Don't make the same mistake with Hamas yet again

Don't make the same mistake with Hamas yet again

BY ALAN STEIN

A version of this op-ed was published in the Waterbury Republican-American on October 29, 2023.

There's plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes that enabled the Simchat Torah massacre by Hamas on Oct. 7. They were made by the United Nations, the European Union, a succession of American administrations, several Israeli governments, the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence.

One would think those entities - except for the United Nations - would be busy trying to learn from their mistakes in order to prevent a repetition, but many, including European countries and the Biden administration, appear unwilling to reflect on how they contributed to the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust while rushing to double down on the fatal mistake of repeatedly rescuing Hamas and sending "humanitarian assistance" unsurprisingly used by Hamas to prepare for their next brutal terror war.

Since Israel vacated Gaza in 2005, ending anything that could, justifiably or not, be called an "occupation," it has been bombarded by rockets and targeted by countless terror attacks, including mortar fire, cross-border incursions, cross-border terror tunnels planned to terminate under schools, and explosive-laden kites, balloons and condoms designed to be carried into Israel by the prevailing winds.

In 2006, 2008-9, 2012, 2014, 2021 and 2022, the terror attacks from Gaza caused so much death and destruction Israel was forced to take significant action.

Each time, Israel quickly came under heavy pressure from the international community to prematurely agree to a ceasefire before it could do to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad the sort of damage America worked to inflict on Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Each time, the United States was among those pressuring Israel into agreeing to measures supposedly designed to help innocent people in Gaza, the same people who elected Hamas.

Israel was always given assurance of ironclad safeguards to make sure the aid got to the people rather than Hamas, only to have an estimated 90% of the cement sent to Gaza for rebuilding homes, schools and hospitals taken by Hamas to build tunnels and murder schoolchildren. When Israel developed technology to discover the cross-border tunnels and destroy them, Hamas used the cement to build tunnels to protect its "fighters" within Gaza; undoubtedly, many of the hostages it took have been taken to those tunnels as human shields.

Pipes sent to rebuild the water and sewer systems were instead cut up and used in the construction of rockets and rocket launchers.

Israel allowed the entry of thousands of Palestinian workers so they could earn money to feed their families, strengthen the economy in Gaza, and improve the lives of the people there, but many took advantage of their work permits and instead murdered Israeli civilians.

Hamas even attacked the crossings where goods were transferred into Gaza, killing the very workers bringing humanitarian assistance to Gaza!

Israeli leaders share blame primarily for repeatedly giving in. Had they not succumbed to the pressure, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad would have been far weaker and incapable of successfully carrying out the Simchat Torah Massacre. It is ironic that while Israel is so often criticized for being hard-line right wing, its most serious mistakes have been in being too soft and too willing to agree to dangerous "confidence building measures" in hopes the Palestinian Arabs would reciprocate.

There are many other ways in which Western democracies have unwittingly strengthened Hamas and other terror groups. At the top of the list is the way they have appeased and strengthened the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Much of the many billions of dollars released to the Iranian regime, against the advice of Israel, has gone to Iran's terror proxies and assisted Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. Our naïve errors have not only gotten Israelis killed, but also gotten Ukrainians killed. Repeating those mistakes would reinvigorate Hamas.

The only real leverage we have over Hamas is the ability to prevent the transfer of food, fuel, water and electricity to Gaza so Hamas won't be able to continue to build and launch rockets. Hamas doesn't care about the welfare of the people they use as human shields, but they do care about (a) murdering others, especially Israeli Jews and (b) their personal bank accounts and welfare.

I have little confidence that if Hamas was forced to decide between (a) releasing all the hostages without further harm in return for receiving humanitarian assistance or (b) not releasing the hostages and letting everyone in Gaza suffer, they would choose (a), but giving them that choice is the only realistic possibility for saving the lives of the hostages.

Presently, most governments, including our own, are trying hard to avoid forcing Hamas to make that choice. During his solidarity visit to Israel, President Biden announced $100 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. Since then, at least one of the UNRWA warehouses storing "humanitarian assistance" slated to be distributed to "civilians" in Gaza was stormed and looted. Can anyone doubt a significant portion of those supplies aren't now in the tunnels under Gaza helping to sustain and strengthen Hamas terrorists?

For the sake of the hostages, and for our own long term safety, we need to insist there will be no pause and no goods of any kind will be transferred to Gaza until all the hostages are released without further harm. Everyone needs to stand firmly with Israel and help it destroy Hamas, after which Gaza will have to be "de-Hamasified," the way the allies de-Nazified Germany after World War II, and prepare for the even more crucial battles with Hezbollah and the head of the snake in Tehran.

May God provide our leaders with the wisdom needed to get us out of the situation which they helped create.

Alan Stein, Ph.D., was formerly a long time resident of Waterbury. He and his wife Marsha currently split their time between Netanya in Israel and Natick, Massachusetts. He is President Emeritus of PRIMERConnecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting) and the founder of PRIMER-Massachusetts and PRIMER-Israel.

Hamas' attack brings a moment of clarity

Hamas' attack brings a moment of clarity

BY ALAN STEIN

A version was published in the Waterbury Republican-American (Connecticut) on October 15, 2023.

We have just experienced a watershed moment, a day when it became crystal clear to everyone who understands the difference between good and evil that Israel is in an unavoidable fight against forces of evil.

Since my retirement from the University of Connecticut after teaching there for 37 years, my wife and I have been living in Israel each winter.

This year, we had plane reservations to leave for Israel on Sunday, Oct. 8, the day of Simchat Torah, when Jews finish our annual reading of the Torah and start over again with Genesis, one of the most joyous days of the year.

In Israel, Simchat Torah is celebrated a day earlier, simultaneously with Shmini Atzeret. This year that fell on Shabbat, so it was a triple Holy Day and expected to be triply joyous.

Except. Palestinian Arabs traditionally plan terror attacks designed to ruin Jewish holidays.

This year, they outdid themselves with a massive terror attack instantly compared to 9/11. I remember exactly where I was when I heard about 9/11, driving home from the tennis courts at Chase Park in Waterbury, Connecticut. I remember exactly where I was when I heard President Kennedy was shot, browsing in the Paperbound Book Store on 164th Street in Flushing, Queens before immediately riding my bike back home. And I'll always remember where I was when I heard about Hamas' 10/7 attack, waking up in our condo in Natick, Massachusetts and realizing I wasn't going to be able to fly to Israel the next day.

As more details have emerged, and more bodies are found - as I write this the total passed 1,300 - the horror has only increased. The current fatality count, on an absolute basis, is not quite half of that inflicted on us by Al Qaeda on 9/11. But our population in the United States is roughly 37 times that of tiny Israel. Hamas also fired roughly 3,500 rockets at Israeli cities and towns and took an estimated 150 hostages, dragging them into Gaza where they have been tortured, raped and even paraded around the streets naked while the "ordinary" people in Gaza celebrated. These hostages are almost all ordinary civilians, including babies, children, and elderly women, even an ill 97-year-old woman with dementia who doesn't realize she's a hostage. Some are Americans, as are at least 25 of those murdered. Now many have been moved to the bases used by terrorists, being used as human shields.

To visualize the effect on Israeli society, imagine that on 9/11 Al Qaeda had murdered over 48,000 people, launched more than 125,000 rockets at American cities and towns, and taken more than 3,500 Americans hostage and brought them to Afghanistan. All in one day.

Imagine how much more traumatic 9/11 would have been for us if it had been on that scale!

Just as there were many heroes responding to 9/11, there have been many heroes in Israel. One of them happens to be a relative of mine. I'll call him Chaim. (Not his real name, to avoid possible security repercussions. Chaim is appropriate, since Chaim means life and he saved many lives.) I never knew about Chaim until being sent the following story about him by another, close cousin of mine living in southern Israel.

Chaim lives on a kibbutz in what's called the "Gaza envelope" and he is part of a 15-man "standby class." Early morning last Saturday, 30 terrorists attempted to infiltrate. Miraculously, despite the terrorists having attacked with the element of surprise and being twice the number of the standby squad, those heroes fought for five hours and managed to "neutralize" 10 of the terrorists before the rest fled and army finally arrived, saving the lives of every single member of the kibbutz. Three members of the squad were injured, with Chaim taking two bullets in his leg after about two hours but continuing to fight until the end. Tragically, the terrorists managed to murder 16 foreign workers, wounding 4 more and as I write this 4 more are missing, most likely being held hostage in Gaza.

No such miracle occurred at a nearby kibbutz, where Hamas terrorists slaughtered more than 100 of their 1000 members!

My cousin's story was accompanied by a picture of his wife - once a child refugee forced to flee Tunisia - smiling together with Chaim in the hospital he was brought to be treated for his wounds, the very hospital where she worked as a physical therapist for decades and helped many other terror victims recover from injuries!

A moment of clarity. As a citizen of both, I am proud that America and Israel share more of the same values than any other countries in the world. They also share the same enemies.

As Israelis were shocked by 9/11, shared America's pain and even built the only 9/11 memorial outside the United States, Americans are sharing Israel's pain from the Simchat Torah massacre. As Palestinian Arabs danced on the roofs of Ramallah in celebration of 9/11. their children have been dancing in Ramallah in celebration of the Simchat Torah massacre.

Ronald Reagan provided clarity when he referred to the Soviet Union as the "evil empire."

After the fall of the Soviet Union, George Bush provided clarity when he dubbed Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "axis of evil."

This week, Hamas provided clarity by showing that it and Iran's other terror proxies are part of the axis of evil.

Ronald Reagan provided another moment of clarity when he revealed his strategy for the Cold War: "We win, they lose."

Our strategy today must again be "We win, they lose."

Israel is on the front line in this battle and we must stand strongly together as it battles to make sure good wins and evil loses.

In Hebrew, "Am Yisrael Chai" means the Israeli people live.

Together with Israel, we must make sure "Am Artzot HaBrit Chai," the American people live.

May God bless Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

Alan Stein, Ph.D., was formerly a long time resident of Waterbury. He and his wife Marsha currently split their time between Netanya in Israel and Natick, Massachusetts. He is President Emeritus of PRIMER-Connecticut (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting) and the founder of PRIMER-Massachusetts and PRIMER-Israel.

The Hamas Massacre

By Roger B. Baskin

On Saturday October 7, 2023, the terrorist group Hamas engaged in one of the most sadistic atrocities in world history.  The atrocities included: murdering babies and decapitating their heads; burning elderly people alive, raping women and parading them naked in the street with their crotch bleeding from the rape, raping and killing women and placing their bodies on the street celebrating their murder,  beheading soldiers,  killing parents in front of their children, killing children in front of their parents; taking babies and the elderly as hostages.

One would think that the barbarism of Hamas would be met with universal condemnation.  Sadly that was not the case.  MSNBC in their coverage became the voice of terrorism. MSNBC referred to Hamas as fighters and refused to call them terrorists.   MSNBC made every attempt to justify the actions of  Hamas.  Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL was so outraged, he went on MSNBC two days later and decried the MSNBC coverage and asked whether the MSNBC script had been written by Hamas.  The New York Post accused MSNBC of running “interference for Hamas”. The MSNBC coverage was so egregious that MSNBC lost 33% of its prime time audience during and after the massacre.  At the same time the CNN and Fox News audiences surged. 

MSNBC was not the only bad actor in the United States.  Student groups at Harvard, Columbia, Michigan, Northwestern, NYU and other elite universities released statements blaming Israel for the barbaric attacks by Hamas.  The reaction to these students was swift.  Alumni demanded that the universities denounce these statements and reveal the names of the students who signed the public letters supporting the Hamas massacre.  What  employers would want to hire people with those values? A prominent law firm rescinded a job offer to Ryna Workman, a law student at Columbia  who wrote “Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life”.   Other employers followed rescinding job offers to those who support wanton brutality.  

The tactics of MSNBC and the students who defended Hamas are well known to students of anti-Semitism.  The tactics of dehumanization and blaming the Jews for extreme acts of anti-Semitism goes back to the ancient days in Greece and Rome.  Extreme elements of the left and the right agree on only one thing:  their hatred of Jews.  The left wing Communists of the Soviet Union engaged in pogroms against Jews, which is exactly what the Hamas attack was. The right wing Nazis sent Jews to concentration camps.  

The Hamas charter is not of peaceful co-existence with Israel. The Hamas charter is to destroy Israel and kill all Jews on earth.  The Hamas massacre had nothing to do with bringing peace to the Middle East.  Hamas has opposed all peace efforts between Israel and Arab states.  One motivation of this attack might be to stop a peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Anti-Semitism is often thought to be an extreme right wing phenomena.  However extreme left wing anti-Semitism is just as pernicious as right wing anti-Semitism. Extreme left wing anti-Semitism was on full display on MSNBC and college campuses. 

Yale Zussman's Latest Recommendations

Hi Folks,

 

It's been a while since my last package, but with the approach of the Jewish New Year, I thought this would be a good time to send my latest set of recommendations:

 

The Biden Administration's Secret Capitulation to Iran's Regime
by Majid Rafizadeh 
June 17, 2023
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19727/capitulation-to-iran

 

My comment: Biden is repeating the errors Obama made in 2015, which raises the question of what Obama's actual goal was:  It matters a great deal whether Obama was pursuing a halt to Iran's nuclear weapons program -- we now know he didn't succeed on this -- and was willing to pay a financial price to get there, or whether providing money to Iran was the actual objective and nominal limitations on one of its weapons programs, however important, was just a smokescreen to protect him from a charge of treason.
---------
Ehud Barak agreed to give up part of Temple Mount, Old City
JNS
Jun 19, 2023
https://www.jns.org/jns/topic/23/6/19/296380/

Details of the Camp David discussions in 2000.
----------
Palestinian state -- consistent with US interests?
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
July 5, 2023 
bit.ly/44cJNfV

 

The dilemma faced by the Palestinians is that their "nation" was established to serve as a pawn in the Muslim war against the Jews. That war has failed, and with the onset of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Islamist wave among Sunnis, Muslim countries have re-evaluated the concept of a war against the Jews, leaving the Palestinians to "twist slowly in the wind." They could escape their fate by acknowledging that the war against the Jews has failed, but if they admit that, they lose whatever leverage they have had with the their Muslim brethren and acknowledge that their narrative is a lie. Ettinger addresses the consequences for the US of buying into that narrative.
----------
Iran's Mullahs Escalating Aggression in Latin America, Middle East
by Majid Rafizadeh
July 22, 2023 
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19820/iran-escalating-aggression

 

Iran seeks to become a major arms exporter enabling "bad actors" everywhere to increase their aggression. Meanwhile, Biden threatens Israel for seeking to stop Iran's activities.  See the first item, above.
----------
Iran’s Ayatollas poke the US in the eye
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
July 26, 2023
https://bit.ly/4752HXS

 

Outlines the Iranian threat in Latin America, including a threat to close, or destroy (by rendering the locks inoperative), the Panama Canal by the end of 2023. Two questions: Does anyone in either Washington or Tehran recognizes that doing so is a casus belli; it's essentially what Egypt did in 1967 to set off the Six Day War? Will the Biden Administration respond, and if so, how? 
----------
Refuse-to-serve: Biased Israeli media is not reporting the full story - opinion
By DAVID M. WEINBERG 
The Jerusalem Post
JULY 21, 2023
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-751860

 

As Weinberg tells it, the real story of reservist refusal to serve due to the judicial reform is biased media coverage. Refusal announcements get wide coverage, denunciation of those refusals gets close to none. If this sounds familiar, it is because Americans have faced the same problem since Obama maneuvered our media into serving as a "Ministry of Truth" for him.
----------
The 1993 Oslo Accord dismissed the writing on the wall
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
September 6, 2023
https://bit.ly/3r1wJeY

 

Ettinger itemizes the clues that the Oslo process would lead to disaster, and how Shimon Perez deluded himself into thinking that the basic issues in the conflict could be ignored.

 

I note that the Oslo Accords were a triumph for an approach to foreign policy that ignores ideological and theological dimensions in favor of what are termed "real" factors. If the Palestinians were interested in resolving their "real" problems, like a bad economy, poor governance, and perpetual refugee status, they would seek to replace the permanent UNRWA with a short-term agency that undertook to resettle them and address their other "real" problems.  In this effort, Israel would be an interested and important factor.  Instead, the Palestinian cause remains dedicated to three theological concepts: Preserving the notion that no territory can be removed from the Muslim waqf, reinstating the dhimma so Muslims can continue to treat Jews and others as third-class "citizens," and validating Islamic supersessionism.  Jewish success in winning a state for themselves by force of arms violates all three.  Without addressing these beliefs, there is likely no progress to be made in the conflict.

---------

Let me close by  wishing my Jewish readers a Shanah Tovah U'Mtukah, a Good and Sweet New Year.

 

--Yale 

An unprecedented look inside one of Jerusalem’s holiest—and most controversial—landmarks interchanges myths and facts

The following letter was sent to the Editor-in-Chief and Senior Features Editor of National Geographic after it published an article that presented known history as questionable and Palestinian Arab lies as truth.

This is not the first time National Geographic has dishonored its pages by publishing lies about Israel. Since National Geographic no longer publishes letters, it is being posted here and we encourage you to share it.

Dear Mr. Lump and Mr. Gwin:

Andrew Lawler's article "An unprecedented look inside one of Jerusalem’s holiest—and most controversial—landmarks" is far from unprecedented, especially in the way it treats Arab and Muslim myths as if they were truths and treats verified Jewish history as if they were myths

For example, there is no question that the two Jewish Temples were built on the Temple Mount, but there is no evidence that Muhammad ever visited Jerusalem; indeed, it is highly unlikely he ever came anywhere close to Jerusalem.

The Dome of the Rock is not "Islam's third most sacred site." It has importance to Sunni Muslims, but has no religious significance to Shiite Muslims. And even its importance to Sunni Muslims is built on the lie, created out of whole cloth when the Sunnis were not allowed in Mecca and Medina, that Muhammad made a night journey there on the back of Buraq.

Similar inversions of myths and facts, truths and lies, exist in almost every paragraph in the article, and every bit of Palestinian propaganda is treated as the gospel truth while the article questions documented truths coming from Israelis.

For example, Lawler writes police "stormed" the Al-Aqsa Mosque twice during Ramadan and then casts doubt on what he calls police claims rioters barricaded themselves in the Al-Aqsa Mosque and were armed with fireworks. Yet there is indisputable photographic and video evidence that the denigrated "claims" of the Israeli police were absolutely true.

Lawler wrote about seven gates providing access into the Temple Mount, which he incorrectly called the "Al Aqsa compound." Actually, there are ten gates. He incorrectly wrote "Israeli security tightly controls every entry point." I personally found that out in 1980 when I was wandering around the Old City and noticed an open gate to the Temple Mount and started walking through it. I was rudely stopped by a Jordanian guard - and note this was long before the peace treaty with Jordan - who told me the gate was closed and I couldn't enter. I quickly found out that was a lie, as several Arabs walked through the gate and weren't stopped.

Lawler fails to note that Arabs and Muslims have unfettered 24/7 access through all those gates, while Jews are only allowed to enter the Temple Mount through a single gate and only a few hours a day a few days a week. He also fails to mention this discrimination, along with the discrimination against Jewish prayer on their holiest site is a violation of the peace treaty with Jordan, which calls for free access for all to their religions sites.

It's not unusual these days to see articles about Israel or the Palestinian Arabs filled with errors and misrepresentations and this was far from the first time such an article appeared in National Geographic. So I can't say I was surprised by Lawler's article. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

National Geographic owes its readers a slew of corrections and a heartfelt apology.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

Now that reasonableness has passed, let's get reasonable

I submitted this to the Jerusalem Post, but it hasn't been published, so I'm posting it in a few different places. I'm hoping to inject some sanity into the debate - I'm using that term loosely - over judicial reform in Israel. Please feel free to share it in whatever form you can.

Now that reasonableness has passed, let's get reasonable

Alan Stein

Spoiler alert: The implementation of the new Basic Law limiting the use of the reasonableness standard needs to be delayed to give the next government, chosen after the next election (hopefully, we'll just need one election next time), a chance to have its say.

As a dual citizen living in both Israel and the United States, while not being an attorney I believe I have an understanding about the judicial reform controversy that escapes most Israelis and most Americans, including American Jews.
Had the initial protests actually been purely about the initial judicial reform proposals, I might have joined them. Although judicial reform is clearly needed, as has been recognized in the past by most of those now leading the increasingly hysterical opposition to the current efforts, the original proposals contained some provisions I felt unwise. However, it was clear from the beginning that the protests had more to do with trying to undo the results of the election than the proposals. The protests were and remain, in effect, Israel's version of the massive anti-Trump demonstrations in the United States in 2016 and 2017 surrounding Donald Trump's election and inauguration and the pro-Trump rally in the Capitol on January 6, 2021 trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Unfortunately, the Israeli protests have been far more sustained, far more disruptive, have already done tremendous damage and threaten to do far more. They have already done far more damage than any provisions of the original proposals could have done.
Many have said that Netanyahu and only Netanyahu could have ended the unrest. Others have said that about Lapid, Saar, Barak and Olmert. They're all both right and wrong.
Netanyahu might have been able prevent the disaster at the start, had he not been constrained by the attorney general from getting involved. (This, itself, provides a good case for the need for reform!) Or if he had shown more courage and ignored the attorney general before things got totally out of hand.
The opposition could also have prevented the disaster by addressing their followers and speaking honestly, putting the good of the country ahead of their hatred of Netanyahu, who has been prime minister for so long and has such a talent for alienating people, including close associates, and ahead of their goal of forcing the collapse of the coalition.
They could have. Netanyahu could have. The coalition members really pushing the judicial overhaul could have.
None of them did. They all acted irresponsibly. They all acted unreasonably. They all share responsible for the damage that has been done.
Now, we have one small portion of the package enacted into law. From the reports I've read, it's not much different from what was almost agreed upon in the negotiations under the auspices of the president.
The protests have gotten more disruptive and more damaging and coalition members are saying they will be pushing ahead with more of the changes.
If either side wins a complete victory, it will be a total disaster for Israel.
I have some recommendations.
First and most important, immediately pass a slight modification to the legislation just enacted, specifying that it will not go into effect until month (or some other "reasonable" period) after the next election is held and a new government is formed. A similar provision should be included with any additional modifications of Basic Laws.
No longer could any claim they were fighting the reforms to preserve democracy. They would not affect either the current coalition or Netanyahu's legal cases and whatever government is elected next time could quickly put an end to any changes it opposed on principle rather than as part of a strategy to bring down the coalition.
With the atmosphere, if not the summer heat, hopefully cooler, resume the talks hosted by President Herzog, but this time participate in good faith, honestly try to reach agreement so that we can move forward, concentrate on healing the schisms that have been exacerbated the last few months and deal with the basic problems we all share.
And then, we need to deal with one of the basic (pun intended) problems that has emerged in both Israel and the United States: governments implementing fundamental changes opposed by large portions or even majorities of the population.
For example:
In the United States, a fundamental change in the system of health care was legislated using parliamentary tricks despite being opposed by the majority of the voters. A treaty (the JCPOA or Iran "deal") was implemented, despite the opposition of most of the people and most of Congress, using the subterfuge of pretending it wasn't a treaty. (And now a new treaty has apparently been negotiated and it's planned to completely bypass Congress by pretending it's not even a deal.) Supreme Court justices used to require a 2/3 approval of the Senate and approval was rarely controversial; recently, appointments and approvals have become highly partisan, some appointments have been prevented by the expedient of refusing to vote and the so-called "nuclear option" was implemented and controversial appointments have been approved with a bare majority.
In Israel, the Oslo Accords were approved over the opposition of roughly half the country, as was the Gaza disengagement. Basic Laws have been swiftly amended for purely political convenience and now a Basic Law has been enacted not just without a consensus, but over bitter opposition.
Many have said the current events demonstrate our need for an Israeli Constitution. I agree, but I doubt we'd be able to get an agreement now without further tearing the country apart. However, we can work towards one by making Basic Laws really basic in the following way:
Start with something like the following Basic Law: A Basic Law shall be enacted upon the approval of a 2/3 vote of the entire Knesset.
Given that we have a unicameral legislature, perhaps it would be better to require the approval of two consecutive Knessets, or a second vote a reasonable period, perhaps a year, after the first vote. But a Basic Law should require overwhelming approval and should not be able to be enacted without giving people time to consider it.
As for existing Basic Laws, let them retain that status for a reasonable (there's that word again) period, say five years. If they are reapproved using the new conditions during that period, they would retain the status of Basic Laws; if they are not reapproved, they could still be laws but not Basic Laws.
After another five years or so, we could compile those now meaningful Basic Laws together and approve them as a Constitution.

In the meantime, let's have some courage and statesmanship from our political leaders rather than cowardice and partisanship.

Alan Stein is a dual citizen of Israel, living in Netanya, and the United States, living in Massachusetts. He is an active advocate for Israel, founder of PRIMER-Israel and PRIMER-Massachusetts and president emeritus of PRIMER-Connecticut and was CAMERA's Letter Writer of the Year in 2015. In 2009, his op-ed giving advice to Barack Obama was published on the day of Obama's inauguration. Upon making aliyah in 2014, his op-ed giving advice to Benjamin Netanyahu was published. Stein believes it is unfortunate that neither Obama nor Bibi was wise enough to take his advice. He hopes history does not repeat with the advice he's giving in this op-ed.

This Year's Annual Ramadan Terror Spree

A variation of this was sent out as a PRIMER-Israel alert. There are three PRIMER groups, in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Israel. Check out their websites and consider getting on their alerts lists.

PRIMER-Connecticut    PRIMER-Massachusetts    PRIMER-Israel

While we mourn our victims, both murdered and injured, of this year’s Ramadan terror spree, and while our soldiers and police act to protect us all from the additional attacks we know are planned or will be planned, those of us who fight with our keyboards need to do our part to prevent Iran, the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah and the other terror groups from also getting a propaganda victory.

Almost all the reporting has been typically biased, using loaded language, terminology defined by Israel’s enemies, misinformation, disinformation and outright false information while often omitting important context. It’s up to us to do our best to provide it.

We will include some of our own thoughts below, but urge you to read the emails you get from so many other sources with more resources and also check their websites and write letters and social media posts to give the facts and your unique perspective as an Israeli living here in Israel.

Among the resources we recommend (forgive us for leaving out so many; we’ll just list a handful of our favorites):

For examples of media bias:

CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis)

HonestReporting

For fairly up-to-date information:

JNS (Jewish News Syndicate)

JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency)

Jerusalem Post

Times of Israel

i24 News

Thoughts and observations:

• I heard this expressed on i24 News. I have not been able to find the video to watch again, so my recollection may not be exact.

The question came up regarding why the Muslim “worshippers” barricaded themselves in the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Tuesday night, arming themselves with the stones and fireworks, when they are generally allowed to stay overnight during the last ten days of Ramadan anyway.

The reason explained was that since the first Seder was Wednesday night, they knew many Jews would be visiting the Temple Mount on Wednesday, so it was a golden opportunity to attack a lot of Jews with the stones and fireworks.

It was also noted that the rockets started flying from Gaza as soon as videos of the confrontations with the Israeli police were posted on social media and this was not a coincidence. This was planned, almost certainly masterminded by Iran. The rockets were prepared in advance and people were ready in the mosque to take videos and post them as soon as the confrontations started, while the terrorists in Gaza were prepped and ready to launch the rockets as soon as those videos were posted.

My interpretation - this wasn’t clear from what I remember on i24 - was that Iran and its terrorists in the mosque were prepared for two possibilities:

The first: What happened. The police, knowing they were preparing to attack Jews on the Temple Mount with the stones and fireworks they had smuggled into the mosque, would enter the mosque to prevent the attacks, in which case they would start attacking the police, take videos, quickly edit them to make Israel look bad to the world, post them on social media and immediately launch rockets.

The second: The police wouldn’t enter the mosque, in which case they would attack Jews on the Temple Mount Wednesday morning, take videos, post them with the message they were protecting Al-Aqsa from the Jews, and immediately launch rockets.

• The media almost always describes Al-Aqsa as the third holiest site for Muslims. However, it’s only holy for Sunni Muslims; it has no significance for Shiite Muslims. Moti Kedar has also explained (there are many sources, both articles and videos) how the source of its holiness was a fraud and that the “Al Aqsa” mentioned just once in the Koran was actually in what’s now Saudi Arabia, not far from Mecca and Medina. (See, for one example out of many, “Why and When was the Myth of al-Aqsa Created?”)

• Media bias can be simultaneously blatant and subtle. Here’s one example taken from today’s Hartford Courant. (I used to live in Connecticut and keep an eye on that paper.)

The Hartford Courant published an Associated Press article on Friday’s murder of Maya and Rina Dee. (As I write this, their mother remains in critical condition.) The article was accompanied by a large photo of a seriously damaged automobile. But, although there are many photos available of the car ambushed by the terrorists, the photo accompanying the article wasn’t of that; rather, it was of a car in Gaza allegedly damaged by Israeli airstrikes. The text of the article similarly changed the focus from the fatal terror attack to Israel’s responses to all the terror attacks and was written in a way as to create sympathy for the terrorists.

• How holy can “worshippers” believe Al-Aqsa is if they use it as a weapons arsenal (storing stones and fireworks) and use it as a base from which to attack Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount?

• Although I personally think it’s rather meshuga to consider sacrificing a goat today, on the Temple Mount or anywhere else, there’s absolutely no reason for Arabs or Muslims to get upset about the possibility unless they’re animal activists and/or vegetarians. That they make an issue of the desire of some to do it on the Temple Mount - especially since they know the Israeli officials will not let them carry it out - is just another example of them looking for pretexts to launch attacks.

• There is invariably an uptick in terror attacks during Ramadan. There are also almost always serious attempts to perpetuate bloody terror attacks during Jewish holidays. It would thus have been astounding if the Palestinian Arabs didn’t do everything in their power this year, with Pesach being celebrated during Ramadan, to make sure Ramadan did not pass quietly.

Please check the newspapers you are familiar with, along with the examples provided by CAMERA, HonestReporting and other sources, and fight back with your keyboard.

This commentary was published in the CT Mirror on April 6, 2023.

The U.S. must end its 'pay-to-slay' incentive in Israeli-Palestinian conflict

by Mark Fishman and Alan Stein, Ph.D.

Israeli soldier on a Palestine street.
JUSTIN MCINTOSH,, CC BY 2.0 ,
VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

Since a reversal of long-standing American policy around the turn of the century, several American administrations have been obsessed with achieving a so-called "two-state solution" between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs for a final peace, including division of the land outside Israel's 1949 armistice line with Jordan, sometimes incorrectly called the "West Bank."

There have been numerous offers, all rejected by Palestinian leaders, who prefer rejectionism, terrorism and maybe Western funds instead of an end to the conflict. Their main objective remains the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state and the removal of all Jews. Thus, the signs proclaiming "Free Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea" at Palestinian rallies. In light of conflicting goals and objectives, it is no surprise that there is no agreement.

What is a surprise, however, is that American administrations rush to reward and incentivize Palestinian intransigence and murderous violence.

President Clinton hosted a summit at Camp David in 2000 with Prime Minister Barak and PLO Chairman Arafat. Israel offered almost all of the land which it had recaptured from Jordan in 1967 plus Gaza to form a sovereign Palestinian state. Not only did Arafat reject the offer, sparking Clinton's ire, but he launched years of terrorism and terror throughout Israel, the so-called "second intifada," in which over a thousand Israelis were killed.

After Arafat rejected the 2000 offer, Israel made an even more generous offer in 2001. Then, in 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered then-President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority the equivalent of 100 percent of the disputed territories and even part of Jerusalem.

Since then, we have given large sums of money to the Palestinians, directly through the PA and indirectly through UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), in a vain attempt at a solution the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected, while never abandoning terrorism or their goal of destroying Israel.

Each time, rather than pressuring the party which initiated and refuses to end the conflict, our government has pressured Israel instead to make more concessions, including releasing 78 murderers and freezing housing construction upon request of President Obama, effectively rewarding the Palestinians for their intransigence and deadly violence.

The fact that the PLO, which is affiliated with the PA, has never changed its charter provisions calling for the destruction of Israel and proclaiming there is no alternative to use of terrorism has not made a difference.

The fact that Abbas told President Obama that he would never accept the core concept of the two-state solution, two states for two peoples, has not made a difference.

The fact that in 2016 the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority declared the PA would never again negotiate directly with Israel has not made a difference.

The fact that Palestinian terrorists have murdered countless Israeli and American civilians over the years and 13 already this year through February, including West Hartford native Elan Ganeles, has made no difference.

Palestinian towns grotesquely celebrate deadly terror attacks with candy. The PA lauds terrorists as heroes. It names schools, stadiums and public squares after mass murderers. It produces textbooks which demonize Israel and Jews, glorify terrorism and deny Israel's existence. These textbooks are also used by UNRWA, of which we are the largest supporter. We stopped funding UNRWA but resumed in 2021, making us again complicit in radicalizing Arab youth, especially since many UNRWA teachers are members of Palestinian terror groups.

The Palestinian Authority also spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on its infamous "pay-to-slay" program. When a terrorist murders Israelis, he is rewarded with a salary by the PA. If the terrorist is killed, the PA rewards his family. If the terrorist murders more Israelis, he or his family are paid more.

Our Taylor Force Act is named after a young American murdered by a Palestinian terrorist in Tel Aviv in 2016. It prohibits assistance to the PA until it ends pay-to-slay. Most funding was terminated when the Act was passed. However, like UNRWA funding, it resumed in 2021 and has increased several times despite greater Palestinian terrorism.

We need to resume compliance with the Act. Pay-to-slay doesn't only lead to more Israelis and Americans, including Connecticut natives, being murdered. Many terrorists themselves are killed while attacking Israeli civilians. They become martyrs, are glorified by the PA, and their example is followed by Palestinian youth.

If we want to save lives, both Palestinian and Israeli, and bring closer a Palestinian-Israeli peace, whether the so-called two-state solution or some other, perhaps more workable scenario, then ending the rewarding  and incentivizing of Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism is a necessary first step.

Mark Fishman of New Haven is President and Alan Stein, a former long-time resident of Waterbury, is President Emeritus of PRIMER-Connecticut, Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting.

Response to The Wellesley News editorial supporting genocide against Jews in Eretz Yisrael

Following the publication of an editorial in The Wellesley News effectively supporting genocide against the indigenous people who have returned to their homeland, the Land of Israel, Fred Bauman wrote a thoughtful letter to Paula Johnson, president of Wellesley College.

His letter is reproduced here with the permission of the author.

Dear President Johnson:

The Wellesley News has published an editorial coming out foursquare against the "occupation of Palestine."  This is not even a euphemism for the destruction of Israel, the Jewish state, and the oft-boasted and promised slaughter of its Jewish people at the hands of the two organizations that rule the Palestinians, Hamas and the PA.  More than that, the editorial expresses support for the notorious "Mapping Project," which pinpoints every Jewish organization that has any ties to Israel and calls for them to be "dismantled and disrupted."

It should be obvious even to those who, like you, have a huge interest in not seeing the elephant in the room, that this is where "anti-Zionism" loses every trace of its "who us? We're not against Jews," mask.  Even you and your Trustees surely see  that "dismantling and disrupting" means intimidation, threats, bullying, and if those don't work, vandalism and further violence of the kind that is already too commonly directed against American synagogues, campus Hillels and other Jewish institutions and individual Jews.

Now, I am well aware that The Wellesley News is an independent organization and not under your control.  But that doesn't get you off the hook in the slightest.  That is because campus newspapers do not publish editorials of this kind unless they are quite sure that there is considerable campus support for them.  That editorial tells everyone that Wellesley has become a pretty reliably anti-Jewish campus with a student body that is just fine with calls for what would amount to a second genocide of the Jews.  That is something you are in part responsible for, if only because you have done nothing serious to oppose it.

Half a century ago or so, my good friend, the late Victor Baras, taught at Wellesley.  He was born in a DP (displaced persons in case you aren't familiar with the acronym) camp in Bamberg, Germany.  His parents had survived the Holocaust in Galicia, hidden in the potato cellar of a local farmer, and had headed west with the Red Army and, wisely, past it.  He was a specialist in 20th century European and especially Russian history and politics.  I recall that he used to tell me that he taught his Wellesley students, who at the time were of course horrified that anyone could have become a Nazi, that in fact, in that time and place they would have been enthusiastic Nazis as well.  Their privilege, their idealism, their sense that things were in a bad state, would have led them, he explained, to embrace causes that promised drastic, simple solutions and that focused on one or a few wicked enemies who merely had to be destroyed for all to be well.  And of course the archetype of such an enemy in Christian culture has been the Jew.  So if Vic had been told that in a half century Wellesley students would in fact have, though with a slightly altered rationale, become passionate, idealistic and utterly vicious Jew-haters, I don't think he would have been in the least surprised.

But I do think that, like me, he would have been saddened.  He too would have expected that people like you would have been in denial until it was almost or even wholly too late.  Who wants to reopen that can of worms?  Who wants to admit that the high-sounding rationales for Jew-hate, all the talk about "anti-colonialism" and the like, is dishonest and merely masks the same old murderous evil?  And who, above all, dares to be called "racist" or "neo-colonialist" for having the guts to call haters what they are?  Not you, no more than the respectable leaders of the German universities in the late 1920's and 1930's, who feared being called "socialists" or "Jewish catspaws."    He would even have understood, I believe, that many respectable Jews in high positions in American universities would also have been in denial.  The "Herr Wendriner"  syndrome (look it up if you are interested enough) that Kurt Tucholsky mercilessly savaged, is with us today, leading Jewish figures who are desperate not to be singled out and attacked and who hope that the new Jew-hate is just a passing phenomenon that will mercifully disappear or at least not affect them.

In any case, however slim the chance is that you and your administration and Trustees will ever go past vague and formulaic disavowals of "anti-Semitism." you need to do it.  Perhaps thinking of how contemptible you will look to those who come later, to those Wellesley students in another half century who will look back on you with horror and incomprehension, might help.  Look at yourselves in the mirror and ask yourself who you are, who you still want to be.  I have few hopes for you and those like you.  But you still have a chance not to fit the old, ugly, vile pattern of those who avert their eyes when the Nazis ride high.

Sincerely,

Fred Bauman

Censored by Facebook Again

 When the Associated Press wrote about the announcement by the Israeli army about its investigation of the death of the Al Jazeera propagandist - er, "reporter" - Shireen Abu Akleh, an announcement that its conclusion was that there was a high probability that she was killed accidentally by fire from an Israeli soldier rather than from all those wild shots from Palestinian Arab terrorists, rather than straight reporting or, if it was going to insert opinion and/or analysis, noting there really was no evidence to back that up and it seemed far more likely the fatal bullet was shot by one of the terrorists, the AP article was written as if it was a propaganda piece coming from the organization whose initials are the transposition of those of the Associated Press.

I wrote a letter to the AP and posted it to the AP monitor Facebook group <https://www.facebook.com/groups/apmonitor>. Within minutes, Facebook's AI (Artificially Idiotic) bot had  absurdly deleted it as spam.

I have, of course, appealed that decision, but not only don't expect anything to come of that appeal, but don't expect it to even be acknowledged.

In any case, since Facebook censored it, I'm posting the letter here.

I'm also including, after the letter itself, screenshots of the messages from Facebook informing me of their bot's idiocy.

The letter sent to the Associated Press with the subject September 6 Article "Israeli army: ‘High probability’ soldier killed reporter":

Dear Editor, Mr. Daniszewski, Mr. Federman, Ms. Goldenberg and Mr. Krauss:

The September 6 article ""Israeli army: ‘High probability’ soldier killed reporter" (https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-journalists-veterans-al-jazeera-0e33ab0025cf06ee498ab83445e39733) takes the results of an Israeli investigation which, if reported on honestly and objectively, would make clear the stark contrast between the morality and integrity shown by the Israeli government and its military and the mendaciousness of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership.

The essence of what happened was that after a rash of terror attacks by Palestinian Arabs who killed at least 19 civilians, including several Americans (something that is downplayed by the Associated Press, as is always the case when Arab terrorists murder Americans), Israel was forced to go into the Palestinian Authority-governed areas, particularly Jenin, to capture perpetrators and to stop additional attacks.

This context was missing from the AP story, but that's just the beginning.

During the course of one operation trying to arrest terrorists in Jenin, the Israeli forces came under constant fire and, during those firefights, a reporter got hit by a bullet and died.

What happened was analogous to a not-terribly-uncommon situation where crimes are committed, police come under fire when they try to arrest the criminals and bystanders get caught in the crossfire. Under those circumstances, it is understood and accepted that, regardless of the source of the bullet, ultimate blame lies with the criminals, not the police.

Analogously, regardless of the source of the bullet, ultimate blame for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh lies with the terrorists, not the Israeli forces trying to arrest them. Yet not once in the myriad articles written by the Associated Press about this incident, has that basic fact been even hinted at!

Immediately after her death, clearly without even a scintilla of evidence, the Palestinian Authority insisted not only that Abu Akleh was hit by an Israeli bullet, but against all reason that she was deliberately targeted. This nonsensical insistence was repeated by the media, including by the AP, which repeatedly treated the unreliable testimony of alleged witnesses as if it was trustworthy while using loaded language to cast aspersions against the very reasoned statements coming from Israelis, who did not jump to baseless conclusions.

The AP repeated that irresponsible "reporting" in this article, for example opining that "the military revealed no new evidence to back its claim that the Palestinian-American journalist might have been killed by Palestinian fire." That "claim" is rather obviously true, while the AP has never pointed out the Palestinian Arab sources have never revealed any evidence to back their insistence that she was hit by an Israeli bullet.

What a double standard!

The article reports "Both Palestinian officials and Abu Akleh’s family accused the army of evading responsibility for her killing," but fails to mention that Palestinian Arab officials repeatedly deliberately make blatantly false accusations or that Jenin is famous for being the site of the massacre that never was, with Saeb Erekat telling CNN that Israel "massacred" 500 people in a refugee camp there.

In the Abu Akleh incident, rather than making irresponsible and baseless accusations, the Israeli army acted extremely responsibly, investigating what happened for four months, handicapped by the very suspicious way the Palestinian Authority hid all the forensic evidence, and did something that the Palestinian Authority would never do: announce that it appeared she was probably hit by a bullet fired by an Israeli.

Given the lack of any forensic evidence and the explanations included in the AP article, it would appear the main basis for that conclusion was that a soldier reported he had shot in that direction at the time she was apparently hit, while - not very surprisingly - none of the terrorists reported firing in that direction at that time. Of course, none of the terrorists would report doing that, even if they deliberately killed her.

Perhaps, in straight reporting, it might be assumed that latter reality would be understood by the reader and omitted. However, given all the gratuitous commentary that infuses AP reporting about Israel, to leave out any reference to that reality compounds the irresponsibility.

Later, the article again casts doubt on clearly responsibility statements from Israeli sources and gives undeserved credibility to unreliable sources, the article pretends "the military provided no evidence to support its claim that a fierce gunbattle was under way at the time that Abu Akleh was shot" while writing "amateur videos as well as witness accounts have shown no evidence of militants in the vicinity and the area appeared to be quiet for several minutes before she was shot." Of course, if anyone in Jenin produced a video showing what the AP euphemistically calls "militants" (being afraid to accurately referring to Palestinian terrorists) in the vicinity or gave testimony to that effect, that person would almost certainly find his or her life suddenly became very difficult, to put it euphemistically.

Although I've never served in the military myself, it seems pretty obvious that it would be very possible for a soldier under fire to not notice a potential threat suddenly coming into view was "wearing a helmet and vest marked 'press.'" It would also have been responsible for the Associated Press to note that Palestinian Arab terrorists are known to disguise themselves as members of the press and thus it can be dangerous for an Israeli soldier, in a violent situation, to assume someone "wearing a helmet and vest marked 'press'" is not going to attack.

In contrast to casting doubt on just about anything from an Israeli source, the AP repeatedly quotes unreliable sources, such as a spokesperson for Holocaust denier Manhoud Abbas dismissing Israel's report as "another Israeli attempt to evade responsibility" and saying "all evidence process that 'Israel is the culprit, that it killed'" Abu Akleh, despite the fact no such evidence has ever been produced or the obvious fact that the Palestinian Authority has kept all the forensic evidence to itself (except for the bullet it claimed was responsible but which, curiously, was too damaged to prove anything) if that evidence backed up his accusation the PA certainly would have shared it.

The article repeats something the AP has included in many earlier articles, a statement that investigations by the AP and other organizations have found that "Israeli troops most likely fired the fatal bullet," but again failed to mention that all those conclusions were based on testimony from highly unreliable sources. In contrast, it unreasonably casts doubt on the obvious conclusion by the United States that if she was hit by an Israeli bullet, there was no evidence that it was anything other than a mistake. The AP does that by adding a statement that "it did not explain how it reached that conclusion."

The article continued in that irresponsible vein and then finished by stating Israeli police "beat mourners and pallbearers" at Abu Akleh's funeral without pointing out the supposed mourners both hijacked the casket and attacked the Israeli police trying to restore order.

It then concludes by opining "the Palestinians want the territory [Judea and Samaria] to form the main part of a future state."

Curiously, to use the AP's own language, the article "did not explain how it reached that conclusion," despite the fact that, given their repeated rejection of proposals that would have given them just that and that it conflicts with the content of the charters of the main Palestinian Arab groups, including the PLO, Fatah and Hamas, the evidence strongly indicates that statement is grossly incorrect.

One should be able to expect better of the Associated Press.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein

The screenshots from Facebook's censorship and threat: