are to this day anti-Israel and frankly do not care for Jews. No conservative Jews among his “posse.”
The preceding certainly influenced Mr. Obama as he put together his team of advisors. Only a fraction of his desired appointees and actual appointees are to follow-please notice the nature of their backgrounds, philosophies and previous activities.3
Charles Freeman-aborted appointment to Chair of President’s National Intelligence Council -This is the man who declared on more than one occasion that he thinks all of America's problems with the Islamic world can be traced to its supposed open-ended support of the Jewish state.
Samantha Power is a product of the International Crisis Group, a think tank heavily funded by billionaire George Soros. She stopped short of saying Israel committed genocide in 2002 in Gaza.
Robert Malley is a good friend with Bashir Assad of Syria-has been close since 2006. It does appear that Mr. Malley has quite the influence over Obama and his decisions. Seems that Malley persuaded Obama to suspend enforcement of sanctions against Syria-remember they were on our terror list. He even had Obama reopen a US Embassy in Damascus-remember why we closed it?
Frederic Hof-this is the man Obama has recommended for the post in Damascus. He is an Arabist. He called the territories of Judea and Samaria “a cancer killing the Oslo Process.”
Chuck Hagel was appointed as an Intelligence Aide to the President. This is the same man who spoke at the pro-Arab J-Street “conference”. This is part of what he said: “…meeting the demand of the Palestinian Authority for a new Arab state within Israel’s current borders “is central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism.” He also said that the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel “must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships.”4
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft are two “unofficial” advisors to Obama. You remember them, yes? Brzezinski is a former member of the carter Administration and works with Samatha Power on the board of the anti-Israel International Crisis Group. He ridiculed Israel’s concern for Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. Scowcroft was the hard line advocate against Israel during his days with George H.W. Bush. Scowcroft, Board member of US Middle East Project created a Board including 7 Arab members that favored imposing a Fatah/Hamas regime in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
It has been Mr. Scowcroft who has advocated loudly and continuously to keep the Palestinian plight on the front burner. He is very influential with Mr. Obama and we witness this every day. There are so many others to mention such as General James Jones and Susan Rice. Jones and other Obama officials who embarrassed IDF COS in Washington about a year ago-does this not sound familiar? Rice, she immediately asked for a seat on the UN’s “Human Rights Council”-this is hardly a pro-Israel group. For more thorough analysis of these advisors please read Bill Mehlman’s article listed in my endnotes.
The point is obvious-President Obama has surrounded himself with individuals who do not like Israel and suggest the USA begin a separation process. Several of his “advisors” border on being anti-Semitic. He hears every day, from “his people”, comments that bash Israel and their dislike for Jews. These are people who tell him to appease, appease, appease the Arabs and with several useful idiot type Jews pushing him on, it is no wonder Obama has arrived at his current stance vis ‘a vis Israel.
What messages would you be hearing each day if you had these and others with like viewpoints in your ear all the time? Let’s face it, the President has many items on his daily agenda and does not have time to do the research. This is the role and responsibility of his “team”. Couple this fact of life with his predisposition to the ideology of socialism and his years of tutelage by far left wing individuals his current actions are not surprising.
Let me ask you, when you invite a friend to your home for an evening of good discourse and dinner do you actually sit down with your guests and break bread with them? Would you consider it rude to tell your guests that you and your wife, upset with some things you may have discussed, are having dinner alone in the dining room-your guests can eat in the kitchen. This is how you treat a friend? Oh, then you announce this to your entire neighborhood and send out tweets and messages on facebook what you have done; you think this is how to act with a true friend?
Yet this is precisely what Mr. Obama did with the PM of Israel last week-you all heard some version of the story. This has become a tactic used by him and members of his staff. If you do not get what you want or do not like what you are told, then create a humiliating scene. I remember this from my upper elementary, junior high school days.
Let’s be honest and at least acknowledge that those we choose to associate with over time influence us. Our beliefs are formed by what we learn and what we experience. Ideologies are formed, learned and then these become the lens through which we view the world. Mr. Obama is no different than any of us in this regard-simply notice who he has chosen to make up his support team and group.
I understand the need to believe in something and/or someone. I also know needing and wanting to believe are two different modes of viewing the world. I offer that needing to believe takes personal power away from the individual and puts it into the hands of others. Wanting something really is about conveying information to another person understanding that in the end it is up to the individual (to me) to make a choice/decision. For multiple reasons Americans needed to believe in someone different than the previous leaders-I get it.
However, the very act of needing gave away your personal responsibility to know the facts. To hang onto your belief, that the current Administration from Obama through his advisors to his worker bees in the field, authentically support Israel is the perfect storm for “Needing to believe” in something that is simply not born out by the facts. Yes, I do understand that operating out of a position of need does not initially enable one to recognize or even acknowledge this possibility.
As someone who chooses to live in Israel, is an owner of two small businesses employing Jewish, Arab and Christian Israeli citizens I do challenge everyone to step back for a moment and consider the possibility the preceding is correct. Perhaps there are other solutions than the Obama Administration is opting to use. Maybe it is possible to coexist-I know that the path the President wants us to travel is not going to lead us to peace and harmony. Unfortunately, he is on a well-trodden path so many have been down before him!
Endnotes
1. Benhorin,Yitzhak. “Poll: US Jews prefer Obama to Netanyahu”, YNET News, March 28, 2010.
2. Haltman, Michael. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-41853
3. Mehlman, Bill. “Detailed Expose Of Obama's Anti-Israel Appointees In Key National Security Positions”, http://www.rightsidenews.com/200904304607/culture-wars/detailed-expose-of-obamas-anti-israel-appointees-in-key-national-security-positions.html
4. Aggregated by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu. “Anti-Israel Appointees in Key National Security Positions,” Chuck Hagel as Intelligence Aide”, http://www.israelated.net/node/84210 March 15, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Building a house in Jerusalem
The original for this is on tinsc's blog. He doesn't blog often, but when he does, he does it extremely well.
Why is it that I can't build a house in Jerusalem? I'm Jewish! Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish People.
Nobody questioned whether a black man could move into the White House, the capital of the United States. Certainly not Jewish-Americans, 77% of whom voted for Barack O'Bama to be our President.
So why does this administration have such a problem with Jews building homes in Jerusalem and moving to the eternal capital of the Jewish People? Archaeological evidence shows that Jews founded Jerusalem 3000 years ago. Our liturgy mentions Jerusalem early and often as the capital of our people. It's only natural for Jews to live in Jerusalem.
I don't get it! Certainly in the history of mankind, far more cruel acts against humanity have been perpetrated than the mere building of houses. And let's face it! If someone said that blacks couldn't build homes in a neighborhood where they wanted, we'd hear a never-ending complaint of "racism" consistent with the American movement against segregation. That would be the morally correct position; one I would strongly support.
But for some reason, when Jews build homes in Jerusalem, it's a big federal case. Anti-Semitic Arabs get upset and our State Department thinks that this means that the Jews are causing a problem. This is an embrace of anti-Semitism by our State Department. I have a problem with that.
Even if someone were to say that Arabs have a sovereign right to forbid Jews to build houses in their country, it would be no less anti-Semitic. Why does the United States government embrace this attitude?
It is wrong; morally wrong. I would like the government of the United States to change it's policy to reflect our own American values that says people can build houses where they want to.
If the United States State Department felt insulted by Israel building homes in Jerusalem, let me make it clear that I feel no less insulted by the United State State Department when they tell me that I can't build a house in Jerusalem because I'm Jewish.
Comment & Analysis: Objectionable Letters
On Friday, March 26, The Hartford Courant published a biased and misleading letter, which may be found at www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-digbrflets0326.art1mar26,0,5983616.story, by James R. Bradley and The Connecticut Jewish Ledger published two such letters, by Henry Schwartz and Miriam Kurland, which may be found at www.jewishledger.com/articles/2010/03/25/opinions/letters/let03.txt.
The editor of The Connecticut Jewish Ledger included the following note:
[Editor's note: For those who may note the duplication of language in the two letters included above, please be advised that this is the way in which they arrived - separately and with no apparent link - in the Ledger email inbox.]
PRIMER notes that much of the text in the two very similar letters, including the line "Those of us who truly care about Israel know that President Barack Obama is right to confront Israel over new settlement construction plans in East Jerusalem," is taken from the Americans for Peace Now web site at.
PRIMER Comments re Bradley's letter:
Bradley: "Rabbi Stephen Fuchs decries a perceived lack of balance in public reaction ..."
Analysis: Rabbi Fuchs wrote: "When focusing on Middle Eastern politics, most of Israel's supporters offer nuanced yet passionate critiques of every Israeli action, while Israel's enemies want only to wipe her off the globe" and "What is lacking is a sense of balance. It is important to remember that if Palestinian rights are less than those of Jews in the tiny sliver of Mideast real estate that Israel occupies, Jews often have no rights whatsoever in the vast territory that comprises the other nations of the region."
---
Bradley: "...to events in Israel and occupied Palestine."
Analysis: There is no "Palestine," although there is territory (poorly, at best) governed by the Palestinian Authority. Roughly 95 percent of the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza live in that territory, so for most practical purposes any so-called "occupation" ended long ago.
---
Bradley: "No fair person can ignore the Palestinian contribution to the intractable standoff that prevents a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Analysis: This is a gigantic understatement. The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly rejected Israeli offers of almost the entire disputed territory, including portions of Israel's capital, and today refuses to engage not only in direct negotiations with Israel but even indirect negotiations.
---
Bradley: "But in rightly condemning the perverse notion of a "Judenrein" East Jerusalem, one surely cannot defend the construction of "Araberrein" housing on disputed land."
Analysis:
It's nice to see Bradley effectively join in the justified criticism of President Obama's current insistence, in conflict with his previous insistence that Jerusalem remain both the capital of Israel and undivided, that disputed portions of Jerusalem be made judenrein.
Just as there is no "Palestine," there is no "East Jerusalem." Ramat Shlomo, like most of what's so often incorrectly referred to as "East Jerusalem," isn't even in the eastern part of Jerusalem; it's in the northwest portion of the city.
Although Ramat Shlomo is predominantly occupied by Jewish residents, Israeli courts have in the past rejected efforts to prevent Arabs from buying or renting in Jewish areas.
One wonders whether Bradley has ever condemned the massive and often illegal construction of purely Arab housing on disputed land?
PRIMER Comments re Schwartz letter:
Schwarz: "Israel continues building and expanding West Bank settlements and Jewish housing in Arab East Jerusalem."
Analysis:
There is no "Arab East Jerusalem."
Israel is currently observing a freeze on construction in disputed areas of Judea and Samaria and the government has not constructed any new communities there since the start of the failed Oslo Experiment in 1993.
---
Schwarz: "They are slicing and dicing lands that would become a Palestinian state."
Analysis: It's impossible to determine exactly what will become part of a Palestinian Arab state unless and until the Palestinian Arabs start negotiating seriously.
---
Schwarz: "One can't help but think that they don't really want a two state solution and are intentionally undermining that possibility. Such a solution however appears to be the only viable way to bring long term peace."
Analysis: Israel has been virtually begging the Palestinian Arabs to negotiate a peace agreement, but even the supposed "moderates" in the Palestinian Authority refuse to negotiate.
---
Schwarz: "Those of us who truly care about Middle East peace know that President Barack Obama is right to confront Israel over its approval of a new settlement construction plan in East Jerusalem."
Analysis:
There is no "East Jerusalem."
The approval was not for "new settlement construction," whatever that's supposed to mean, but for additional and greatly needed apartments in an overcrowded neighborhood in the northwest portion of Jerusalem.
---
Schwarz: "He understands that settlement expansion weakens any prospect of peace."
Analysis: Obama's misguided targeting of construction of housing for Jews has already resulted in more than a year without any negotiations and is clearly weakening any prospect for peace. He has removed any incentives for the Palestinian Arabs to negotiate, effectively assuring them that everytime they reject even talking with Israel, he will simply apply more pressure on Israel for unreciprocated concessions.
---
Schwarz: "We know that peace for Israel is in America's vital interests. Peace talks will not succeed without genuine, sustained American leadership."
Analysis: Obviously, nobody wants peace more than Israel. The greatest progress, including the peace treaty with Egypt, the peace treaty with Jordan and even the start of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, occurred when the parties met together and often in spite of America's role. The key, currently missing ingredient is a desire on the part of the Palestinian Arabs to make peace.
---
Schwarz: "All sides must know that there will be a price to pay for frustrating peace efforts. President Obama enjoys my support when he demonstrates such leadership."
Analysis: Unfortunately, President Obama has been rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for their continued obstruction of peace efforts.
PRIMER Comments re Kurland's letter:
Most of Kurland's letter consists of slight rewordings of portions of Schwarz' letter. We will not repeat our analyses of those portions, but will comment on one remark which is not in Schwarz' letter.
Kurland: "We know that peace for Israel is more important than the expansion of settlements."
Analysis:
While some may disagree, most Israelis and most supporters of Israel would agree that the need for peace would trump the injustice of ethnically cleansing portions of Eretz Yisrael of Jews. Even Ariel Sharon was not only willing to completely uproot thousands of Jews living in Gaza, but did so.
There are two principal problems:
The first is one of simple justice and morality: it's simply wrong to insist areas be cleansed of any Jewish presence, especially areas in Eretz Yisrael and even more especially areas of Yerushalayim.
More important, singling out Jewish communities in the disputed territories is counterproductive and is an impediment to hopes for any real peace process. Obama's unfair and unhealty fixation has already prevented direct negotiations for more than a year and is currently preventing even indirect negotiations, themselves constituting a step backwards by two decades.
A more productive stance by President Obama would be to encourage Israeli construction in the disputed areas and make it clear to the Palestinian Arabs that obstruction and rejectionism is no longer a winning proposition for them; bringing home to them a realization that the longer they delay the less territory they'll ultimately get might finally give them some incentive to make peace rather than prevent peace.
The editor of The Connecticut Jewish Ledger included the following note:
[Editor's note: For those who may note the duplication of language in the two letters included above, please be advised that this is the way in which they arrived - separately and with no apparent link - in the Ledger email inbox.]
PRIMER notes that much of the text in the two very similar letters, including the line "Those of us who truly care about Israel know that President Barack Obama is right to confront Israel over new settlement construction plans in East Jerusalem," is taken from the Americans for Peace Now web site at
PRIMER Comments re Bradley's letter:
Bradley: "Rabbi Stephen Fuchs decries a perceived lack of balance in public reaction ..."
Analysis: Rabbi Fuchs wrote: "When focusing on Middle Eastern politics, most of Israel's supporters offer nuanced yet passionate critiques of every Israeli action, while Israel's enemies want only to wipe her off the globe" and "What is lacking is a sense of balance. It is important to remember that if Palestinian rights are less than those of Jews in the tiny sliver of Mideast real estate that Israel occupies, Jews often have no rights whatsoever in the vast territory that comprises the other nations of the region."
---
Bradley: "...to events in Israel and occupied Palestine."
Analysis: There is no "Palestine," although there is territory (poorly, at best) governed by the Palestinian Authority. Roughly 95 percent of the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza live in that territory, so for most practical purposes any so-called "occupation" ended long ago.
---
Bradley: "No fair person can ignore the Palestinian contribution to the intractable standoff that prevents a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Analysis: This is a gigantic understatement. The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly rejected Israeli offers of almost the entire disputed territory, including portions of Israel's capital, and today refuses to engage not only in direct negotiations with Israel but even indirect negotiations.
---
Bradley: "But in rightly condemning the perverse notion of a "Judenrein" East Jerusalem, one surely cannot defend the construction of "Araberrein" housing on disputed land."
Analysis:
It's nice to see Bradley effectively join in the justified criticism of President Obama's current insistence, in conflict with his previous insistence that Jerusalem remain both the capital of Israel and undivided, that disputed portions of Jerusalem be made judenrein.
Just as there is no "Palestine," there is no "East Jerusalem." Ramat Shlomo, like most of what's so often incorrectly referred to as "East Jerusalem," isn't even in the eastern part of Jerusalem; it's in the northwest portion of the city.
Although Ramat Shlomo is predominantly occupied by Jewish residents, Israeli courts have in the past rejected efforts to prevent Arabs from buying or renting in Jewish areas.
One wonders whether Bradley has ever condemned the massive and often illegal construction of purely Arab housing on disputed land?
PRIMER Comments re Schwartz letter:
Schwarz: "Israel continues building and expanding West Bank settlements and Jewish housing in Arab East Jerusalem."
Analysis:
There is no "Arab East Jerusalem."
Israel is currently observing a freeze on construction in disputed areas of Judea and Samaria and the government has not constructed any new communities there since the start of the failed Oslo Experiment in 1993.
---
Schwarz: "They are slicing and dicing lands that would become a Palestinian state."
Analysis: It's impossible to determine exactly what will become part of a Palestinian Arab state unless and until the Palestinian Arabs start negotiating seriously.
---
Schwarz: "One can't help but think that they don't really want a two state solution and are intentionally undermining that possibility. Such a solution however appears to be the only viable way to bring long term peace."
Analysis: Israel has been virtually begging the Palestinian Arabs to negotiate a peace agreement, but even the supposed "moderates" in the Palestinian Authority refuse to negotiate.
---
Schwarz: "Those of us who truly care about Middle East peace know that President Barack Obama is right to confront Israel over its approval of a new settlement construction plan in East Jerusalem."
Analysis:
There is no "East Jerusalem."
The approval was not for "new settlement construction," whatever that's supposed to mean, but for additional and greatly needed apartments in an overcrowded neighborhood in the northwest portion of Jerusalem.
---
Schwarz: "He understands that settlement expansion weakens any prospect of peace."
Analysis: Obama's misguided targeting of construction of housing for Jews has already resulted in more than a year without any negotiations and is clearly weakening any prospect for peace. He has removed any incentives for the Palestinian Arabs to negotiate, effectively assuring them that everytime they reject even talking with Israel, he will simply apply more pressure on Israel for unreciprocated concessions.
---
Schwarz: "We know that peace for Israel is in America's vital interests. Peace talks will not succeed without genuine, sustained American leadership."
Analysis: Obviously, nobody wants peace more than Israel. The greatest progress, including the peace treaty with Egypt, the peace treaty with Jordan and even the start of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, occurred when the parties met together and often in spite of America's role. The key, currently missing ingredient is a desire on the part of the Palestinian Arabs to make peace.
---
Schwarz: "All sides must know that there will be a price to pay for frustrating peace efforts. President Obama enjoys my support when he demonstrates such leadership."
Analysis: Unfortunately, President Obama has been rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for their continued obstruction of peace efforts.
PRIMER Comments re Kurland's letter:
Most of Kurland's letter consists of slight rewordings of portions of Schwarz' letter. We will not repeat our analyses of those portions, but will comment on one remark which is not in Schwarz' letter.
Kurland: "We know that peace for Israel is more important than the expansion of settlements."
Analysis:
While some may disagree, most Israelis and most supporters of Israel would agree that the need for peace would trump the injustice of ethnically cleansing portions of Eretz Yisrael of Jews. Even Ariel Sharon was not only willing to completely uproot thousands of Jews living in Gaza, but did so.
There are two principal problems:
The first is one of simple justice and morality: it's simply wrong to insist areas be cleansed of any Jewish presence, especially areas in Eretz Yisrael and even more especially areas of Yerushalayim.
More important, singling out Jewish communities in the disputed territories is counterproductive and is an impediment to hopes for any real peace process. Obama's unfair and unhealty fixation has already prevented direct negotiations for more than a year and is currently preventing even indirect negotiations, themselves constituting a step backwards by two decades.
A more productive stance by President Obama would be to encourage Israeli construction in the disputed areas and make it clear to the Palestinian Arabs that obstruction and rejectionism is no longer a winning proposition for them; bringing home to them a realization that the longer they delay the less territory they'll ultimately get might finally give them some incentive to make peace rather than prevent peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
