Doc's Talk: "Post Yom Kippur"

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

"Post Yom Kippur"

Arlene Kushner

I hope that everyone who observed Yom Kippur yesterday found peace and a spiritual high.

Now we head for the most joyous of holidays: Sukkot, which begins Friday night and lasts until Saturday night a week later here in Israel, and a day longer in Galut -- outside of Israel.

Please know that, while I will post a couple of times this week, it is unlikely that I will during the holiday.
For anyone who makes phone calls from N. America to Israel, be aware that we have ended summer time and are only 6 hours ahead of you now.

~~~~~~~~~~

I thank all of those who wrote to me to inform me that the e-mail form which I had shared for Congressman Tom Price -- who had sent a letter of support to PM Netanyahu -- is available only to his constituents.

There are several alternative ways of reaching him:

There is another e-mail address: tom@mail.house.gov (thanks, Helen F).

Fax him in Washington at 202-225-4656 (thanks, Sandor and Bunny).

E-mail Paul Teller, executive director of the House Republican Study Group that Price chairs: Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov. Explain that you had trouble reaching the Congressman directly but wish to thank him. (Because I have contact with him, that is what I did.)

Congressman Price will be pleased to know that you understand that there are friends of Israel in Congress who do not think as Obama does. Such friends need to know they are appreciated.

~~~~~~~~~~

I want to share a fascinating brief video clip of PM Netanyahu giving an interview right after his UN talk last week (thanks, Minka).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLCpJTchK8Q&feature=player_profilepage

~~~~~~~~~~

Barry Rubin had a piece in today's Post, in which he maintains that Obama has now swung away from a anti-Israel approach to something a bit more "evenhanded." While I do not agree with everything Rubin says, I found some of the points he makes in this particular piece quite interesting:

Rubin acknowledges forthrightly that there have been many negative influences on Obama with regard to his attitude toward Israel, most significantly:

"Indoctrinated by the far left into the Third World, 'anti-imperialist' narrative, Obama disliked Israel and saw it as evil, taught by such people as Rashid Khalidi, an Edward Said acolyte and Palestinian propagandist, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an outright anti-Semite."

Had matters gone otherwise, he says, the disaster many people foresaw might indeed have taken place. But, he maintains, there have been some intervening variables that have shifted the situation:

[] Obama learned that being anti-Israel was a political liability. As a political animal, he knew this required a shift.

[] Congressional members (bless them!) are exhibiting a pro-Israel stance -- which, after a period of silence, has increased as Obama's popularity has decreased. As he needs them for support on other issues, he prefers not to cross them in great measure on this matter. (This makes our communication with Congresspersons all the more important.)

[] "...as always, intransigence on the Arab and Palestinian side was so extreme that even the Obama administration couldn't ignore it. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas was absolutely so uncooperative with Obama, throwing away an incredible strategic opportunity. Obama thought Arab states would fall in line behind him -- especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- but they refused to help. It is said that his meeting with the Saudi king, who went into an anti-Israel diatribe, was a particular shock...."

So here we see that Obama's pie-in-the-sky plans have come smack up against reality. He will not admit it publicly, but it has to be dawning on him that it is not Israel that is the problem.

If there were no other evidence, this alone would stand to demonstrate that the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs more generally do not want a Palestinian state (certainly not one "living side by side in peace with Israel"). For they were working with the most pro-Arab US president of all times, and had they cooperated with him, he would have moved in many ways on their behalf. What they want is Israel's destruction.

[] And then this:

"[Obama's] attempts to pressure Israel failed, thanks to the Israeli government. A key factor here was the tough, superb maneuvering of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu...

"The government could not possibly have handled Obama better." (Emphasis is mine.)

This is where "playing the game" while drawing red lines paid off. I know that ideological purists would have preferred that Netanyahu would said that we won't sit with the Palestinians, but this worked better. Yes, he said, he'll talk to Abbas without pre-conditions. Yes, we all want to work for peace. But it's reasonable to demand that the PA state be demilitarized, and that the Palestinians accept Israel as the Jewish state, and that we retain control of Jerusalem. All non-starters from the PA side, which has demonstrated its total intransigence.

~~~~~~~~~~

And so, once again, I provide here contact information for Netanyahu, so that you are able to thank him and encourage him:

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)

Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)

E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)

~~~~~~~~~~

Returning to Rubin. Among the evidence he offers that Obama is not tilting so very anti-Israel any longer:

[] Mention of Israel as a Jewish state in his UN address.

[] A change on settlement demands -- not freeze but "restraint."

[] Continued US-Israel joint military exercises.

[] An emphasis on the need for talks without pre-conditions "thus specifically rejecting the Palestinian demand -- which originated with him [Obama] -- of a settlement freeze first."

[] Not echoing the Arab demand that Israel join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254163536906&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So we start the New Year with hope, and a sense of gratitude, and resolve to stay strong.

~~~~~~~~~~

A word here about the demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

It is Arab policy to attempt to undermine the very Jewishness of our state, including from within. (There are Israeli-Arab organizations that claim it's "prejudicial" for us to have Jewish symbols in the state.) One possible tactic of the Palestinians is to recognize "Israel," but then attempt to push through "return of refugees" so that ultimately what is called "Israel" would become -- G-d forbid -- an Arab majority nation. The prime minister's demand stands against this.

Even more importantly, at an ideological/religious level, the Arabs don't accept our existence here. This is at the core of the conflict. Allowing the Jews to have a state in the midst of "Muslim" land is anathema to the Arabs. This demand, that we be recognized as officially Jewish, exposes this attitude. It should be a simple thing, yes? A Palestinian state for Palestinian Arabs, Israel for Jews. But the Palestinians will never agree to this.

Perhaps in time people will begin to wonder exactly why -- and begin to get it. But in the meantime, as long as this is a basic demand for negotiating a Palestinian state, it, de facto, assures that there won't be one for the simple reason that the Arabs are not sincere.

~~~~~~~~~~

In the hours before Yom Kippur, riots took place, first on the Temple Mount, and then spreading to the Old City. This was precipitated by the visit of a group of 15 Jews, accompanied by a police escort, to the Temple Mount. Muslim worshippers on the Mount threw stones at the visitors and police alike.

As tensions on the Mount -- which was closed off to worshippers -- subsided, riots began in the Old City. Apparently rumors were spread of an "invasion" on the Mount by "settlers." Such claims are common, especially by radical Islamic Arabs in Israel -- seeking a way to foment trouble.

By Sunday night (the beginning of Yom Kippur!), rioting had spread to the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Isawiya, where police reported some 20 firebombs.

This is an issue of enormous importance. The Arabs maintain that the Mount is "theirs" and that any Jewish presence represents a provocation.

Unfortunately, Israel (specifically Moshe Dayan) "fed" this illusion when we took the Mount in 1967 (from Jordan, not "Palestinians") and then -- being the "good guys" and generous -- promptly allowed the Muslim Wakf (trust) to assume supervision of day-to-day Mount activities (under our jurisdiction), as the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque are on the Mount. That was an act of enormous innocence (or enormous foolishness), as it was presumed that this sharing would be appreciated and good will reciprocated.

It must never be forgotten that the Mount is the most revered of Jewish sites: the locality of a wealth of Jewish tradition going back to Torah, and the place where the Temples stood. We did not GIVE them the Mount. Not only, in real terms, is it sacred, it is also a symbol of our ancient Jewish nationhood.

There have been governments that allowed Arab desecration of archeological ruins to take place on the Mount without intervening for fear of Arab rioting. So shockingly ludicrous is the situation that Jews are forbidden to pray on the Mount.

~~~~~~~~~~

Said PA negotiator Saeb Erekat with regard to this incident:

"At a time when President Obama is trying to bridge the divide between Palestinians and Israelis, and to get negotiations back on track, Israel is deliberately escalating tensions in Jerusalem.

"We've seen this before, and we know what the consequences are."

Undoubtedly, Erekat was referring to the perfectly legal and reasonably managed visit (with a nod from PA security) of Ariel Sharon to the Mount in 2000, which was used as a pretext for choreographed violence that began the Second Intifada.

~~~~~~~~~~

IMRA today carries a press release by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights with regard to this incident.

http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=45900

Dr. Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA, comments: "If anyone thought that it was possible to work out some kind of arrangement that relied on the Arabs to act in a pluralistic manner in anything relating to the Temple Mount then take a look at what the leading secular Palestinian human rights NGO has to say about an incident in which some non-Moslems being escorted on a visit to the Temple Mount were pelted with rocks by Moslems."

Said the press release:

"The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns the Israeli government's decision to allow Jewish settler groups to enter the yards of the al-Aksa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem...

"...East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian Territories that were occupied by Israel following the June 1967 war.

"...Measures taken by Israeli occupation authorities following the occupation of the city, in the foremost, the Israeli Knesset's decision on 28 June 1967 to annex the city, its decision on 30 July 1980 considering 'complete and united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel' and the decision to expand the municipal boundaries, are flagrant violations of international law and United Nations resolutions.

"...PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, jointly or individually, to fulfill their legal and moral obligations to ensure Israel's respect for the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) according to Article 1 of the Convention, and believes that the international silence and inaction encourage Israel to act as a State above law and perpetrate more violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, including efforts intended to establish a Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem."

Sigh...

Our stand against such nonsense must be strong.

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Good News Corner"

I was charmed by this and hope you will be, as well. Before Yom Kippur, YNet put out a piece regarding Israel's most beautiful synagogues. Because it was before the holiday, it includes times of services and such, which are now irrelevant. But if you scroll past this, you will see some absolutely stunning, and very varied, synagogue interiors.

Part of what makes it special is precisely that variation, which is the result of the ingathering of the people: the various cultures that developed for Jews in different places, Jews now come home. So you see a Chasidic shul, and a synagogue with Indian (Cochin) flavor, Caucasian, and Tunisian, etc.

Skim all the way down, and enjoy:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3781939,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk