Doc's Talk

Friday, July 13, 2007

The Israeli left unmasked

July 11, 2007

By Aaron Klein

Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Much has been said here and abroad about controversial statements made in recent weeks by a yarmulke-wearing, prominent international leftist Jewish leader and senior activist of Israel's "peace camp" who called on Israel to cease being a Jewish state and instead model itself after Europe. But I think most people are missing the point.

Avraham Burg, once an important Knesset member in Israel's leftist Labor party, recently published a book, "Defeating Hitler," in which he repeatedly compared various Israeli Jewish policies with that of Nazism.

"To define the state of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end. A Jewish state is explosive. It's dynamite," said Burg, who once was Israel's Knesset speaker and was considered by some a hopeful for prime minister.

Burg, a scion of one of Israel's founding families, also served as chairman of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, both of which are major Jewish organizations.

Burg said Israel's Law of Return, which allows all Jews seeking sanctuary in Israel to become citizens, is similar to Nazi rule, even though it was created in response to genocidal Nazi crimes. The law helped Jews escape persecution in countries such as Germany, Russia and Yemen.

"The Law of Return is an apologetic law. It is the mirror image of Hitler. I don't want Hitler to define my identity," Burg said.

He compelled Israelis to obtain foreign passports. He said Israel should model itself after the European Union and become a multinational state, and he urged the Israeli government to allow the EU more influence in its affairs.

The leftist Israeli leader said Israel should learn from the assimilation and inter-marriage of Jews in the U.S., where Jewish individuals marrying non-Jews has become a major phenomenon.

Burg criticized what he called Israelis' "closed conception" of religion, which he stated is "orthodox, not humanist and not universal." He said other alternatives to Judaism must be offered.

Burg now is a citizen of France. He retired from Israeli politics and departed Israel in shame after it was disclosed he may have engaged in election corruption and vote tampering while trying to become chairman of the Labor party. He also was accused of illicit business practices.

He is still active as a leader in Israel's peace camp, which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israeli evacuations of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

Burg has been condemned by many politicians and commentators here and abroad as a self-hating Jew who is encouraging anti-Semitism. One Knesset member called for Burg to be denied a burial plot in Israel's national cemetery reserved for the country's leaders.

But what many seem to be missing is that Burg's views are not renegade. They are representative of the Israeli left. Burg's reasoning is the same as those petitioning for more EU control of Israel's affairs and for evacuations from Biblical Jewish territories and holy sites. Burg comes from the school of people like Geneva Initiative leader Yossi Beilin, Labor Chairman Ehud Barak, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and their ideological godfather and mentor, Shimon Peres, who officially becomes Israeli president later this week.

So many around the world wrongly believe the conflict in Israel is about territory. They think the Israeli left mainly wants to cede land to the Palestinians while the right stands against land giveaways.

In actuality, the main Israeli political battle is between a left that wants Israel to be a secular, European-like state, and the religious right, which sees Israel as a Jewish country defined by national Zionism. It's a battle that will ultimately determine the future of Israel.

Growing up in a Jewish community in the United States, I was fortunate enough not to have experienced the kind of anti-Semitism that permeates places like France and, increasingly, the UK. But European anti-Semitism pales in comparison to its venomous counterparts in Israel. That's right, Israel.

It wasn't until I moved here to open WND's Jerusalem bureau in February 2005 that I fully understood what anti-Semitism is. The hatred many secular, leftist Israelis feel for the religious is so deep I cannot do it justice with words. The secular leftist media routinely demonize the religious. I've seen the way secular Jewish security forces brutally squash legal religious Jewish protests at the direction of leftist politicians. I've borne witness the past few years to the enactment of institutional anti-Semitic laws, such as singling out illegal Jewish construction in strategic territory while ignoring rampant illegal Arab building; or denying Jews the right to pray at or even visit Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount, during most hours of the day.

This great divide extends itself to the streets. Religious and secular cities are mostly separated. Just try talking to a secular leftist Jew in Tel Aviv about religion and God and watch his or her face wither in anger.

But many Israeli leftists politicians and activists are more enterprising than the average leftist Israeli. They disguise their hatred of Judaism with specific political policies . Just like Islamic terrorists who claim their attacks are aimed at ending America's military presence in the Middle East or our support for Israel when the jihadists' real goal is worldwide domination of Islam, leftist Israeli leaders state their aim is to create a Palestinian state when their true intention is the establishment of a secular Israeli country by stabbing at the lifeline of religious Zionism with evacuations of the West Bank – the biblical heartland and center of the religious Zionists movement – and with the division of religious Jerusalem and stationing of foreign troops on Israel's borders.

Already, the religious Jewish communities of the Gaza Strip were uprooted and international forces were deployed along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Burg is not a maverick. He is a leftist politician who knows he has no chance at being re-elected, so he was able to take off his mask and expose his true beliefs and the real nature of Israel's internal war. And he didn't blurt these things out during a spontaneous interview; he detailed his views in a book he said took him three years to compose.

Some believe Burg could have become Israel's prime minister. What if he had achieved Israel's highest office before he let loose his real beliefs? Why isn't anyone asking whether Israel's current prime minister, who seeks to evacuate the Jewish West Bank and sections of Jerusalem, shares Burg's anti-Jewish views? What about Ehud Barak, who as prime minister in 2000 announced at Camp David he was ready to cede the Temple Mount and who offered PLO leader Yasser Arafat a state within rocket range of Israel's population centers? And what about all the Israeli leftist politicians who regularly petition for placing EU or U.N. troops in Gaza or the West Bank?

Sure, some Israeli leftist politicians, including Beilin and some from Olmert's party, condemned Burg, but I believe they did so because they were angry at him for exposing them.

The admitted anti-Jewish Burg once held some of the most prestigious leadership positions in world Jewry. Why isn't anyone questioning whether top leaders of Jewish organizations now share his beliefs ?

Perhaps Burg's revelations about the left help explain why, as I reported, the leaders of the Jewish National Fund, which collects hundreds of millions of dollars in Jewish donor funds for the stated purpose of Jewish settlement, has been ceding Jewish-owned properties to Arabs in key sections of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities designated by the left for evacuation. The JNF, which proudly posts pictures of leftist leader Peres on its newspaper advertisements, has been allowing Arab squatters to live completely illegally on millions of dollars worth of Jewish-owned land purchased for Jewish settlement.

Perhaps Burg's admissions might also help explain why, as I reported, mainstream U.S. Jewish groups, including the leadership of United Jewish Communities, one of the most financially endowed Jewish organizations on the planet, neglected the plight of religious Jewish refugees evacuated from Gaza in 2005 who didn't receive most compensation promised to them by the Israeli government.

The uprooted national religious Gaza Jews still live in terrible conditions in refugee camps and suffer from low employment and a host of other problems. The UJC largely ignored the Gaza Jews while instead funding initiatives with Jewish money to aid Israeli Arabs. The esteemed Jewish organization finally started helping a bit after they were exposed and angry Jewish donors demanded action to help the Jews of Gaza.

So, while many are resoundingly condemning Burg for his anti-Jewish views, I thank him for unmasking the true beliefs of the Israeli left. Perhaps now the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be understood in its proper context.

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.