Other Shilohs

I live at Shiloh, Samaria, Israel.

Here, most probably, Yaakov fought a battle in retreat against Shchemites. Here Joshua divided out the tribal portions of the Land of Israel. Here the Tabernacle was erected. Here Samuel the Prophet was inducted to the prophetic ministry.

But what about the other Shilohs?

Here are a few references I found while stumbling through some search engines for something else entirely:-


1.
A Whole New Wardrobe for
Wet Wrapping!

Shiloh Healthcare are delighted to announce the launch of our new Comfifast Easywrap Suits – a range of easy to apply washable clothing used for wet wrapping in the treatment of paediatric atopic eczema.

2.
Shiloh Industries, Inc.
Products
Body Structures, Interior Metallics, Engineered Welded Blanks

3.
Shiloh, Illinois -- The Place to Be!
People who live and work in the Village of Shiloh know the simple pleasures of small-town life and at the same time enjoy all the benefits of a thriving metropolis. Located on the crest of a picturesque, unspoiled valley, Shiloh is encircled by several larger neighbors, including Belleville, Fairview Heights, O'Fallon, and Scott Air Force Base. Within the surrounding towns are numerous shopping centers, as well as the largest mall in Southern Illinois.

4.
Shiloh National Military Park was established in 1894 to preserve the scene of the first major battle in the Western theater of the Civil War. The two-day battle, April 6 and 7, 1862, involved about 65,000 Union and 44,000 Confederate troops. This battle resulted in nearly 24,000 killed, wounded, and missing. It proved to be a decisive victory for the federal forces when they advanced on and seized control of the Confederate railway system at Corinth, Mississippi. The battlefield contains about 4,000 acres at Shiloh and an interpretive center at Corinth, Mississippi.

5.
The Shiloh Project is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization based in Fairfax County, Virginia and is a participating member of the Combined Federal Campaign and the United Way of the National Capital Area.
Our Mission: Teaching juvenile offenders and youth at-risk Compassion, Respect and Responsibility toward animals and others through the experience of socializing and interacting with rescued homeless dogs, Promoting the adoption of homeless companion animals and Encouraging healthy and positive human/animal bonds.

Any more out there?

Is there a psychosis called Masochistic Self-Hatred?

Amira Haas has published "Khan Yunis / What Netzarim cost Sheikh Ajlin: 114 lives, 1,900 dunams, 105 homes".

What can I say?

One Jay Friedman from Ra'anana added this response there at the site:

The Palestinian leadership caused the death of 114 Palestinians.
Can you imagine how Gaza would have looked had the Palestinians and the other Arab leaders been willing to make peace with Israel in 1947..in 1948? in 1949? in 1956? in 1967? in 1968 and on and on and on and on? in 2001? in 2001? in 2002? in 2003? in 2004???? Would Israel have remained in any part of the Gaza Strip if the Palestinians would have the courage to make peace?

He has said it all.

Poor Amira. But at least she made money off of Gaza by publishing a book.

Fair is Fair

This story parallels that "Jewish couple" story.

And I believe in fairness, so here's an excerpt:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 2005 — Officials at JP Morgan Chase have apologized and promised to improve their screening policies, after a credit card solicitation letter sent to a 54-year-old naturalized American citizen came addressed to "Palestinian Bomber."

The form letter for a Visa Platinum card arrived earlier this month at the home of Sami Habbas, a grocery store manager from Corona, Calif. Habbas is a naturalized U.S. citizen of Palestinian heritage. He told ABC News he is "extremely upset" at receiving the letter, pointing out that he has lived in the United States for 51 years and also served in the U.S. Army, receiving an honorable discharge in 1969.

Why Not Be Fair?

The New York Times carries a story on the crisis that the expelled Jewish population from Gaza and its supporters are undergoing.

Unfortunately, his interlocutors, Ari Shavit and Shlomo Avineri, are both opponents of Israel's presence in what Erlanger admits is "biblical Land of Israel".

Could not one representative voice have been quoted, to lend balance and authenticity to the discussion?

I'm Quoted

USA Today quotes me.

Here.

Maybe Sharon and SELA Head Bassi Can Use this Idea?

Okay, this (for full story) is a bit of on the black humor side of things. But the way things are going for some of the Gaza refugees, this isn't that far off the mark.

Germany's homeless students turn to living in a box
By Ruth Elkins, in Berlin
Published: 21 August 2005
The UK Independent

The new Micro-Compact Home (M-CH) offers students a cosy six square metres of individual dwelling where they can sleep, drink beer and occasionally fit in a bit of work. It is a raised, entirely open-plan aluminium cube. Inside, three levels of "interlocking space" miraculously manage to contain a stowaway bed, desk, kitchen and a "completely normal" toilet and shower, even if it is in the doorway. Equipped with flat-screen TV, internet access and air conditioning, the M-CH is easily transportable and so small it can be parked almost anywhere.

The new Micro-Compact Home (M-CH) offers students a cosy six square metres of individual dwelling where they can sleep, drink beer and occasionally fit in a bit of work. It is a raised, entirely open-plan aluminium cube. Inside, three levels of "interlocking space" miraculously manage to contain a stowaway bed, desk, kitchen and a "completely normal" toilet and shower, even if it is in the doorway. Equipped with flat-screen TV, internet access and air conditioning, the M-CH is easily transportable and so small it can be parked almost anywhere.

Rememeber that New Jersey Restaurant?

Remember that story of the "Jewish Couple" from last week?

Well, there's a follow up.

August 19, 2005 -- A posh Jersey Shore eatery, under fire for referring to a pair of diners as a "Jew Couple" on their check, is in hot water again.
Longtime customer Joanne Fordyce said she was outraged when she noticed that her check from Parkhill's Waterfront Grill in Loch Arbour printed, just below her table number, "Dirty Joanne."

Read on.

A Synagogue is not a Church

The scenes we observed at the Kfar Darom synagogue, a community that was abandoned in 1938 due to the Arab riots at the time; that was overrun and destroyed in the 1948 war after a heroic stand against the invading Egyptian army and now, in 2005, scheduled to be eradicated were difficult.

One comment made by the officers in command was that "we didn't desecrate the synagogue; you kids decided to select that site, not us".

Well, technically, that's true.

Nevertheless, as the Yesha Council spokesperson pointed out, this same Israel Defense Forces army refused, in 2002, to go into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. And I am talking about the period when several terrorists were holed up inside, crimes far worse than the acts these youngsters did.

Makes you think, no?

Reality?

The New York Times' editorial asserts that "Gaza...part of Mandatory Palestine...was never part of the Zionist state intended by the United Nations partition plan that led to the establishment of Israel in 1948". This is ingenuous.

Gaza, part of the original territory intended by the League of Nations in 1922 to become the Jewish National Home, was indeed not included in the land mass that was to be the Jewish state in Palestine. That resolution, however, was rejected by the Arabs and became a dead letter. The war of aggression launched by Arabs, in blatant violation of the UN, left Israel in legitimate possession of the Gallilee, the southern sea coast and additional regions which are now recognized as Israel.

The Arab attempt in 1967 to continue the 1948 war left Israel administrating Gaza. The Jewish communities there, some of which existed prior to 1948 like Kfar Darom, are not illegitimate and neither are they the "worst side" of the revenant movement to continue Jewish life in the Jewish homeland but a continuation of genuine Jewish nationalism.

Would not the conclusion of the editorial's logic lead to Israel expelling Arabs, like the Jews of Gaza, out of their homes in Gallilee?

The Foreign Ministry Can't Write Properly

Israel's Foreign Ministry publishes updates on government pronouncements, events and other important developments. Unfortunately, the English is not that successful or even correct.

Here's the posting that went out early this morning:

Response of PM Sharon to Shilo terrorist attack - Aug 17, 2005
18/08/2005 6:42:09
Shalom, Yisrael Medad
**Response of PM Sharon to Shilo terrorist attack - Aug 17, 2005
====================================================================
Information Department, Israel Foreign Ministry - Jerusalem
Website: http://www.mfa.gov.il
E-mail: feedback@mfa.gov.il

And this is the short note I sent to their feedback address:-

Your translation is in error.

This was not the "Shilo Terrorist Attack".

This was the "Asher Vizgan Terror Attack".

Shiloh did not kill anybody.

No one who lives in Shiloh killed anyone.

One person, one individual killed. A community did not kill.

Just Exactly Who Is Responsible?

This is just amazing:-

Neither attacks came as a complete surprise to police or to the Shin Bet security service. In recent months, the security establishment has received numerous warnings of possible attacks by extremist Jews against the Palestinians in an attempt to incite disorder in the territories and block the disengagement plan.

The incident at the entrance to the Shiloh Bloc of communities was not part of some plan but, as far as I can tell, perhaps a result of the anti-"settler" incitement by the media (*) and those politicians who manipulate the media and raise all sorts of ideas that no one would contemplate or think about unless the media gives them a platform. No one here talks or discusses such ideas but the newspapers delight in reporting on the most unlikely scenarios and it is this phenomenom which could be the guilty party.

(*) And as the Jerusalem Post reports:-

The shooter was identified as Asher Weisgan, 40, from the West Bank settlement of Shvut Rahel. Initial findings suggested that he was not known to possess a radical ideology, security officials said.

Some of his friends, however, said he had appeared to be in a state of depression in recent days, probably because of disengagement.

Just How Jewish?

Someone sent me a story about a fancy Jersey Shore restaurant presenting a check which listed the diners' table as that of the "Jew Couple."

Here's an excerpt:-

Brooklynite Elliot Stein says he was shocked that a waitress at the Parkhill's Waterfront Grill in Allenhurst printed the slur instead of a table number on his $36.75 bill.

As if that weren't bad enough, the 23-year-old shoe buyer told The Post, the offensive phrase then turned up on his credit-card statement two weeks later.

"My grandfather went through all that in old-school Europe," an angry Stein said yesterday. "But that happened more than 50 years ago. You don't expect it to happen in 2005, especially when a lot of their money comes from our community."

Relaxing at happy hour on a Friday night, July 8, he and his girlfriend of two years, Jennifer Cassin, had just finished their sushi and drinks. When the check arrived...along with the list of their orders was the printed phrase: "Jew Couple."

Stein, who has a vacation house in nearby Deal, N.J., said he was a regular at the waterfront establishment.

Gee, I feel for them even though I am guessing that the eatery wasn't really serving Kosher food, especially as it was on the Shabbat.

Even a London Bobby You Can't Trust

As the New York Times reports it, London policemen lie and kill.

It basically informs us that an official investigation directly contradicted the police account of the killing of a young Brazilian man after the bombing attempts in London on July 21.

At the time, the police said Mr. Menezes wore a bulky jacket on a hot day, began running from officers despite commands to halt, vaulted the ticket turnstile and ran stumbling onto the subway train. A news report on British television said an inquiry led by the Independent Police Complaints Commission had contradicted every one of those points. The report said that the officers had misidentified Mr. Menezes as one of the failed July 21 attackers and that he was killed even though he walked into the subway station wearing a light denim jacket, did not vault the turnstile and was sitting on the train when the officers moved in.

You can't trust policemen, in the U.K. and, as we know, in Israel as well.

Self-Incitement?

According to this Haaretz report, PM Ariel Sharon might find himself being blamed for incitement to violence. Who knows? With the current atmosphere as it is and with the media as it is and with an Attorney General as he is, democracy is a very fragile tool in the hands of those who either don't understand what the rights of free speech and free expression are, or, worse, seek to selectively pervert it from political and ideological persuasions.

Here, read for yourselves his words and how President Katzav quickly tried to correct him:-

"I want to truly appeal to everyone, not to attack the police, the women and men soldiers and police. Don't blame them. Don't make it hard on them. Don't hurt them, hurt me."

Referring to his disengagement plan, said "I am responsible for this. Hurt me. Blame me. Don't hurt the soldiers and police who are in any case in a state of distress."

Katsav then interjected, saying that Sharon intended to say "'Criticize me,' not 'hurt me.'"

More Thievery

As Itim reports in Haaretz,

Two Israel Defense Forces soldiers were caught Tuesday trying to loot the evacuated homes of settlers in the Gush Katif settlement of Pe'at Sadeh. This is the third time soldiers have been caught attempting to loot homes in that settlement this week.

The soldiers were in the midst of stealing pieces of silverware when a female soldier caught them in the act and reported the incident to a commander.

Poor Shuvi. Someone is responsible for this looting and they need to take care of their own moral position before demanding that no hand be raised (see yesterday's posting).

Some Historic Issues

Jordan's King Abdullah II vowed Tuesday to oppose settling more Palestinian refugees in his country amid Arab fears that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip may not extend to the West Bank.

He further said:

I know and do appreciate the fears of some of you that plans may exist to redraw the map of the region and to settle some historic issues at the expense of Jordan.

Well, well.

If there are any "historic issues" left to resolve, one of them is what happened to the original territory intended for the Jewish National Home? Or, why, after several partitions, one in 1922, another in 1947, the Pals. are still not satiated? Or, how is it that Abdullah's great-grandfather took over Jordan, himself a refugee displaced from Saudi Arabia?

From Whom Did They Learn to Steal?

Last month, a counter-campaign was launched to portray the anti-disengagement protests as violent and causing civil strife (you gotta give it to our Lefties, they really know where to get the money for these full page ads).

Anyway, the message was "don't you dare hit my son". The full ad reads: "His humor is from his mother; his big heart from his father; his duties from the IDF. Don't raise your hand against my son". It is signed "The Mothers of the Soldiers".

Well, in today's Hebrew edition of Haaretz (for which I haven't located a web site link) appears, way back on page 14A, a small notice that two Givati soldiers were caught stealing, or is it more properly plundering, out of homes in Pe'at Sadeh and Channel 10 TV caught 3 other soldiers from a combat engineering unit stealing a refrigerator from a house there, too. Here's The Jerusalem Post report.

Well, from whom did they learn to steal?

P.S. Why not ask them. Here's their address: office@shuvi.org

Not Worthy of Splashy Journalism?

Haaretz's English language web site reports that among those arrested on Friday at the weekly anti-fence demo near Bil'in was a soldier, female. The Hebrew print edition, on page 12A, way in the back, informs us that she was scheduled to serve in the office of...COC Dan Halutz.

Avi Bieber had his picture splashed across the front pages, for days.

And this soldier?

Could it be she belongs to the right, opps, left side of the political spectrum?

Hyper-Zionism

David Brooks, in an op-ed column in the New York Times writes of groups that reject the globalized culture who are "driven". He then sets out some examples. Like these:-

Islamic extremists reject the modern cultures of Europe, and have created a hyperaggressive fantasy version of traditional Islamic purity. In a much different and less violent way, some American Jews have moved to Hebron and become hyper-Zionists.

As it happens, Jews, from all over the world, and for centuries, have been returning to Hebron. In the 1929 riots, a half dozen American boys, from New York, Chicago and other places were among those murdered there. To live in Hebron as in Safed, Jerusalem and Tiberias over the centuries was not "hyper", but the most normal act a Jew could do. This was not a hyper-reaction but a fulfillment of the thousands year-old command and instruction to go and live in the homeland of the Jewish people.

Is it "hyper" because Brooks presumes that Hebron is "Arab territory" and that Jews shouldn't be there even if they do actually "belong" there? Why is accomplishing one of the most basic of Jewish acts, just like "next year in Jerusalem", to be thought of as 'weird', 'outlandish' and 'hyper'?

An Itemized Expense

This just shows how determined the evacuation is planned:-

Wednesday's drill took place at Kerem Shalom, a communal farm along Israel's border with Gaza. The army paid for residents to stay in a hotel during the exercise.

The 'Cultured' Left

Just yesterday, the media firestormed the pronouncement of Attorney-General Menni Mazuz that it has not been proven that incitement was a direct cause of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

They berated him for daring to assume that words cannot kill because without this basis, they have no case against the Right in a collective sense.

So, how does the Left write and use words?

Try this, from Yoel Marcus, senior columnist and editorial board member of Haaretz:-

Israel was attacked twice within the space of 72 hours. First by a Jewish terrorist who shot four passengers to death on a bus in Shfaram and then by Benjamin Netanyahu, who suddenly resigned as the cabinet met to put their John Hancock on the first stage of the pullout. Both attacks had the same motivation - to sabotage the disengagement. But it is doubtful that either the military misfit who became a murderer or the smart, sharp-tongued politician will achieve their goal.

Left-wing Hypocrisy Yet Again

Arutz 7 reported that

vandals damaged the Rishon L’Tzion grave of IDF Pvt. Eidan Natan-Zada, who perpetrated last week’s bus attack in Shfar'am. City Hall officials report that vandals removed the grave marker which contains the name of the person buried, and removed a quantity of dirt. Officials stress the body of the soldier was not touched.

Are these the same people who complain when Gush Katif people utilize Holocaust-related messages?

How to Win Over the Public

Tel Aviv University published the results of a Peace Index poll they've been running monthly for almost a decade.

I think the information below from the poll indicates that I may have been right in my long-held beliefs that the methods, strategy, orientation and tactics of the anti-Oslo opposition led by the Yesha Council ("the Yesha Is Here" campaign vs. my proposed "This Is Not My Peace" line) as well as the current anti-Disengagement drive

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

Arguments of both the opponents and the supporters turn out to be primarily security-oriented rather than “ideological.” Thus, among the opponents the most common argument—23%—is that the withdrawal from Gaza is interpreted by the Palestinians as flight, and they must not be allowed to think this since it strengthens them against Israel.

The second most common argument—21.5%—is that the withdrawal will lead to an intensification of terror against Israel from the Strip, and the third argument—20%—is that the withdrawal poses a strategic danger to Israeli security. Only 11% cite as a main factor that the withdrawal sets a dangerous precedent for the evacuation of West Bank settlements as well, and even fewer—9%—ascribe most of their opposition to the fact that Gaza is part of the Promised Land of Israel.

Among the disengagement supporters, the order of the arguments is as follows: 33% believe the Israeli presence in Gaza is too costly in terms of victims and strengthens the Palestinians’ motivation for terror against Israel, and 22% say Gaza is not part of the historical Land of Israel and therefore Israel has no business there. Some 14% think the withdrawal will signal to the Palestinians that Israel desires peace and will encourage a return to the negotiating table; 11.5% feel that being in Gaza has no strategic value in terms of Israeli security, and only 10% “bought” the explanation by Dov Weisglass that Israel should leave Gaza in order to relieve the international pressure, enabling it to retain the West Bank settlements in the long run.

Facts are Facts

Andrea Levin, Executive Director of CAMERA in Boston, had a letter published in the Boston Globe on August 5 in response to a factually erroneous letter printed several days earlier.

In part, it read:-

As to Garrett's claim that even Israel's own Supreme Court deems Jewish settlements illegal, he's wrong. The opposite is true. The Elon Moreh case of 1979, the key relevant court decision, set the parameters for establishment of legal settlements. It ruled, for example, that no private Arab land could be taken for settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, but rather, state land was to be used.

To my mind, CAMERA would have been on stronger ground on the question of "settlement legality" had Andrea Levin pointed out that one of the fundamental legal rights granted Jews within the territory of the reconstituted Jewish National Home, which from 1922 onwards included all the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, was that of "close settlement".

The language of Article 6 is quite clear on this matter, reading that the Mandate Power "shall encourage...close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands".

When Reality Becomes Real

The New York Times editorial today is particularly viscious.

On the one hand, it congratulates Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "for standing firm and proceeding with the Gaza pullout...[and]...bowing to a demographic reality and a realistic understanding" of Israel's needs.

On the other, it denigrates resigning Finance Minster Benjamin Netanyahu, pitying him for "still refusing to acknowledge" a political, economic and emotional reality that Israel cannot hold on to the Gaza Strip.

In a few months time, however, we will know what the reality will be as it will be reported on the pages of the NYT and broadcast.

Will that reality be the optimistic view Sharon sees, that of peace, or the pessimistic outlook of Netanyahu, one of increased terror?

But the real puzzle will be: will the New York Times recognize the reality when it occurs or we will still be treated to plain bad advice?

Dumb

So says Ehud Olmert, vice prime minister and Ariel Sharon's running dog or, if that's too strong, then Sancho Panza:-


"I am amazed by the responsible and restrained manner that the Arab public displayed after the attack," Ehud Olmert said on his visit to Shfaram on Saturday.


And the truth?

Read on:-

MK Mohammed Barakeh warned on Saturday that protests could erupt if police probe Zada's lynching.

According to Barakeh, the crowd attacked Zada out of concern he would continue with his shooting rampage. He denied that Zada was beaten after being handcuffed by police.

However, Shfaram's security officer, Jamal Aliam, told Army Radio that Zada had been attacked by dozens after he had been handcuffed and subdued by police.

Dov Weisglass told the world that 60,000 more revenants will have to be displaced in a further depopulation move.

Here's what he said, a la Reuters:-

JERUSALEM, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Israel expects at least 180,000 of the current
240,000 settlers in the occupied West Bank will be able to stay in their
homes with approval from the United States, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon said on Thursday.

In support of Sharon's plan, Washington said last year that Israel could
expect to keep some occupied land in any final peace deal with the
Palestinians.

"Altogether, we talk about 180,000 settlers of a total population of
240,000. So this is of course a significant step forward in this matter,"
Weisglass said in a conference broadcast on Israeli radio.

"It means the entire area of greater Jerusalem, the city of Maale Adumim,
the settlements in the Gush Etzion area and the bloc of settlements around
Ariel."

Feel better now?

They Never Heed Warnings

Haaretz reports that the family of the killer of the non-Jews in Shfar'am warned the authorities that their son posed a clear and present danger. Yet nothing was done.

Carmella Menasheh went on Channel One end-of-week wrapup show Friday night to testify to the truth of that statement, noting that for 6 weeks she tried to get a response to the family's claims and only two hours (!) prior to the shooting, she was informed that everything was being dealt with.

So, if they can't deal with one Jewish killer, of course they ignore the warnings about thousands of potential Arab killers waiting in the wings in Gaza and northern Samaria.

Against Jews They Can Be Tough But Against Arabs?

Haaretz reports

The mob kicked the gunman and hurled objects at him. Police officers surrounded the bus in an attempt to protect the gunman from the mob, but moved away when they thought the Lower Galilee residents were going to set the bus on fire.

a. they can be tough against Jews but prove less than capable facing an Arab mob?
b. when the Kasams fall in Gaza during the expulsion, will they also run away?

British Anti-Terror Morality

Israel has been lambasted over 'targeted killings' and almost everything else it does to defend its citizens.

And Britain?

Oh, the old hypocritical attitude of "do as I say, not as I do".

Here, read on:

"I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down!'

"I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.

'Bomb belt'

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

BBC Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said officers had challenged a known suspect they had been following.

"He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.

"They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene."

Police had warned they would shoot to kill if they believed somebody to be a threat, she added.

BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said the suspect was being followed as a result of CCTV footage seen by officers investigating Thursday's explosions.

The Muslim Council of Britain said Muslims were concerned about a possible "shoot to kill" policy.

עוד דבר שנפל בדרך

האלבום "רוח אחרת" שיזם יונה פרסבורגר היה לתרומה אדירה לבניית נחישות המעש של הדור החדש אשר צמח לנו מאז ימי אוסלו והפירות של המחאה היום ניתן לזקוף גם לזכותו.

לצערי, חלקה של "האגודה לזכות הציבור לדעת" הוקטן שלא בצדק ושלא לפי התכנון המקורי. המאבק נגד התקשורת, כפי שאנו חוזים מולנו הוא תרכיב מכריע בהצלחה או, להיפך, לכשלון.

התבקשתי לחבר נוסח אשר ישולב בפרק על התקשורת וגם נוסח לעניין מהותו של מאבק של מחאה אך הם נשרו בשולחן המערכת.

אז, הנה מה שכתבתי, לשיפוטכם:

יצחק רבין, ראש ממשלת ישראל בין השנים 1993-1995, נשא עמו טינה לא מבוטלת כלפי מפעל ההתיישבות של גוש אמונים. כאשר חג מעל לרבבות אשר באו והתקבצו מסביב לתחנת הרכבת הטורקית מסעודה שליד סבסטיה במסוקו, וזאת על מנת לבחון דרכי תגובה אפשרויות, פלט מילת הגנאי "פורשים", כאילו הוא עדיין איש פלמ"ח הרודף אנשי מחנה היריב הפוליטי-אידאולוגי בטרם מדינה, לפעמים מסגיר אותם לכובש הזר, לפעמים מפליא מכות בהם אבל כל הזמן בז להם.

והנה, בדרכו ל"שלום", הוא מוצא מולו 'גוף חוסם' מבוצר, נחוש ובלתי-מתפשר: אנשי ההתנחלויות, תושבי כפר ועיר, דתיים, חילוניים, גם פרופסורים ואנשי אקדמיה ועשרות אלפי 'עמך' שכבר בקיץ 1993, על מדשאות גן הוורדים מול הכנסת, ולאחר מכן, על חוף ימה של תל-אביב, טענו נגדו שאין לו מנדט. תוך שנה, הסיסמא אשר תונף אל-על תהיה "העם לא חתם". ואולם, מה שהמפגינים ראו כאמצעי מחאה סביר, ובהקבלה למדינות ולמצבים בארצות אחרות, אמצעי יעיל וצודק, ראה מר רבין שאיום ממשי על שלטונו.

לעולם לא נדע מה התרחש בליבו פנימה נוכח הידיעה ששר החוץ שלו וסגנו, מר שמעון פרס וד"ר יוסי ביילין, חתרו נגדו בשלב מסוים של ניהול המגעים עם אנשי אש"ף בנורבגיה בעוד הוא מקדם את המגעים עם המשלחת הפלסטינית בוושינגטון. אולי העוינות הברורה והגלויה אשר גילה יצחק רבין למתייצבים מולו בגנים ציבוריים, על המדרכות, בצמתים ובאוהלי המחאה ועל הגבעה נמול חלונות משרדו בקריה בירושלים גם נבעה כתוצאה מהתסכול שהיה לו מהלחץ שהוא מצא את עצמו בו.

מחוסר כלים מקצועיים או עדויות נאמנות אחרות, לא נוכל לקבוע קביעות חד-משמעויות כדי לבסס השערות בתחום זה. לא נוכל לדעת מה באמת חשב והעריך יצחק רבין. נותרה לנו רק עובדה אחת: יחסו הקשה, המזלזל, הבוטה והמחוספס כלפי התנועה העממית הגדולה והרחבה שקמה בישראל כדי להיאבק למען ארץ-ישראל ולמען הציונות מול המדיניות של כניעה, התרפסות אך חוקי ומקובל בהשוואה למדינות שאף הם עברו משבר אקוטי, אם בארה"ב והתנועה למען זכויות האדם שבהנהגתו של מרטין לותר קינג או המחאות נגד מלחמת וייטנאם; אם באנגליה ותנועת הפציפיזם ופירוק הנשק הגרעיני אשר הנהיג ברטרנד רוסל; ואם מאבקים אחרים של סולידרטי בפולין או הסטודנטים ברחובות פאריס.

ביסוד ההתנכרות לתנועת המחאה היתה מונחת פסילה עד כדי דה-לגטימיזציה של זכות האזרחים בכלל לנהל מאבק זה ובדרגה נוספת, גישת הממשל הרביני שללה את אופי המחאה ומייד ניסתה להדביק לה פן "קיצוני" ואף "פשיסטי". אם ביוזמתו ואם כתוצאה מיעוץ של איש תקשורת ויחסי צבור שנון, לכאורה, רבין הנהיג הדבקת תווית של "ימין קיצוני" לכל קבוצה מפגינה. שותפו לממשלת אוסלו, פרס, הטיל פעם כלפי הגב' רות מטר, חמותה של נדיה ושותפה בהובלת "הנשים בירוק", התרסה והמליצה לה לחזור לארץ-מוצאה שהוא בטעות חשב שהיא ארה"ב (רות נולדה באוסטריה). הנה, פרס פועל כאנטי-ציוני בנסיון לגרש מהמולדת עולה ותיקה.

לצורך מאמץ שלטוני זה גוייסו שכבת ה"אליטות" שעשרות שנים ראו את עצמן כשותפים לדרך מה שפעם נקרא "המחנה הפועלי". קול המחאה שותק ע"י פעולות ההעלמות מצד אחד, ומצד שני ע"י הבלטה של דמויות קיקיוניות ויוצאות-דופן כדי להשחיר. ח"כ בני בגין העיד שמשך כשלשה חדשים הוא השתדל לשווא להביא לידיעת הצבור הרחב, דרך הופעה בטלויזיה, את דברי "נאומי ערפאת". והנה, לאחר שבישיבת ועדת החוץ והבטחון של הכנסת רמז שמעון פרס שבעצם החומר שבקלטות הוא מזוייף ולא-אמיתי, מר בגין זומן להופיע בפני מצלמתו של רפיק חלבי ומול שאלותיו של חיים יבין לא בגלל המסר הלא-נעים שהעביר ערפאת לצבור שלו בשפתו אלא כדי ל"הוכיח" שבגין עוסק בחומר שקיים כלפיו ספק.

ואם בספק נגענו, פרשת "ביטול" המאנה הפלסטינית מאפריל 1994, מדגימה פן נוסף של מאמצי השלטון לדכא בכל צורה שהיא את המחאה וההתנגדות לתהליך אוסלו.

הנה, כבר שנה עברה

לפני כשנה, בגליון פר' מטות-מסעי של "מעט מן האור", הובא שירו של זאב ז'בוטינסקי "שמאל הירדן" שעיקרו תביעה ששטח המנדט יכלול את שתי גדות הירדן. העורך ראה לנכון להביע זלזול מסוים בשיר ע"י ציון מוזריותה של המלה אפדן ("מי יודע מה זה…").

שלחתי את התיקון הבא אל חנן פורת אבל הוא לא ראה לנכון לכלול את הערותיי בגליון הבא ואחרי שפגשתי אותו, הוא קצת, איך אומרים, 'משך את כתפותיו'. אז, אחרי שנה, הנה מה שכתבי:-

ואכן, המלה מופיעה בדניאל (אגב, אחד מהספרים שבתנ"ך). בפרק י"א, פסוק מה כתוב: ויטע אהלי אפנדו" והמשמעות, כנראה, היא ארמון או חצר או היכל של ארמון. מצודת ציון קובע ארמון ומביא מקור מהגמרא בברכות. הרס"ג מקשר למלה אפוד, כאילו כיסוי חשוב. רש"י, על הפסוק בבראשית כ"ה כ, מסביר את פדן ארם שמשמעות של שדה. ולבסוף, בגמרא בבא מציעא לה' עמוד א, המלה מופיעה בארמית, "אפדניה" ומשמעותה שם גם ארמון.

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?