מדרש הסירוב

במהדורה מיוחדת של פסיקתא דרבי כהנא נמצא מדרש זה אשר, לפי חוקרים, חובר בימי המרד נגד הרומאים בידי אנשי כת מתונה מבין המורדים אשר האלימות שהנהיגו אנשי הסיקריקין הפחידה אותם.


א"ר ישראל בן שמואל: "ותיראן המילדת את הא-להים ולא עשו כאשר דבר אליהן מלך מצרים" (שמות א, י"ז), "ותיראן את הא-להים" מרותו של הקב"ה היתה מקובלת עליהן יותר מזו של מלך בשר ודם. "לא עשו", משמע סירבו. א"ר יצחק כתוב "ויאמר להן מדוע עשיתן הדבר הזה" (שם, י"ח) והיה על פרעה לשאול אותן 'מדוע לא עשיתן' כי הרי הוא ציווה עליהן להרוג את כל הזכרים דכתיב "אם בן הוא והמתן אתו" (שם, ט"ו).

אם כן, מאי טעמא "מדוע עשיתן". "עשיתן", זה מה שכתוב "ותחיין את הילדים" שסיפקו להם מים ומזון. אלא מדוע אין פרעה שואל אודות הסירוב? והשיב ר' ישראל: כי פרעה הבין את הסירוב ולא ביקש להעניש אותן על כך כי חזר בתשובה.

מדרש יפה, לא?

הדוקרים משילה או - הנה באה עלילת הדם

הקלות הבאמת בלתי-נסבלת והפעם, הבלתי-נסלחת של עיתונאים להאמין שיהודים דקרו למוות, ב- 12 דקירות, ילד ערבי מהכפר קריות שליד שילה, וגם לא לבקש תגובה אלא למהר ולפרסם בכל העולם עברה כל גבול מוסרי, אתי ומקצועי. הנה, חוזרת אלינו עלילת הילד הנוצרי של ערב פסח בארצות הגולה.

בבדיחת הדעת, אני אמרתי למישהו "הרי אי-אשפר השכניי היו מעורבים כי כל בריון ואמיץ-לב, שלא לדבר על "השוליים המטורפים" ו"הקיצוניים שבקרב המתנחלים", היו בכפר מימון רחוק רחוק מקריות.

והנה, גם אם אין גופה ואין כל ראיות ואין כל חקירה עיתונאית, מותר לשפוך דווקא את דמינו.

ותוך יום מתברר שסכסוך חמולות היא הגורם, מה שהיה הגיוני וברור לכל בר-דעת המכיר את המציאות כאן. אבל מדובר במתנחלים, נכון? אותם יהודים מאיימים ומסכנים.

Let Me Know If They Are Threatening Israeli Democracy

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that

100 agricultural workers from the Galilee and Golan Heights blocked the route from Rosh Pina to Kiryat Shmona on Thursday to protest the growing crisis in the fruit growing industry in the area, Army Radio reported.

Let me know if they get blasted in our media as threatening Israeli democracy and are portrayed as violent and extremist elements.

I won't hold my breath though.

The Media Disengagement

Arutz 7 published my latest oped (which was also noted in Little Green Footballs):

On July 11, 2005, Seymour D. Reich, President of the Israel Policy Forum, an American organization, provided a unique glimpse into the thinking of those who are leading this country. In a letter to the editor published in the New York Times, Reich, a former chairman of the Presidents' Conference, informed us that Ehud Olmert, Israel's vice prime minister, spoke before an audience in New York in June and announced: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."

What is probably most remarkable about Olmert's words is that they went unreported at the time, and not that they represent one of the most abject and defeatist formulations of statecraft in the history of diplomacy. Even Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938 was a bit more optimistic while serving up Czechoslovakia's Sudentenland.

Israel's media manages to get its information from Foreign Ministry cables, interested parties in the American Jewish establishment, politicos and officials from within the State Department and Pentagon, and from leaks directly from those who utter them or their aides. Our media delights in scandal and headlining seemingly embarrassing remarks. That such a statement, if true, and Olmert has not denied saying what Reich claims he said, was missed, or perhaps ignored, is a troubling development for this country's democracy.

It was Amnon Avramovicz, prime time Channel Two commentator and recognized razor-tongued expert of sardonic wit, who coined the now infamous "Etrog box" paradigm of Israel's media. According to Avramovicz's instructions to his fellow milieu members, the ultimate elitist clique and last stronghold of dogmatic left-liberalism, Ariel Sharon is to be cushioned, that is, untouched by criticism in the media. Until September, the month the expulsion of the Jewish population of communities in Gaza and northern Samaria is to be a fait accompli, the media is to avoid any mention of personal criminal and unethical matters that Sharon, his sons, his advisors, his employees and anyone else connected to this evacuation operation.

Avramovicz, along with many other leading dimmed lights in the media, make no secret of their support, encouragement and enthusiastic defense of Sharon's policies that serve their end as well: Israel's exit from the disputed territories. This dovetailing of goals overrides any professional, ethical or legal restriction that would otherwise act as a barrier to what Avramovicz wants done, and, a la the Olmert statement, is being done.

The "etrog box" media behavior, of course, is nothing less than a subversion of Israel's democracy. Thus, what is being done to some 10,000 Jews is described as "disengagement" when, in the first instance, it is nothing less than a depopulation of ethnic cleansing. Disengagement will not happen. Terror will continue, as the opponents of evacuation claimed, and Israel will engage the enemy. Arabs will continue to demand the 'right of return' to Isdud (Ashdod), Iskalon (Ashkelon), Bir Saba (Be'er Sheba) and Jaffa and will be engaged in their propaganda campaign on its behalf. Gazans are to enter Israel as a work force, and Israel will supply water and electricity and other services.

Moreover, the main reason that Sharon has embarked on a complete reversal of political orientation; i.e., the demographic threat to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, is now being well served by a demand of the American administration. That demand is for the "disengagement" funds of over $2 billion to go, in the main, to Arab, Bedouin and Druze projects in Israel. Only a third of the money will fund the redeployment of Israel Defense Forces troops outside the Gaza Strip.

The aid package must go, the United States demands, for the purpose of developing the Galilee and Negev. We now witness a new New Israel Fund blossoming. An American official was quoted as saying, "America is not the Jewish Agency nor the Jewish National Fund, and considers it important that the aid serves all sectors of the Israeli population." This, of course, is a worthy redistribution of Israel's national budget. What is unworthy, however, is the way America is forcing Israel to do its bidding and how the media is not helping Israelis understand what the future holds based on this element and others.

Is America still behind Sharon's "settlement blocs" program or is President George W. Bush, in referring to the 1949 armistice lines, signaling the re-division of Jerusalem? Was Sharon wise in refusing to link the London bombings with Israel after we now are informed that one of the UK bombers may have been part of the Mike's Place attack in Tel Aviv? Is the so-called demographic threat solely an external problem, resolved by evacuating Gaza, or is it internal? And how negative is it exactly?

These are but a few of the questions for which Israel's media must provide a fair and balanced forum for discussion and dialogue. Their involvement and responsibility for Israel's future is no less than that of a prime minister or the leader of the opposition. That is how a true democracy works.

Ignorance is No Excuse

Uzi Benziman writes

Let there be no mistake regarding the decision about to be made in the Gush Katif area today: It is not the fate of the disengagement that is at stake, but the ability of Israeli democracy to continue to function.

The demonstrators wish not merely to sabotage the evacuation, but to replace the government; they are using non-kosher means to achieve it..

...While Orlev's legislation initiative is a constitutional, legitimate act, the mass march on the gates of Gaza is the complete opposite...

...By using the right to freedom of protest, and by complaining about the allegedly nondemocratic reaction of the police, the demonstrators are throwing sand in the public's eyes...

Benziman doesn't know his democracy and protest history.

What about Gandhi's 1930 Dandi March and broke a bizarre British law. He and 78 fellow marchers walked for 23 days over 240 miles to pick up a lump of mud and salt on the Indian coast. Thousands then made salt illegally all over the country. Within days, tens of thousands were in jail. And the marches from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. and when 2,200 protesters were arrested for demonstrating at the Nevada Test site.

Or when Bertrand Russell and the Committee of 100 at Trafalgar Square on 19 September 1961 after the home secretary banned any public procession for the 24 hours starting at midnight on Saturday 16 September. On the day itself protesters gathered in the square to march at midnight when the ban was supposed to end. Arrests began at 5.07 pm and continued throughout the evening, often with considerable police violence. At the end of the protest over 1,300 arrests had been made from a demonstration of around 10,000 people.

Here We Go - 'Militant' Again

How can you act to destroy the state of Israel and only be a militant?

This at CNN web site:

Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a militant group dedicated to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel.

Olmert - A Defeatist?

Ehud Olmert has been a remarkable source for outrageous quotations, including one about "stupid settlers" in the Jerusalem Post on June 23 this year when he said

"I am sick and tired of hearing from stupid settlers that Gaza and Jerusalem are the same. Gaza and Jerusalem are not the same."

He later amended that statement, claiming he was misunderstood, taken out of context, et al.

Well, in the New York Times letters to the editor section yesterday, Seymour Reich,
President of the Israel Policy Forum, published a missive which contained this from the mouth of Olmert:

We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies.

Has Olmert joined the ranks of the defeatists?

This is not the verbiage of a Zionist leader.

Wilson Doesn't Understand What Deir Yassin Was About

Jonathan Wilson published a review of Hillel Halkin's book on the NILI group and Zichron Yaakov. And he found the need, when referring to the matter of murder in mandated Palestine, to write "Jews were hacked to pieces in Hebron and Arabs massacred in Deir Yessin".

In the first instance, the Jews slaughtered in Hebron in 1929 were an innocent civilian population, many of them non-Zionists of the ultra-orthodox Hareidi community, who had made no menacing moves against their Arab neighbors for decades. The Arabs killed in Deir Yassin in 1948 recently had enjoined the aggressive war against the as-yet-not born state of Israel as they had done in riots of 1920, 1929 and 1938. They directed sniper fire at the Jewish neighborhood of Bet HaKerem but five days before the attack on their own village which had become a base for Arab irregulars from Iraq as well as local Arab bands.

There was no massacre at Deir Yassin.

There was house-to-house combat, which was not the most professional military operation ever conducted, which caused, something usually overlooked, the attacking Jewish force 5 dead and over 40 wounded. A loudspeaker had been brought in to warn the residents to leave and most did, via the Ein Kerem route. Have you ever heard of a massacre in which its victims were warned to flee by a loudspeaker?

Wild-eyed estimates of 250 dead were corrected by Arab sources by the early 1980s as no more than 110. Of these, the only claim of a "massacre" were supposedly less than 20 Arabs who were led off to a stone quarry, the story goes, and shot there.

The BBC documentary "The Fifty Years War, Israel and the Arabs", confirms that the rumors of a massacre were initiated by Arab propagandists who are named. One week later, over seventy Jews in a convoy of Hadassah Hospital medical staff were slaughterd. Now, that indeed was a massacre.

Wilson, whose earlier novel "A Palestine Affair", unsuccessfully mixed history and fiction, seems to continue a pattern of misinformation.

This Is How You Do It

Just after I finished putting up the previous entry on the lack of understanding of correct nonviolent methods. this below came across my screen. It's from the Gush Shalom list, those people who are protesting the fence construction who have so far taken out one soldier's eye and indirectly led another Border policeman to his death when he fell off a cliff and was stoned by nonviolent Arabs.

Anyway, it shows what can be done without much fanfare.

"An armoured jeep was parked across the road, and in front of it were five soldiers and an officer. Quite sufficient to block any vehicle - but we have left our bus inconspicuously parked near the giant settlement of Kiryat Sefer and continued on foot, easily by-passing the blockading soldiers. The lieutenant could be clearly heard, speaking into his communicator: "Too many people, sir, we could do nothing"...

I Don't Think They Understand Nonviolent Protest

I found this in Ha'Aretz:

The National Home (Bayit Leumi) movement, responsible for recent road obstructions, announced Sunday evening a new mission, "Displacing the displacement camp," calling for demonstrators and their supporters to come to the Gama camp, an army base outside the Gaza Strip where forces that will take part in the disengagement will reside.

The organization's announcement calls for the crowds expected to march within a week to Gush Katif to reach the Gama camp, where "each one of them will take the rod of one tent and move it a few hundred meters from the camp."

The announcement also states that this action will terminate the "organizational ability of the expulsion forces for a long period."

"This kind of action has many advantages. First of all, it is in line with all of the criteria of nonviolent civil disobedience. It will not be violent, and it is directed precisely at the regime representatives designated to execute the crime," the declaration said.

I think I have a little experience in nonviolent protests.

One can block, one can sit-down, one can take over an office and prevent normal work from proceeding, one can offer an alternative service, but one cannot "grab a tent pole and move it".

What I have tried to suggest to anyone listening is a bit of pre-march planning so that on the march, if the marchers are blocked, they should regroup, organize themselves into rows of, say, 100, put 50 meters between themselves, and them rebegin marching.

The rationale?

There are just so many soldiers and policemen and it actually is easier to control a large crowd. Once the group breaks up, more security forces are needed to control. If stopped, the row veers off - one to the right, one to the left, one straight ahead.

If stopped, the group sits down - it does not forcefully push ahead. If this happens, within an hour, there will be rows and rows of hundreds of marchers all over an area of several square dunams and eventually, there will not be enough security personnel to control and then some are going to be able to continue walking.

Basically, chaos will break out. This is in a wide-open area remember, not your downtown street. Of course, though, eventually, there is the entrance into Gush Katif, and that's where it should all come to a halt, one way or the other.

Poll Idea

Someone wants to do a poll, and use it as an instrument to convince the populace that their prime minister is not to be trusted.

I think this series of questions not only will elicit information about the thinking of those polled, but will hopefully plant doubt into their minds so that the very act of conducting the poll and the gathering on statistical information will bring about a change of thinking.

Here's how I would phrase the questions and in what order:-

1. Do you support the so-called Disengagement plan?
2. If yes, did you vote for Amram Mitzna in the last election or Ariel Sharon?
3. Do you think PM Sharon was right to fire two ministers even before they
had a chance to vote in the government on the Disengagement Plan?
4. Do you think that the demographic situation is the real reason for
Sharon promoting this plan?
5. Do you think terror will cease or decrease after Disengagement?
6. Do you think America will stop pressuring Israel for further retreats from
the territories?
7. Do you think the Arabs have given up on the "right of return"?
8. If you have answered 'no' to the last four questions, do you still support
the so-called Disengagement plan and why?
9. Dop you think the media should term the plan as one of expulsion or uprooting
rather than Disengagement?
10. Do you believe a national referendum should have been conducted?

A Tale of Rebbe Nachman

As we proceed towards disengagement, I am reminded of this tale of Rebbe Nachman of Bratzlav.

Once upon a time, the King turned to his beloved advisor and said,
"I see in my star-gazing visions that the wheat growing this year will cause those who eat of it to go crazy. What shall we do?"

"Let us prepare enough wheat from other sources so that we won't have to eat of this poisoned wheat."

"But then," replied the King, "all the world will be crazy and only we will be sane. In this situation and because will probably won't have enough wheat, we will also have to eat of the wheat."

"But I propose that we place a mark on our foreheads so that we shall know that we are crazy for we will look at each other and the sign will tell us we're crazy."

However, I always thought the ending should have been "for we will look at each other and the sign will tell us we were once sane."

Now, though, that the 'safe passage' idea is back (the route that will facilitate the transfer of war materiel into Judea & Samaria), and that the PA's pretty boy Dahlan wants two more kilometers of Israel (and the destruction of Netiv Ha'Asarah)and the Hamas trumpets the next stage of Kassam attacks to hit Afula, Hadera, et al., I realize that the best our politicans can do is recall that they are crazy. To remember and comprehend the concept of sanity - that is all gone.

Mass Organizing Tactics

Given the inability of certain leadership groups and people to plan out a proper protest campaign here, I think that Saul Alinsky's principles need repeating. These are excerpted from Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, pp. 126-140 and they are classic.
===================

Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.

Always remember the first rule of power tactics:

Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

The seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment...

The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...

The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. you cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....

It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....

One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.

Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.

The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.

The Priorities

Think about it:

if you look at the websites (1, 2,) listen to the radio and, this evening, watch the TV, more time and loquacity will be spent on the pushing and shoving between a bunch of kids at the Mu'awsi than the Kassamim and the oil & nails incident that fell yesterday and the day before.

A matter of priorities?

Sharon and Jabotinsky

In his speech before the Jewish Agency Assembly justifying the disengagement program (third paragraph from the conclusion), Prime Minister Ariel Sharon explained his rationale for the pullback and expulsion of Jewish civilians from their homes as one of assuring a Jewish majority.

Announcing that

"we do not have the ability to ensure a Jewish majority in every area",

he stated that,

"we had a dream of a Jewish state in all the territories of the Land of Israel, but, unfortunately, we do not have the ability to realize the entire dream."

In support of his position, he quoted from a 1923 article by Ze'ev Jabotinsky wherein the founder of the Revisionist camp had defined Zionism as meaning a Jewish majority and noting that Zionism could be "lost" without a Jewish majority.

A review of the entire article indicates that either Sharon's speechwriter has difficulty in reading or he purposefully manipulated Jabotinsky's intent.

But, at the very least, it should be pointed out that in 1923, the number of Jews living in the-then British Mandate, less than 100,000, was not at all a majority of the resident population. In fact, they were perhaps 20%, less than the number of Arabs residing today under Israel's administration, in the state and the Yesha territories.

Obviously, Jabotinsky in 1923, in believing in a Zionism that would eventually achieve a Jewish majority, had a different value system that Sharon in 2005.

My CNN Interview

Here's my transcript of the CNN interview I did today on the Yesha Council protest.

Some excerpts to interest you:-

Now, sir, this protest, does it actually prove anything, these kinds of stunts? Does it actually win you any support?

YISRAEL MEDAD, SETTLER ACTIVIST: Well, we are using the democratic process as best as possible. We had over 10,000 vehicles on 400 kilometers of highway. We had over 5,000 people from the entrance of Jerusalem standing on the sidewalks to the Knesset.

This is the way -- the best way we get a message across directly to the people. And the message is, stop and think. With everything that's going on, with the security problems, with the pressure from the United States, maybe disengagement is not what it is supposed to be.

If any of those people break and begin a process of crumbling of his cabinet, with everything else in disarray, we feel that the principles on which Mr. Sharon presented to the Israeli public and his cabinet members, the logic is not there anymore.

There's American pressure. There's lack of American misunderstanding. And, of course, there's Arab terror that just continues. So what are we gaining in disengagement?

Misquoted Am I

Some of you may have seen this NYTimes report in which I am mentioned and my words quoted.

This is one part of the quotation:-

"If Israel continues to retreat and weaken its position, things will only get worse."

.
Actually, I'm peeved.

In the quote, I was referring to the security situation and I had mentioned the continued Kassams and the shooting on Friday as a result of the removal of a restrictive roadblock in deference to Condi Rice's diktat. The "things" were terror attacks and not where 8000 expelled civilians will end up living, without denigrating that problem.

I had attempted to point out to the reporter that the government's decision on Nitzanim, which served as the kick-off for our conversation, was only one element in a larger picture of Israel's predicament now that Sharon is continuing to press forward with disengagement. This, despite the anarchy in the PA-controlled areas, despite the terror, despite the killings as a result of the removal of the roadblock, the homocide attempt at Soroka Hospital, etc.

Made Little Green Footballs

My scanned photo from Ha'Aretz made Little Green Footballs thanks to AT

Wrong Term

I was asked to sign a petition in support of the two Bayit Leumi guys on trial for sedition.

I wrote back that the use of the Hebrew term "meri ezrachi" (civil revolt) is wrong.

It is a wrong translation of civil disobedience

It is wrong because it also plays into the hands of the charge sheet and makes them "guilty". I mean, after all, you are “revolting”, no?

And PR-wise, a better term is needed.

I suggested "hitnagdut ezrachit" = civil opposition. And there are other alternatives.

But, Israelis, being who they are, I doubt I'll get anywhere.

Reliving History

When I was a kid, reading history books, I always got this feeling of "why can't I be that character? why can't I relive his adventures?".

Well, now we can relive a possible trial like the Ramban or book burnings in medieval France. Read all about it -

Russia probing whether Jewish law constitutes incitement
By Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondent

Russia's state prosecutor has ordered an examination into the Shulhan Arukh - a code of Jewish halakhic law compiled in the 16th century - to ascertain whether it constitutes racist incitement and anti-Russian material.

The prosecutor ordered the probe against a Jewish umbrella organization in Russia for distributing a Russian translation of an abbreviation of the Shulhan Arukh.

Amazing

Yesterday, Ariel Sharon's security advisor on disengagement affairs, Reserve Brigadier General Eival Gilad announced that if, G-d forbid!, Kassams come raining down on the troops and civilians during the proposed expulsion process in August, then the Israel Air Force will not hesitate to employ bombing of civilians if the launchers and/or gunmen are using them for cover.

Isn't it amazing that for over four years, when that same military action could have prevented loss of life, property and the creation of a strategic threat against Israel in the form of looming missile attacks, not to speak of the development of the trajectory industry in the Gaza district, it was not employed and the one time it was used, it resulted in an appeal to the High Court of Justice to prevent Dan Halutz from advancing in his military career.

Ha'Aretz is such a liberal newspaper. Here's its report on the murder, from ambush, of a Jewish civilian by Arabs today:-

Israeli killed, youth hurt in West Bank terror ambush
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service

Palestinian gunmen near the northern West Bank city of Tul Karm opened fire on a car carrying two Israelis in a drive-by ambush early Monday, killing the 35-year-old driver and lightly wounding his passenger, 15.

The militants fired from a passing car point near homes in the village of Baka al-Sharkiyeh, a few hundred meters from the Green Line border of the West Bank. The victims' car was driving from the nearby settlement of Hermesh.

"Militants"?

Not "terrorists"?

Oh How They Lie

Ha'Aretz reported on Sunday that MK Mohammed Barakeh and Hadash Party supporters honored "three fallen heroes" with a march so as to “remember three hung by Brits in ‘29”. The hanged did not actually “struggle for their land against the British”, as Barakeh claims.

The three, hanged on June 17, 1930 (not 1929), were of an original group of 17 sentenced to death. Ata’ah Ahmed El-Zir and Muhammed Halil Abu-Jamjam of Hebron and Fuad Hajazi of Safed were found guilty of killing Jews, not British. They participated in one of the worst and hideous attacks on innocent civilians in the pre-state era. The Jews of Hebron and Safed had distanced themselves for the new Zionist pioneering enterprise but these three, and thousands more, pillaged their property, raped their women, butchered their men and slaughtered their children.

This, then, is the highlight of the activities of the Tawfiq Ziyad Center for National Culture and Creativity (!)which co-sponored the march.

Letter in Ha'Aretz (in Hebrew)

I have a letter in today's Hebrew edition of Ha'aretz pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left in not apologizing in any way and in any advert the taking out of an eye of a soldier during the "nonviolent" campaign against the security barrier. I even mentioned as unfortunate that the picture of the soldier that appeared in last Friday's Ha'aretz wasn't in Gideon Levy's column (which usually has a whole slew of maimed Pals.)

See the 8th letter here

Yesterday, there was a non-political demo here in Israel. As reported,

Residents of Kibbutz Na'an and other communities in the Rehovot area blocked the entrance to a nearby IDF communications base yesterday morning in a protest against an antenna complex in the army camp, which they say emits harmful radiation.

Some 300 pupils at the Ganei Hillel School at Kibbutz Na'an have been kept home by their parents since the begining of the week, to protest the presence of the antennae. The headquarters of the communities' campaign said that studies will not resume until the Defense Ministry orders the removal of the antennae from the base.

Did I not suggest months ago to use an additional tactic of blocking IDF bases to prevent the troops from even reaching the area of Gush Katif and not to wait until all the troops are there?

Seems it's now an "acceptable" behavior.

And as for the left-wing's criticism that we should not use children, read on (and thanks to RA):-

However, residents' support for the school strike is uneven. "If radiation is, in fact, emitted," said one Kfar Bilu resident who opposes sanctions, "there is no question that the site must be relocated. But I don't understand why we have to fight this war at our children's expense. We have the feeling that people are straying from the central goal and creating a situation that disrupts orderly registration for the coming school year."

Protest leader Colodner did not understand why this is a problem. In his opinion, the children's participation in demonstrations is an education in democracy.

A Lesson of History

My wife, as many of you know, calls her writings "musings".

Well, my outlook is more between contemplations and assertions.

One of the favored responses I have come across in all these years (soon to be decades) to the change in approach and policy by Ariel Sharon by those I debate (and I have appeared in some strange and weird places with similar-fashioned people) is that finally he has seen the light. They add, too, that they knew this years ago.

In my opinion, almost every single perception of future reality made by those of the nationalist camp has come true. I recall justifying my move to Tehiya in 1978 by saying to someone that "katyushas will yet fall on Israel from Gaza". The position of the nationalist camp is not easy to defend because it is predicated on (take your choice): pessimism, charges of racism or paternalism, despondency, fatalism, et al. This is not because the character of our ideology or positions but due to the nature of our enemy.

I started this after reading a book review of a volume on the Hollywood Ten.
Those were the writers, actors and others in the film industry that were outed
by McCarthy in the early 1950s. The new book, "Red Star of Hollywood", by
Ronald and Allis Radosh, deals with one specific issue that I think has relevance
to our situation here and the problem I noted above.

For at least 6 years, between 1933-1939, a major attraction of the Left and especially the Communist Party, was its firm and unyielding anti-Nazism. This lured all the best of America's liberals and the Jews, the latter a powerful demographic element of Hollywood as well as Manhattan's West Side theater district.

Well, late in August 1939, the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a volte face only comparable to, yes, you guessed, Ariel Sharon championing a Palestinian state, disengagement and a few other unniceties (I think I just made up a word there).

The Radoshs point out that the day before the signing, rumors were rife and CP leader
Herbert Biberman, Stalinist screenwriter and director, publicly denounced the rumors
as hideous fascist slanders. The Soviet Union would never cooperate with Hitlerite
Germany. A few days after the official pact signing, he became head of the Hollywood
Peace Forum as if nothing had happened.

Our leftists here in Israel, whether in academia, the juridical system, the state prosecution, the media and our cultural elite, are slap-happy silly over Sharon's twist-about. And his son's loyal minions in the Likud party together with the fawning, timorous, obsequious politicians that lend him support in the Knesset and cabinet see wisdom and logic were there is none.

The fact that Sharon has adopted the approach to the Jewish/Zionist/Israel -
Muslim/Palestinian/Arab conflict that has been promoted by the Left since Matzpen
and Leibowitz in 1967, not to get too historic and recall The Five, Brit Shalom and
the Ihud, has no relevance to truth, cogency of thought and morality. In fact, just two years later, all thoses commies themselves found out their terrible mistake.

We, in Israel, have twice been through major "mistakes" like this. The proposed
autonomy plan wnet down the drain, despite the intentions of its initiators and the
Oslo accords literally blew up in our faces.

But, unperturbed, and despite all the warnings, and despite Justice Edmund Levy's
valiant attempts, we are going to go through this all over again.

Really That Dumb?

Haaretz informs us that

Also Tuesday, IDF troops shot and killed a man who climbed over the fence at the Egypt-Gaza border and entered southern Gaza. IDF officials said they believed the man was an Egyptian involved in weapons smuggling. No weapons were found on his body, the officials said.

And the Egyptians couldn't see him, couldn't spot him?

And Israel is asking the Egyptians to take over the fence security between Egypt and Gaza?

Are Sharon and Co. really that dumb?

Muslims, Not Palestinians

This report I found at the Haaretz English site:

Police battle Arabs in Temple Mount clashes

By Jonathan Lis and Arnon Regular, Haaretz Correspondents

Israeli police rushed into the Temple Mount compound and clashed with hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday as Jews visited the site to mark Jerusaelem Day, the anniversary of the capture of the Old City and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

and a similar one off of Yedioth from Reuters:

Palestinians riot in Jerusalem

Police faced off against stone-throwing Palestinians outside Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque on Monday.

A police spokesman said forces moved onto the Temple Mount after several hundred Palestinians threw stones at Jewish visitors near the shrine. He said two Jewish visitors were hurt.

I think these rioters should more properly be described as "Muslims" as I doubt there were any Christians there and for sure, the only Jews were the ones getting stoned.

Why Not Arab "Settlements"?

Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian foreign minister, was quoted saying that a top concern of Palestinians is the halt of Israeli settlement activity after the meeting between President George W. Bush and the new head of the Palestinian Authority who he insists upon calling a "president" like in this remark Bush made:-

"I know the president is committed to democracy. After all, he ran on a platform that said, 'Vote for me, I'm for peace, and I believe in democracy.' "

I will refrain, for the moment, of relating to the inanity of Bush's words.

Let me get back to the questions of the communities in the disputed territories where Jewish civilian revenants live, as is their right recognized by international law already in 1922 and by the United States Congress in 1924.

A possible solution to al-Kidwa's intimation may be to begin refering to Arab towns and villages within the Israel of the 1949 borders as "settlements", thereby awarding a semantic equilibrium to the issue.

Just like Arabs live in Israel, the state of the Jewish people, the moral balance is that Jews should be able to live in the state planned for the Palestinian people.

Jews have lived throughout the area, in greater and lesser numbers, for the past three millennia, even after loss of their political independence. Why is Jewish "settlement activity" any more problematic than Arab settlement activity?

Why must Jews be solely slated, as a result of Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, for deportation?

Abbas' AbraCadabra

Abu Mazen met reporters prior to his visit with President Bush today and said:

Palestinians were prepared to make the painful sacrifices necessary to ensure it materializes.

And exactly what were those sacrifices?

Were they the sacrifices of their own people blowing themselves up?

And why didn't any reporter ask the question of what sacrifices?

Just Who Is Lost?

In the new June 9 issue of The New York Review of Books, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley published an article, "The Lost Palestinians", and wrote that Palestinians will vote in elections for their new legislature this coming summer "barring an unforseen development".

As it is, already on May 24, reports were published that due to a dispute on the election law itself, there may be a delay in that vote.

It seems that the rising tensions between Fatah and Hamas, including violent battles in Gaza over the results of local elections and recent court cases that found voting irregularities, is one problem. Another is the desire of Mahmoud Abbas that all 132 seats in a new legislature to be filled on a system of party lists, which would reduce the influence of powerful local families and clans known as hamullahs.

Agha and Malley should have forseen this development as it is so intrinsic to Palestinian political behavior and tradition for the past 80 years, just like their terror option has been a constant feature of their policies.

Analysists should not be apologists.

"Smart" American Jewish Leaders

Mortimer Zuckerman, past chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying in his introduction of Ariel Sharon at a meeting at Baruch College in New York on May 22 that, "I can assure the prime minister...the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community in America supports his overwhelming efforts to be a peacemaker".

Well, that's just...er...overwhelming. Or is he just gushing with enthusaism?

Be it as it may, it should be pointed out to Zuckerman and other outstanding and very rich American Jewish leaders (ever notice that not one Jewish "leader" is poor? you can't be a leader without money? intelliegence and wisdom is dependent on money?) that the very same words were uttered when Yitzhak Rabin and, later, Shimon Peres came to New York with the Oslo plan, one which proved a dismal and bloody failure.

Far be it from me to cast doubt as to the wisdom of American Jewish leaders.

All I ask is that they act and speak more circumspectly when faced with Israeli leaders claiming their plan for peace is the best and only one.

They have been wrong previously, and can be, and are most probably, wrong today.

Laura Bush, Where Were You?

I visited the White House website and noticed that the captions of the photographs chronicling the tour of the First Lady to the Temple Mount on May 22 state that the site is in the "Muslim Quarter".

This is incorrect.

The holy site as Mrs. Bush now knows, having physically been there, is in the Old City of Jerusalem, on an esplanade constructed on Mount Moriah. It is separated from the various neighborhoods (Jewish Quarter, Armenian Quarter and Christian Quarter) by a wall and exists as a distinct compound in and of itself.

I hope those responsible will instruct the web site managers to correct the wrong caption information.

Where is His Morality?

Haim Watzman, a respected translator, member of the Yedidyah Congregation in Jerusalem and the author of the forthcoming book, "Company C: An American's Life as a Citizen-Soldier in Israel", published At War With Themselves on Friday in the New York Times.


His point:

To those soldiers who say they will refuse orders to evacuate the settlements, I say: think again. Remember that soldiers who believed the settlements were wrong reported for duty year after year to protect them and to enforce the occupation. We proved we were loyal Israelis and responsible soldiers. Now it's your turn.

I sent off the following letter (which will not be published methinks):-

Haim Watzman's discussion of refusing to serve in Israel's army whether one opposes Israeli administration over the disputed territories or whether one cannot agree with the expulsion of Jewish civilians from those areas fails to make a crucial distinction.

Jews slated for removal from their homes never practiced terrorism or supported groups that did. Patrolling the territories to ensure security by an army and the removal of civilians from their homes is incomparable. Moreover, their expulsion is not the result of a peace agreement but is a unilateral move, unlike, for example, Menachem Begin's decision to agree to removing Jewish communities within the framework of an Egyptian-Israeli peace.

More important, though, is that if Jews can be expelled and transferred, will Arabs be next?

Is that not the moral dilemma a soldier and Israeli society need deliberate?

The Forward in NY Published My Op-ed

Sharon's Disengagement From Democracy

May 20, 2005

This summer, Israel will withdraw its troops from Gaza and the northern West Bank [*] and remove the 9,000 Jewish civilians who call those places home. While much has been written about Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement process already, it is worth revisiting how this ill-advised decision was taken, for it holds a very real and threatening lesson for the future of the State of Israel.

Last year, Sharon succeeded in maneuvering the country into adopting the bold, even surprising, unilateral disengagement plan. First the Cabinet voted approvingly, and then the Knesset voted 59-32 in favor. On the way to legislating the plan, however, Sharon lost his own Likud Party's internal referendum and fired two ministers in order to gain a majority in the Cabinet. He also refused to extend military chief of staff Moshe Ayalon's term of service after he expressed misgivings about the plan..

The disengagement policy and the lengths to which Sharon has been willing to go in order to ram it through make a remarkable turnabout for the prime minister. His last election campaign, which kicked off in late 2002, was waged against Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna and his proposal to unilaterally disengage from Gaza. Fudging on campaign promises is, of course, nothing new for politicians, but the gap in public accountability, created by Sharon, had even veterans startled.

As for the disengagement plan itself, little mention has been made of the fact that Israel already handed over all of the densely populated sections of Gaza a decade ago, and it was only Palestinian terrorism that kept Israeli troops in the area. A total handover of all Gaza, therefore, should not be necessary in order for Israel to comply with the demand for territorial compromise.

Much as Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000 was seen by many Arabs as a victory for terrorism, the withdrawal from Gaza is all but certain to be taken as a withdrawal from the intifada. Sharon, then, has Israel returning to square one: With Palestinian terrorism perceived as the sole instrument that can cause Israel to yield, new negotiations will always depend on how many Jews are killed or wounded in future attacks.

Moreover, all indications are that Israel will not be disengaging from terrorism. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has been unsuccessful in asserting authority over the mavericks in Fatah, not to mention over Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Eventually the missiles, which can be expected to have their range and performance improved, will fly easily over any fence Israel could build. Sharon's farm in the Negev could be their next target.

Meanwhile, demographics will continue to represent a major difficulty — especially the Palestinian demand to give refugees the right of return. If population density is indeed a major factor, then why should Israel disengage from northern Gaza — where no Palestinians are living or have lived?

With all the spin being put on Sharon's plan, both at home and abroad, there should be clarity about exactly what is set to transpire this summer: Israel will be disengaging from a portion of the original area recognized by the League of Nations mandate as the future Jewish national home.

As it is, Gaza was home to Jews centuries before the League of Nations mandate. Until its recent destruction, tourists could view the floor of a synagogue in Gaza City. Around the world, on every Sabbath, hymns composed in Gaza in the 16th century are sung. It was only in 1929, when Arab rioters forced Jews out of the area, as they had in Hebron, that this continuum was forcibly broken.

Make no doubt about it: Sharon has set Israel on a course of disengagement that is stripping Israel of its history and the Jewish people of their identity. This process is already quite advanced in Jerusalem, where the Temple Mount has been pillaged and its archeological artifacts have been discarded and eradicated. The burning of Joseph's Tomb outside of Nablus is yet another instance, one that also points to the durability of agreements made with the P.A.

Simply put, a country denied its past and denuded of its culture and history will be rendered soulless — all the more so if the act is committed willingly by its own hand.

Sharon has disengaged Israel from fundamental democratic principles with his high-handed manner of ignoring votes against him and with his firing of independent-minded ministers before they could vote against his plan. He has instigated a media spin that portrays demonstrators as agitators of civil war. Special tribunals have been established to enable summary judgments. And the justice ministry, the state prosecutor's office and police are promoting policies that have a chilling effect on free speech and lawful assembly.

Opponents of disengagement suggested a referendum, but Sharon's disdain for an instrument of true participatory democracy quickly ended that effort. A nonviolent protest campaign, therefore, is a perfectly legitimate step. In fact, in such circumstances it is nothing less than a national obligation — to ourselves, to our history and to our future. One man's presumption should not be permitted, in a democracy, to override too many concerns of doubtful success.

{*} I wrote Samaria but their editorial policy is WB

On Tactics

I wish to share a hesitancy I have over the tactics of the non-violent campaign being planned.

While blocking traffic has been done over the past few months, and some even assert that they were the main reasons for the shift in public opinion away from disengagement, down now to some 54%, I personally am doubtful.

I would think that if there is anything that annoys people more it is blocking traffic so they can't get home. Luckily, someone has convinced some unknown people to stop burning tires. Fire and smoke do not go well with a claim to non-violence.

On the other hand, as someone told me, all over Europe we see farmers and others blocking roads and dumping agricultural produce and the like, so obviously the tactic is acceptable.

Nevertheless, I would wish that the thrust of this campaign be directed not against fellow citizens directly but against symbols of the regime.

The regime is responsible for the disengagement. The regime is carrying out the disengagement. Other targets are the catering services that will be providing food for the soldiers and police or other such facilities.

So, to my mind, the proper targets are not the highways of Israel but the entrance roads to regime agenices whether police, courts, social services, etc. They should be blocked so as to convince and influence bureaucrats and clerks not to cooperate with the disengagement process. In other lands in other times, we have pinpointed the responsibility that lies with the common and too often faceless bureaucrat who, if he/she had dared to, could have slowed down and interfered with an immoral and incorrect public policy.

Will the leaders of Bayit Leumi and other groups consider this option?

Odd? No. Biased

The BBC has an odd way of writing and reporting.

Early last week, I've just now noticed, they broadcast that;

Muslims had gathered at the Haram al-Sharif -
known to Jews as the Temple Mount

Dear Sirs,

Not only Jews but many other persons of various and varied religious identification know that particular piece of property as the Temple Mount. In fact, most people
around the world probably do not know it as the Haram E-Sharif, which bothers and annoys Muslims terribly.

Did I write above an "odd way"?

Sorry, that should have been a "biased" way.

Begin was Wrong; So Is Mofaz

One of the reasons provided for Menachem Begin's decision to yield up the territory of Sinai was that it would allow Israel to keep Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu said the same at the Madrid Conference, claiming that in withdrawing from Sinai, Israel had fulfilled its obligationas of territorial concessions.

Now, Shaul Mofaz, Israel Defense Minister, is saying that:

the withdrawal of Jewish settlers from Gaza will allow Israel to extend its borders into the West Bank

and that

the pullout would enable Israel to maintain Jerusalem as the unified capital of a Jewish state.

Such a wise man. Such a fool.

Shalom Wins! (Silvan, That Is)

As this report illustrates, all wisdom does not lie with Ariel Sharon.

Sharon had repudiated a very logical proposal of Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom who announced that if Hamas takes over the Palestine Authority in the democratic elections to be held in July, then Israel should reconsider the disengagement policy.

Sharon, pig-headed, er, sorry, (as that's unkosher), then sheep-headed as usual, insisted that Israel go forward, er, sorry, (as that's the wrong direction), then backwards, and complete the disengagement that will bring Hamas-launched Kassams into his own backyard.

The one who took Shalom seriously was Mahmoud Abbas, who's non de guerre, no matter what Steve Erlanger writes, is Abu Mazen. Some of his associates were suggesting that perhaps the elections should be delayed at least until Israel finalises the withdrawal.

Confusing

My following comments relate to the statement released by the U.S. State Department on behalf of the "Quartet".

The Quartet reiterates its commitment

to a two-state solution and to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank as a way to re-energize the peace plan, known as the road map. The statement said the goal is a permanent peace and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.

Moreover,

the future Palestinian state must be economically viable and geographically contiguous and that no party should do anything to prejudge the final status issues of the future peace settlement.

So, one the one hand, only "parts of the West Bank" need by yielded.

But, on the other hand, there must be an "end of occupation that began in 1967".

So, does that not include all of the territories in dispute in Judea and Samaria?

And, on the third hand, that supposed future Palestinian state must be "contiguous".

So, is there total territorial integrity for the Arabs or not?

Confused?

I am.

We Can't Win

The New York Times' Greg Myre reports:

The Palestinian leadership says Israel's withdrawal from Gaza is being carried out in a way that may make a desperate economic situation even worse.

Amazing, eh?

Israel just cannot win.

Perhaps "Exploded" is the Wrong Term?

Note the paragraph at the end:

"As the population in the region has exploded over the past 100 years water has become more and more precious."

"Exploded"?

The only unnatural "exploding" is that of Arabs as suicide bombers.
-------

Peace canal deal for thirsty Middle East
Conal Urquhart in Ramallah
Monday May 09 2005
The Guardian

Ministers from Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority will today sign an agreement to pave the way for the construction of a canal that will link the Red Sea to the Dead Sea.

The canal will generate electricity, provide fresh water, and prevent the Dead Sea from drying up.

It will draw water from the Red Sea at Aqaba in Jordan, raise it 170 metres above sea level and then let it fall to the Dead Sea which, at 400 metres below sea level, is the lowest place on earth.

The project will consist of 110 miles of canal, tunnel and piping, and the electricity provided by the water will provide for pumping the water in the initial stages and power a desalination plant.

There are also plans to construct holiday resorts and a water park along parts of the route.

The first stage will be a $20m (£10.15m) feasibility study partly funded by the World Bank with the estimated $3bn cost of the final project also being partly funded by the bank.

Canals linking the Red Sea, Dead Sea and Mediterranean Sea have been discussed since the 19th century, initially for transport, then hydroelectricity and now with the main purpose of desalinating sea water.

As the population in the region has exploded over the past 100 years water has become more and more precious.
=========================================

(thanks to Suzanne Pomeranz)

More Money? For What?

The New York Times' May 9th editorial, "A No-Confidence Vote for Mr. Abbas", demands that the U.S. Senate and administration facilitate transferring $150 million in promised aid "to actual Palestinians", rather than American aid agencies, nongovernmental organizations, philanthropic groups and even Israel.

In the first instance, much foreign aid and especially that of Israel is channelled through the same similar network, including, moreover, the providing of aid in the form of credits to be expended only through American commercial firms.

Secondly, the whole point is that Mahmoud Abbas, known too as Abu Mazen, is failing in his minimal obligations to peace.

Why give Palestinians more money directly when it seems to be going for development of Kassam rockets?

The Arab Crusade

A reporter named Ali Jaafar published a story on the film "Kingdom of Heaven" in Variety.

He quotes one Hiyam Itani, who works for Fox Distribution, as saying, "People [in the Middle East] are really interested in it. They can relate to the story and the religious aspects. After all, it happened here." ("Bound for 'Heaven'?, Pic has been accused of short-shrifting real history", May 8).

Actually, the story happened mainly in Jerusalem, a city that was previously the capital of two Jewish kingdoms. Destroyed by Romans, the city was conquered by Persians, Arabs and then by Crusader Christians.

Eventually, the city was ruled by Ottoman Turks and the British but once again became a Jewish capital after a period of Jordanian rule. During this last period, between 1949 - 1967, Jewish cemeteries were vandalized and synagogues razed.

Today, Arabs still wish to deprive Jews of their rights by, for example, disembowling the Temple Mount of its Jewish archeological artifacts.

The Arab Crusade is still going strong.

Who Is the "Middle East"?

Amy Waldman had a report in Saturday's New York Times which informed us of the plight of " housemaids in the Middle East", (Sri Lankan Maids' High Price for Foreign Jobs).

Although Israel is located in the Middle East, that country was not included in the story.

Perhaps the countries where abuse is practiced should have been identified more properly as either Arab or Muslim?

Nom de Guerre

I continue from the previous posting.

This sentence appeared in the NYTimes yesterday:

"It won't happen by itself, or because someone likes Abu Mazen," he said, using a common name for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader.

So, I wrote to the Public Editor, Daniel Okrent, and suggested that a correction be made. My exact words were:

"Abu Mazen is the nom de guerre of Mahmoud Abbas from his days as a terrorist, a leading member of Fatah.

It is 'common' only in that it is common for terrorists to take assumed identities and that is how his fellow terrorists referred to him."

I received this reply:

Dear Yisrael Medad,

The editors do not believe a correction is merited. I raised your concern with Mr. Okrent as well and he agreed there's nothing to correct. Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

Well, after spending some time researching the matter, this was my comback:

Dear Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

I'm sorry that your answer was as it was.

Even the NYTimes itself has termed "Abu Mazen" as a nom de guerre by no less a personage than Steve Erlanger himself. Does the NYT not believe in consistency in its terminology?

In addition, you will find below over two dozen sources from very reputable and professional journals, papers, periodicals and even one Ramallah newsblog all of which support my contention that Abu Mazen is Mahmoud Abbas' nom de guerr from his days as a terrorist including Al Ahram, a Saudi paper, other Arab and Islamic news agencies, Palestinian sources, UPI, AFP, Janes, Slate, National Review and others.

Yisrael Medad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's Steven Erlanger himself:
Peace? West Bank mayor has other worries
Thursday December 30, 2004
...Omar thinks the Palestinian elections are almost worthless. Abbas, whose nom de guerre is Abu Mazen, and his main rival, Mustafa Barghouti, were both told about the land debate here, Omar said.

of course, there may have been other references but I cannot do a full NYT search but maybe search around these dates: March 29; April 1)

The Erlanger story also appeared in the International Herald Tribune.

=====
an article by Edward Said (who sourely ought have to known, as he was, in addition to being himself a member of the PNC, a professor of English and language)

Archaeology of the road map

All sorts of reasons have been given for the emergence of the road map: that 56 per cent of Israelis back it, that Sharon has finally bowed to international reality, that Bush needs an Arab-Israeli cover for his military adventures elsewhere, that the Palestinians have finally come to their senses and brought forth Abu Mazen (Abbas's much more familiar nom de guerre, as it were), and so on.

============
and how about James Zogby, premier Arab publicist:

MR. SLEN: What should we call him? Officially, he’s Mahmoud Abbas.
MR. ZOGBY: He’s Mahmoud Abbas -- that’s his name. And it’s a familiar term. It’s been used as a "nom de guerre" as well. But formally, he’s Abu Mazen. That’s his name.

============
Arafat deputy says Palestinians have plan for calm
CAIRO - Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's deputy in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Mahmud Abbas, said the Palestinians have a plan to calm the conflit with Israel, in remarks published on Friday.
"We can start by implementing security wherever it is possible, like in Gaza where there are remains of the (Palestinian) security services," Abbas, better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mazen, told the Arabic daily Al-Hayat.

===========
RAMALLAH - Former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is a polished and moderate politician more admired abroad than at home. Better known by his nom-de-guerre, Abu Mazen, a name taken from his dead first-born son, Abbas quit as Arafat's first-ever premier in September 2003. After barely four months in the job, he walked out after failing to wrest full control of the Palestinian security apparatus from him.

Source: Agence France Presse

=============
and to the others:-

Only God can save us
The new Palestinian president's visit to the Gaza Strip was not as welcome as he hoped, Serene Assir reports from Gaza

On Tuesday, President Mahmoud Abbas (known by his nom-de-guerre Abu Mazen) arrived in Gaza to hold talks with the armed Palestinian militias, seeking to limit the armed resistance against the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) and the illegal settlements. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades spokesmen, however, told Al-Ahram Weekly prior to the president's arrival that they have no intention of letting up until the Israeli occupation ends.

=========
Analysis: U.S. targets Syria
By Richard Tomkins
UPI White House Correspondent
Published 2/15/2005 5:48 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- U.S.-Syrian relations hit a low Tuesday as Washington withdrew its ambassador from Damascus in the aftermath of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and renewed calls for Syria to withdraw occupation troops from the country.
"Syria is up to it eyeballs in terrorism," said a diplomat, who requested anonymity. "(Syria-supported) Hezbollah is working right now very, very intensively to either discourage or to foil the new process that is taking place between the Israelis and the Palestinians and have even threatened Abu Mazen (Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas) personally."

Abbas, whose nom de guerre is Abu Mazen, has promised to crack down on attacks on Israel in an effort to move peace talks forward. So far he appears to have achieved some success, but he is walking a tightrope with Palestinian radicals.

=========

Arafat's successor?
Palestine, Politics, 2/13/1998
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat reportedly told US president Bill Clinton that his successor would be Mahmoud Abbas, currently deputy head of the PLO.

"When my time will come, I will be replaced by my brother, Abu Mazen," Arafat was quoted as telling Clinton, using Abass's nom de guerre, during a January 22 meeting at the White House, the London-based Foreign Report said.
==================

"Who is to blame for the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister? The question has been obscured by a smokescreen of recriminations and threats, but the answer is clear enough. Mr Abbas, better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mazen, was forced to relinquish the post created for him only 100 days ago by the man he was intended to replace: Yasser Arafat ...
"By refusing to hand over control of security forces, Mr Arafat never gave his rival a chance to stop Hamas and other terrorist groups sabotaging negotiations with Israel. If, once Abu Mazen has departed from the scene, the simmering Middle East conflict now boils over, the blame will lie at Mr Arafat's door."
Arab News Editorial, Saudi Arabia, September 8
===============
All sorts of reasons have been given for the emergence of the roadmap: that 56 per cent Israelis back it, that Sharon has finally bowed to international reality, that Bush needs an Arab-Israeli cover for his military adventures elsewhere, that the Palestinians have finally come to their senses and brought forth Abu Mazen (Abbas's much more familiar nom de guerre, as it were), and so on.

==============
The welter of conflicting scenarios, bluffs and counter-bluffs, proposals and counter-proposals, seems to be based on a secret document drawn up in October 1995 between Yossi Beilin, then a top aide to then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (and now Israel’s justice minister), and Mahmoud ‘Abbas, commonly known by his nom de guerre of Abu Mazen, who is widely regarded as Arafat’s second-in-command in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Both men were instrumental in the secret "Oslo channel" that led to the Declaration of Principles signed at the White House on September 13, 1993.

===============
Nobody expects prisoners in Israel to be released with the sudden victory of Abu-Mazen, nor for the violence to stop, Abu-Mazen, his nom-de-guerre, who is none-other-then Mahmoud Abbas, who admittedly received just over 60% of the vote, from 60% of the Palestinian populace in the territories alone, I think in-spite of the clear majority in the numbers, of course things could have been very different with other more just factors in place.
==============
As for Abbas himself, the best Palestinians have to say about him is that he's sensible; his opponents, though, vilify him as a corrupt Fatah apparatchik and puppet of Israel and America. Such contempt was apparent near the Israeli Army checkpoint outside Jericho, where a line of Palestinian taxis was delayed for hours during security preparations for Abbas's visit to the city. "The Israelis wouldn't be doing this for Abu Mazen if he wasn't working for them," said one driver, using Abbas's nom de guerre. "F- - - his mother," said another.
===============
Abu Mazen may quit

Two months after his appointment as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas - better known by his nom de guerre of Abu Mazen - faces difficulties that seem to him to be insuperable. Foreign Report has been told by a source close to the beleaguered leader that he is seriously considering quitting his job. This would be a major setback to a stumbling Middle East peace process.

======================
Did Mahmoud Abbas Finance the 1972 Munich Olympic Takeover?
And if he did, does it make him a less trustworthy negotiator in 2003?
By Michael Young
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 1:11 PM PT


As Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas prepares for a meeting Friday with President George W. Bush, he knows that the U.S. administration, in its evolving cosmography of Palestinian-Israeli relations, believes him to be a real gentleman. Abbas, known by the nom de guerre Abu Mazen, is said to be everything Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, is not: sincere, responsible, and conciliatory.

=====================================
Britain Rebuffs Sharon's Appeal to Boycott ArafatWednesday, 16 July 2003, 10:58 amPress Release: Palestine Media Center - PMC

Britain Rebuffs Israeli PM’s Appeal to Boycott Arafat
Britain rebuffed visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s appeal Monday to cut ties with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.
Sharon, calling Arafat the “main obstacle” to a revived Middle East peace process, failed to persuade Prime Minister Tony Blair to cut Britain’s ties with the Palestinian president.
“We still have our differences with Britain on a series of issues, including Arafat,” a senior Israeli official said after Blair hosted a private dinner for Sharon, who was on a three-day visit, in London on Monday.
Prior to Sharon's meeting with Straw, an Israeli source told AFP: "The prime minister will say that Arafat remains the major obstacle on the road to peace because of his relentless efforts to undermine the process and Abu Mazen.”
Abu Mazen is the nom-de-guerre of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas.

==========================
The man who at one time seemed the most likely candidate to succeed Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, is now sidelined after falling out of grace with Arafat. Abbas, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mazen, became the first prime minister of the Palestinian Authority.

======================

Bush Speaks with Palestinian Leader Abbas
NewsMax Wires
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush inserted himself personally in the sputtering Middle East peace process on Tuesday, telephoning Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to urge them to stay the course in pursuing proposed steps to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The calls came in the wake of terrorist bombings in Israel and the Palestinian territories that threw new obstacles in front of the so-called "road map" to peace presented by Washington May 1.
White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president told Abbas - who goes by the nom de guerre of Abu Mazen - that all parties must take concrete steps to end terrorism and create an environment in which peace would have a chance.
======================
Presidential elections were called after Palestinian President Yasser Arafat passed away on November 11. For some years, Israel saw Mr Arafat as the main obstacle for peace in the Middle East.
Ten candidates, including seven independents, are running for the presidency of the Palestinian National Authority. Fatah, the largest party, chose Abu Mazen as its official candidate.
After Arafat’s death, Mr Mazen (nom de guerre of Mahmoud Abbas) was elected chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
===================

March 19, 2003, 9:45 a.m.Laundering Abu MazenA Holocaust revisionist, a conspiracy theorist, and a promoter of terrorism.By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

Mahmoud Abbas, known by his nom de guerre Abu Mazen, has been tapped by PLO leader Yasser Arafat to be the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority.

=====
============
He is favourite to take the mantle of Yasser Arafat, but Mahmoud Abbas must still face the hard men of Gaza and the West Bank, writes Ed O'Loughlin in Ramallah.
Electoral razzmatazz, Western-style, has yet to catch on in the Palestinian territories. At a campaign rally in Ramallah on Tuesday Mahmoud Abbas, the runaway favourite to win the Palestinian Authority chairmanship this weekend, had to make do with the drummers of the Al Am'ari scout troop and a public address system playing patriotic songs.
Nor have those around Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen, his nom de guerre) quite worked out the modern spin-craft of keeping supporters "on-message".
"Sharon, Abu Mazen will dig your grave!" chanted one group of fist-pumping young men, referring to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. They clambered on to each others' shoulders and pushed their way to the front of the crowded hall. "With our blood we will redeem you, oh Palestine!"
=========
December 29, 2004
Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) At It Again
That is, of course, not true. I use it to make a point about the likely winner of the Palestinian election. Some guy named Ted running for office may not alarm you. You may - knowing how entertainers like to get involved in politics - mistake the name for a former Saturday Night Live cast member. However, if you recognize the full name as the real name of the domestic terrorist called the UnaBomber, that would concern you. The same scenario is true for Mahmoud Abbas, who went by the name Abu Mazen when he was a terrorist. In Palestine he runs for office as Abbas, in Israel they remember him as Abu Mazen. I think I'll use that name when refering to him from now on too.
================
Hamas, Islamic Jihad agree to
conditional ceasefire, says Israel
Harinder Mishra
Jerusalem, January 23
In a major boost to peace prospects in the Middle East, leading militant factions Hamas and Islamic Jihad have agreed to a conditional ceasefire for about a month after talks with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
“As far as we understand, there is an agreement between (Abbas) and the heads of Hamas and Islamic Jihad for a ceasefire for a certain period ... about a month,” Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz told Israel Radio today.
The two militant factions have agreed to the ceasefire in return for a future role in the Palestinian Authority, Mofaz said.
Palestinian sources did not confirm the development immediately. They said that Abu Mazen (Abbas’ nom de guerre) is still holding talks with other Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip.
==========
Arafat officially asks Abbas to be his prime minister
RAMALLAH: Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat on Wednesday officially asked his moderate PLO deputy Mahmud Abbas to become prime minister a day after parliament approved the creation of the post, a top Arafat aide said here.

Nabil Abu Rudeina told reporters that presidential secretary Tayeb Abdelrahim had asked Abbas on the veteran leader’s behalf to take the job of prime minister sharing power with the head of the Palestinian Authority.

“Arafat called Abu Mazen today to officially ask him to begin his duty as prime minister,” Abu Rudeina said, using Abbas’s nom de guerre. He did not comment on Abbas’s response.
===================
Abbas, 69, a polished, moderate PLO veteran who served four rocky months last year as Arafat’s prime minister before quitting in frustration, was once a Washington favorite.
He attended the June 2003 summit in Aqaba, Jordan, that launched the US-sponsored “road map” for peace and was invited to the White House for talks with Bush the following month.
But Abbas, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mazen, made little headway toward a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has now claimed more than 4,500 lives since 2000.

================
Fork in the Road Map

By Clifford D. May
Scripps Howard News Service
May 8, 2003
Today, Mahmoud Abbas, better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mazen, is the new prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. His challenge, like Ben-Gurian's more than half a century ago, is to establish “a monopoly on the use of force” in the territories under his control.

==================
I am aware of William Safire's column on May 18, 2003
but nevertheless, I think I have made a rational, logical and supportive case for terming Abu Mazen a terrorist nom de guerre.

How Common

This sentence appeared in the New York Times of today:

"It won't happen by itself, or because someone likes Abu Mazen," he said, using a common name for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader.

Common? Ah, com'on.

Abu Mazen is the nom de guerre of Mahmoud Abbas from his days as a terrorist, a leading member of Fatah.

It is "common" only in that it is common for terrorists to take assumed identities and that is how his fellow terrorists referred to him.

But this is a common NYT error, or, shall we say, bias. Palestinians are never really terrorists, as is commonly known.

Memoirs Minus

The Commentator, the campus newspaper of Yeshiva University, published my letter responding to a semi-memoir of Yitz Greenberg, Rabbi and Doctor (Ph.D.), on the period of the 1960s at YU.

Here it is:

R. Irving Greenberg's memoir is remarkable for avoiding any real discussion of Israel and Zionism during the time he spent there. As a student at YU between 1964-1969, my memories are of very lively but admittedly small Zionist groups (Bnei Akiva and Betar), conflict with administration over Yom HaAtzmaut celebrations and most notably, the Lord Caradon affair.

That the Rav had to intervene in the last-mentioned item and then felt obliged to go on campus radio, was no small matter. R. Yitz has some 'holes' that need mending.

P.S. And who recalls the Lord Caradon affair?

Oh, Oh, Oona

The Jerusalem Post had a front page story which told of a "whiff of anti-Semitism" that MP Oona King is smelling in her Bethnall Green election campaign on April 29.
That smell, or is it stench,is, in its own way, a bit of tit for tat.

On June 19, 2003 , MP King compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to the Nazis' creation of the Warsaw ghetto. Gaza, she insisted, was "the same in nature", if not in extent. The building a wall around Arabs, King insisted, "is building a political ghetto." After visiting the area, while she recognized the danger of Arab terror, she was "more surprised perhaps by the everyday terror that Palestinians live" she said. As a Jew, she announced, "I hoped I would never live to see the day I was ashamed of the actions of the Jewish state."

As an observer of resurgent British anti-Semitism, I would like to convey to MP King my shame at the kind of behavior she is now suffering, despite the irony of it all in that her opponent, George Galloway, was one of the most outspoken defenders of Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime.

And by the way, there's a Palestinian angle to it all.

Letter in Jerusalem Post

Here's my letter that appeared in The Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2005:

Sharon and 'Time'

Sir, – Uri Dan is correct that Ariel Sharon technically won his libel suit against Time in that the court noted that what the magazine had published was false ("From Zero to hero," April 21). Nevertheless, Dan is a bit sloppy himself in failing to alert his readers that the final judgment was an acquittal.

The federal jury was addressed by the judge, Abraham Sofaer, who explained with care the subtleties of the actual malice standard. The jury subsequently found that, first, the statement at issue was defamatory; second, that it was false – but third that Time did not act with actual malice in publishing it. Sharon failed to gain financial remuneration.

The important consequence of the trial was the undercutting of the unethical journalistic standard of quoting from unidentified sources.

Whose Crusade?

Eva Green opines that the new movie in which she stars, "Kingdom of Heaven", is one "with substance", one that will "wake up people in America...to be more tolerant, more open towards the Arab people."

One, then, can only attempt to remind her that in this past century the historic Jewish Jerusalem, from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, has been ravaged and destroyed by Arabs in an effort to obliterate a history, a culture and a future. Archeological remains and ancient synagogues, artifacts representing three-thousand years of presence, have been targeted for physical obliteration in a different type of crusade.

However Hollywood presents events of the 12th century, we hope that Ms. Green's political message will not pass any test of time.

My Full Sympathy and Empathy

Colm Toibin has my full sympathy and I surely identify with his feelings about Tara, an historical site in Ireland. In a guest column in the New York Times, "A Road Runs Through Tara", published on April 25, 2005, Toibin writes eloquently of the importance of such locations.

As I view the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, I, too, recall the site's "precious heritage", its "special status as a symbol of former strength and glory" and the "grandeur that lies in its commanding position". Not only does the
Temple Mount possess a "lovely old dreaminess" of two temples but it asserts the promise of a renewed future for all mankind.

But the Temple Mount has been assaulted, on the one hand, by the construction of buildings by a rival religion, Islam, that seeks to supplant its past and, on the other, by a government policy that restricts entrance to its precincts by Jews and denies any religious actions therein by them.

I hope Toibin and his band of Irishmen succeed in their campaign as we continue ours.

Friedman: One "He" vs. "They"

Thomas Friedman had a particularly nasty op-ed published yesterday.

While praising democratic values, he seems quite unattuned to his own rather outrageous undemocractic behavior.

Viewing Jewish religious nationalists a "threat", he discards all pretense of any liberal, humanistic outlook and asserts "they killed Mr. Rabin for getting in their way and have threatened to do the same to Mr. Sharon". He ominously concludes "some of these settlers will not go down quietly".

Who are "they"?

Are "they" all kippa-wearing youngsters? Is this a blanket condemnation that in itself may lead assertive left-wingers or even, perhaps, the police in Israel, to act in ways that would recall anti-semitic societies? And how does one "put down" such a threat?

Friedman should clarify and apologize.

And I received this letter from Eve Harow:-

Thomas Friedman says that "one of the criticisms leveled at Ariel Sharon over his decision to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza is that he has never fully spelled out the reasons for his epiphany".

Although that is true, it is Sharon's anti-democractic behavior that is more worrying.

Elected on an anti-unilateral disngagement platform, he reneged on his commitment to abide by an internal Likud party poll, which he lost. He then fired two ministers before they could vote against his plan in order to gain an artificial cabinet majority he wouldn't have otherwise achieved. He had the army's chief-of-staff, Moshe Ayalon, who had expressed reservations about the plan, fired.

Sharon has, since then, spoke of civil war, intimating, just as Friedman does in his article, that his opponents pose a real threat while the danger stems foremost from his own disengagement plan.

And no one has asked the hardest question - least of all the media. What happens when the terror continues, using Gaza has an international base?

Why bother - Sharon wouldn't answer that, either.

President Bush, Why Not?

The New York Times reports that Israel will be releasing 9 Jordanian prisoners. Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is quoted as saying, "We want to improve and strengthen the relations between Israel and Jordan".

Wouldn't a similar American gesture be appropriate at this time? In granting Jonathan Pollard clemency, President George W. Bush would, in permitting him after 18 years to go free, marry and move to Israel, would not only improve ties and relations with Israel but would surely be doing an act of moral justice in the deepest sense.

Not So Difficult to Find a Reason

In HaAretz, a report notes that:-

"The IDF's rules of engagement along the Philadelphi route have not been altered for the period of calm. According to IDF sources, the rules of engagement along the route have remained unchanged due to the need to continue to prevent smuggling across the border.

"The soldiers, therefore, acted in accordance with their directives, but military sources said Sunday night that the commander of the force had been mistaken in his considerations and that it was plain to see that the five youths had been unarmed and shots to their legs would have sufficed.

"The soldiers acted as if they were involved in a confrontation with an armed cell, and there was no justification for this," a military source said. "There was no reason for an incident like this to have ended in the death of three youths."

Well, I can find a justification. They won't have to shoot ever again, at all, because the youths who support terror and criminal activity in aid of terror won't dare to do what they did again. And if they do, they'll have to know that being involved in this type of activity which is intended to kill and maim Israelis, will result, necessarily, perhaps, in their own deaths.

Even Worse?

Hamas, this Gazan claims, is worse even than Israel.

Proof Positive

Reuters posted this article which provides us proof positive that all along they knew that "militants" was a term that described very violent individuals, persons who carry weapons and kill people.

So, why then use "militants" when 'gunmen', 'gangsters' or even 'terrorists' are words that so much better rivet one's attention?

Who Gets to Be "Civil" and "Rebellious"?

The Left in Israel always presume that ipso facto, they are right and the Right is wrong. It's not only double standards. They really don't read what they write or listen to what they themselves say.

Here's a letter of mine that appeared in the Jerusalem Post of Wednesday, April 6:-

Whose norms?

Sir, - Nachman Shai foresees a new normalcy, one in which there is room for a "spirit of [...] civil rebellion" such as in the fight for medications and the students' battle ("The coming new normalcy," April 3). According to Shai, in adopting the disengagement, Israel has "created this reality, and will need to live by its new rules."

Can we assume that civil rebellion would also be acceptable to prevent the disengagement plan, which many feel will not bring us a new reality but simply will renew the old normalcy of security problems, including Arab terror, a weakened Israel, threatened water resources and a diluted Zionist spirit?

Or are the "new rules" only to be set by Shai and fellow disengagement supporters?

In Concert

Although I haven't be trumpeting my opinion, one of the major
problems the anti-disengagementists have faced is what is
described below, or what was the situation until this notice.

There has been a major lack of strategic thinking, lack of ability
or unwillingness to coordinate and not dominate, lack of open
avenues for receiving creative ideas, lack of proper spokesperson
activities and organization, lack of understanding how best to spend
money, how to shape the campaign, reliance on "professional"
outsiders, weak communication links, separation of the political from
the activist, etc., etc.

========

Right-Wing Organizations Committed to Unity
Monday, April 4, 2005 / 24 Adar 5765

(IsraelNN.com) Right wing organizations, including the Yesha Council and Cities’ Action Committees met today and reached an understanding, an agreement and commitment to work in concert towards preventing the implementation of the Gaza Disengagement Plan.

Following last week’s Knesset defeat of the Referendum Bill, the last political hurdle in the way of the implementation of the plan was lifted, giving the prime minister all the political and legal backing required to move ahead towards the implementation phase, grassroots activists realize the time has come for ‘in-the-streets’ opposition.

Opponents to the government plan admit the defeat was a significant one, but vow they will continue the battle which will now focus on grassroots efforts to stop the planned destruction of some 25 communities in Gaza and northern Shomron.

Well, Why Not Jerusalem?

Member of the Palestinian National Council Muhammad Muqbel was in the
Ziryab restaurant when gunmen of the Fatah's Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades
shot it up. His reaction as recorded by Steve Erlanger, New York Times correspondent?

"You want to act tough, go to Jerusalem!"
("Militants' Wild West Night Leaves West Bank Town Dismayed", April 1).

This, then, is the true face of Israel's "partner for peace": violence, terror,
ill-disciplined security forces and public figures for whom Israel will always be the target.

For them, "Jerusalem" will be the symbol for Israel's disintegration.