Way to go ADL!

The Anti Defamation League gave me a reason to smile.

I'm going to assume that if you're reading this blog, then you know that there is a call for an academic boycott of Israel by the the University and College Union. It calls on college lecturers to "consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions."

Moral implications? Oh yeah, because you see, Israeli academic institutions are morally wrong because everyone can be a student in them, no matter what religion or race or political affiliation the student might have (can you say as much about Birzeit University?). Or maybe it's that Israeli academic institutions are morally wrong because they are the birthplaces of incredible scientific and medical advances.
Ahhhh, no, sorry, I got it now, the Israeli academic institutions are morally wrong because they are Israeli. Israel will always be singled out as the bad guy, no matter how much good Israel actually brings to the world. And defenders of this boycott will say that this is Anti-Zionism, not Anti-Semitism, thinking that this gives them authority to single out the only Jewish country in the world.
(Btw, if you'd like to try and prove to me that the two are different, I'd love to to challenge you and show you why they are one and the same, at least in most cases)

Anyhow, kudos to the ADL, who came out with the anti-boycott campaign!

"If British journalists and university professors and doctors want to make a point for justice, there are 20 countries they could deal with," explained ADL National Director Abe Foxman. "If they included Israel in their critique, I'd say Israel doesn't belong, but I wouldn't call it anti-Semitism. But if the only country that is subject to criticism in the whole world is Israel, I call it anti-Semitism."

Very well said. I'm sure the ADL won't mind if I post some of the anti-boycott pictures, seen as the goal is for these images to be seen by as many people as possible. The boycott section of their site is down for a while, but I hope it'll be up and running again soon.

Where's the outrage?

I found a very interesting article on aish.com which combines both what I said the other day about the missing world outrage to what is happening daily in Israel, and my main reason for blogging. But the outrage that the article says is missing is OUR outrage. The outrage of the defenders of Israel.

Where's the outrage?

Who would have figured that two years after our heart-wrenching evacuation of Gaza -- two years of continued relentless attacks from an enemy that brazenly calls for our destruction -- we'd be the target of a boycott from British professors? Again, it's tempting to get all blase and say "Been there, done that."
But this blase attitude is a reason why we are losing the PR battle: We assume that getting all worked up about stuff doesn't really make a difference, or that it's not very becoming of Jews. The practical thing to do is to stay composed and look for solutions.
...
Israel needs the Diaspora to get more emotional right now -- because emotional outrage wins PR battles. Our enemy understands that a lot better than we do.
The most effective TV interview I ever saw happened about five years ago on a major network, while Israel was in the midst of numerous suicide bombings. The anchorman asked Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg, a very composed and sophisticated man, why Israel could not arrest these suicide bombers. Well, you should have seen the outrage on Mr. Burg's face.
With clenched fists and an almost growling voice, he said something like: "But how do you expect us to do that when they can blow up in one second?"
It was visceral, it was sincere and it didn't come from talking points. It came from his heart, and I guarantee you it played well in Wisconsin.

This is why I blog. I can't go out and yell slogans in the street, I'd just get stompled all over. And probably shot at. I'm not an important person, I don't get TV time or interviews. But I can write. Not very well, but I hope that wil improve. I can write and I hope people will read what I write. I am open for discussions on any subject regarding Israel and the conflict, though I probably won't be able to answer everything. But I will try. The Diaspora, that's us. We need to get our tushies in gear and protect Israel as best as we can.
By the way, if anyone can find a video of that Avraham Burg interview, I'd really like to see that...

For example, when the bombs fall on Sderot, instead of empty cliches like "no terrorist is immune" and "this is unacceptable" and so forth, we should have the guts to run ads all over the world and get on CNN and the BBC and say things like: "We gave them land, and they gave us war." "This proves that the occupation was never the key problem," and "How would England respond if the same amount of bombs fell on Manchester?"

My point exactly. Only said much much better.

In a brilliant article in Haaretz, Moshe Arens explains why you can't deter terrorists, you can only fight them. It's time for Jews of all stripes to get their mojo back, and join the PR fight.
Even if your only weapon is your PC, and your mouth.

Well, I guess my mojo was hiding in the closet for the last couple of years. I hope this is me getting my mojo back.

Different worlds

Many years ago I had a long standing discussion with a friend of mine. Both of us are Jewish but we had very different upbringings. At home I had a very traditional Jewish life, and though we never spoke politics, Israel was always present. I didn't go to Jewish schools, and once I got interested in the subject, I had to acquire my information about the Arab-Israeli conflict independently. My friend on the other hand had almost no Jewish education at home, went to Jewish schools and was part of a very left leaning Jewish youth movement. One of the schools she attended was rather religious and there she developed a strong dislike for religious Jews. This dislike was deepened with the ongoing discussions about politics that she would hear at the youth movement, which were very strongly influenced with Avoda and Meretz ideology. (Personally I am more of a Likud-Kadima-Shinui person, depending on the subject).

We would argue at length about the settlement issue. She would insist that the only problem the Palestinians (and the world) had with Israel were the settlements. The only reason Palestinians brainwashed their children that killing Jews in the name of Allah will get them 72 virgins in heaven, the only reason Palestinians strapped explosive belts onto themselves and then detonated them in a crowd of teenagers waiting in line, the only reason Palestinians do the Nazi salute and read Mein Kampf, all that, it's because of the settlements. If settlements like Ariel and Itamar disappeared, then the Pallies of the West Bank would accept Israel as a neighbor. If Gush Katif and Netzarim wouldn't exist, then the Pallies of the of the Gaza Strip would be fine with the existence of Israel right outside of their borders.

This, she would say, is also why world opinion is against Israel. If only Israel would show a gesture of good faith, if only Israel would be the "bigger person", if only Israel would give back the occupied territories (this is where I would interrupt and mumble "disputed territories, not occupied, words are important..."), then the world wouldn't be able to not take Israel's side. If Israel gives in to Palestinian demands, then the world wouldn't be capable of saying that Israel has done anything wrong.

It's a bit hard to argue with that ¨logic¨. Especially when you consider this was about 8 years ago, before the world showed its true face.

Still, I couldn't agree.
"But what if we give them back territories, and they continue the violence and the hate? What if they use what we give them in order to attack us even more? I don't trust them."

Her answer was crystal clear, as if she had learned it by heart from her youth movement leader.
"I don't trust them either." (Can I get three cheers for coherence? At least I'd vote for people who say we haven't got a partner for peace. But you? You support negotiations with people you don't trust?) "But Israel can do things the smart way: They can give back territories piece by piece, and the moment the Palestinians misbehave then it all stops. If the Palestinians never misbehave then Israel has what it wants, doesn't it?"

I still couldn't quite see how this was the perfect solution.
"But what if Israel sees they behave well and gives back everything and then they start a war against us? What if even after one piece they start attacking again? Won't they think that we're rewarding terrorism with land? Won't they figure that the more terrorism they perpetuate, the more land they'll get? You think it's that easy to take control again? Once we do, every one will scream that we're occupying again."

But her vision of the world was as clear as it was naive.
"Don't you get it? In that case, since Israel will have done everything that they could do, if the Palestinians throw even one little stone in the direction of Israel, the world will immediately condemn them and will be on Israel's side. If they launch any type of military action against Israel inside Israel's borders then the armies of the world will be there instantly to protect Israel."

In the summer of 2005 her vision finally happened. Israel dismantled the settlements and the army posts in the Gaza strip. All the Jews living there were evacuated. All 8000 of them. You'd think that it'd be a whole lot more since everyone was complaining so much about them being there. 8000 Jews forced to leave because Jews cannot live in the Palestinian Authority. After the disengagement, everything of use that was left (like greenhouses) was destroyed. Synagogues were desecrated. And... Kassam rocket firing intensified. Hey wasn't it supposed to be the other way around? They're happy that we left, they're thankful, so they become a bunch of peace-loving-kumbaya-singing hippies?

My friend and I, we're not in touch anymore. I'm not even sure if she's still in the same country.
But I'd like to run into her some day. I'd ask her "So where's your world indignation over daily Kassam rockets being fired into Israel inside her borders from territories we gave back without any conditions? Where's your world condemnation for the Palestinians' festering circle of violence and hate and applause for Israel's restraint? Where's your world who was supposed to come and save us?"

Useless resolution 1701

There's so much I want to write about that when I do start writing about something, it goes all over the place and doesn't make much sense to anyone but me. I will try to stay focused on one subject at a time. Though you'll have to admit, it's complicated. Everything has an implication on everything else. For example, I still haven't gotten around to writing about the 1967 Six Day War. It's not *that* important right now, especially since you have all the other blogs talking about it, what with the 40 year anniversary and all. (And they're all doing such a good job of it, anything I'd write would really be horse manure in comparison, but I've got so much I've always wanted to say about that subject...)

But there is something important about the Six Day War which strikes me as important today.
Depending on where you learned your history, your version of the Six Day War might be different. People like to think that because I am Israeli, I have the subjective "Israeli" version. I tend to think that this is not so true. Though I grew up in Israel until my early teens, I later moved to Europe, and had a very non-Israeli, non-Jewish education. I never had a history lesson in Israel or in an Israeli school. My mother often wondered how I turned so pro-Israeli despite the fact that nothing in my education was ever in that direction. My education taught me to think rationally and to question everything and to base everything on facts.

The Six Day War is largely considered a war imposed on Israel by a few Arab countries (depends on whether you count just the countries that really participated, or the countries which helped the participating countries, but at that point in time it was quite clear, Israel had no Arab friends). Even though the first shot came from Israel, it is justified as a defensive attack because of a few "minor" details, to name a few: Egyptian naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran, military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula and expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force from there, as well as Syrian support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel.

All these, as well as clear statements and intelligence documents, pointed to a clear danger for Israel and her citizens. And danger to Israel from Arab countries doesn't mean slight loss of territory or an economic embargo or something "survivable" like this. Nonono. Just like Hamas, Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah make it crystal clear today, Arab countries were very open with their intentions back then as well. The intention always was, and still is, total annihilation of the State of Israel. Push the Jews to the sea. Israel will not survive. Israel will be wiped off the map.
What would any country responsible for her citizens do in such a situation? What did Israel do in the face of this threat? Israel made a preemptive attack against a threatened Arab invasion.

And the world applauded this. Israel was the underdog back then. Arab countries all around showed hostile intentions, and Israel took action. The world could only speak well of this tiny young country which managed to ground the Egyptian Air Force before it even started flying. They congratulated Israel for making a preemptive attack and a short war and in this way saving countless lives, rather then waiting until the Arabs started a full fledged war which would have brought on a much longer battling period.

Now 40 years later, I am astounded by the headlines I see all around me. While the 1967 Time's article about the war is full of awe for the swift Israeli victory, today's articles have a distorted vision of the past and seem to ignore the facts. Israel was threatened. It had every right to defend herself. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Now the parallel with today.
It started already last summer. On one side of the border, Israel withdrew from the disputed territories in Gaza and hoped that calm would ensue. It didn't. Kassam rockets were fired regularly into israel, and on June 25th, terrorists abducted Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier from inside the State of Israel. What where they protesting? What more is Israel supposed to give to them so that they stay calm? More land? But I thought all they wanted was the "occupied territories", not Israel itself? Anyway, drifting off. So Kassam rockets and Israeli soldier abduction on that side. Ceasefirese have been made since, but I'm not quite sure what they mean by ceasefire, seen as they haven't ceased to fire Kassam rockets, but have intensified instead.

On the northern border, where every last Israeli soldier left the area in May 2000 (Ehud Barak's decision), Hezbollah had been rearming itself for the previous six years. This included creating Katyusha launching pads inside civilian homes and creating an arsenal of hundreds of thousands of Katyusha rockets to be launched indiscriminately on the Israeli civilian population. On July 12th, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, two Israeli reservist soldiers, were abducted by Hezbollah under the nose of the UN (again), because Katyusha rockets were fired as a diversion elsewhere.

Israel was under attack and needed to defend herself. For once the world wasn't completely against Israel. Nations were disagreeing on the disproportionate force (that's a whooooole other story...), were quite wimpy about their support for Israel, and towards the end of the war they were getting quite impatient (as were we all), but generally the world agreed that Israel was attacked for "no real reason". It was quite a flying pig moment.
Then came resolution 1701.

The Resolution demands:

• Full cessation of hostilities
• Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon in parallel with Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers deploying throughout the South
• Hezbollah to be disarmed
• Full control of Lebanon by the government of Lebanon
• No paramilitary forces, including (and implying) Hezbollah, will be south of the Litani River

The Resolution at the same time also emphasizes:

• The need to address urgently the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers, that have given rise to the current crisis.

Now let's go over the list bulletpoint by bulletpoint.

• Full cessation of hostilities? Well Katyushas have stopped raining on the north, that's true. But have you ever heard of the Muslim concept of a Hudna?
  "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud"
  It is not a ceasefire, but a pause in battle so that one side can re-organize itself.
• Israel withdrawal? Done. (Again.)
• UNIFIL deployment? In theory, yeah. They don't patrol at night because of the danger involved. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this. They spend time building a giant Sauna for the Finnish delegation. They accept Muslim countries which don't recognize Israel to watch over Israel's border. I can't stress this enough times, the UN is a bunch of Useless Nobodies.
• Hezbollah disarmed? Not yet, not ever.
• Full control of Lebanon by the Lebanese government? Uhhh, nonono, south of Lebanon is still Hezbollah territory.
• No paramilitary (koffkoff Hezbollah) south of the Litani? Well, what have we learned from the last three bulletpoints? This is an obviously useless resolution point.
• Now the last point is emphasized. Bring our boys back home. Not only are they nowhere near home, but we haven't gotten any signs of life from them. International law (you know, Geneva conventions and things like that which you always keep waving at Israel) requires that prisoners of war be given contact with the Red Cross. Unless the prisoners are Israeli of course. Amnesty moves heaven and earth in order to ensure the fair treatment of prisoners. Unless the prisoners are Israeli of course.

So you see, all these points mean that were Israel to attack now, it would be justified. It was justified 40 years ago, even if now people don't agree anymore.
But if Israel were to attack now, you wouldn't have to wait 40 years for the condemnations.

And you see, I'm talking all over the place. Too many thoughts in my head and I'm too angry at this world to make sense.

A cute animation from the Second Lebanon War

Diplomat Leader Award

I love it when people I admire get recognized for their intelligence and their integrity.

While the representatives of Arab nations got ready for their periodic whine (this time's excuse is "waaaaah, Israel didn't let us defeat and annihilate her 40 years ago, we've been miserable ever since, waah waaaaah"), others got recognition for the values they defend.

Dan Gillerman, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, received the Diplomat Leader Award.

NEW YORK — In a resplendent dinner ceremony the night after Memorial Day, the Respect for Law Alliance (RFLA) honored a dozen individuals who have sworn to defend, protect and uphold justice.

...

Ambassador Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, accepted the Diplomat Leader Award. He is the first Israeli representative to serve as vice president of the General Assembly in 53 years, since Abba Eban held the position in 1952. Gillerman previously served as CEO of several Israeli companies and is the first person from the private sector that Israel has appointed as ambassador to the U.N.

"We respect your freedom, your bravery, your values — we feel that we have a lot in common," Gillerman said.

Mazal Tov Danny. May this be just the beginning of a long path of defending Israel and Justice.

Headline: Palestinians throw stones

That's not a shocker, is it? So Pallies threw stones. It's the whole concept of the Intifada. So why should this be newsworthy, even for Jpost?

But wait, let's read some more...
"Palestinians throw stones at Peace Now bus"
Ah now that's more like it. There's irony for you. The very same people who trust the Pallies as peace allies, who assure us that their violence is always a reply to some violence on our side, got a stones thrown at them.

Hmmm. I wonder what those people inside the bus were thinking while rocks were being thrown at them. Especially considering the reason they were there in the first place.

Palestinians threw stones at a Peace Now bus and a police vehicle at the end of a left-wing protest in Hebron on Tuesday.
...
The protest itself, which marked 40 years since the Six Day War, passed without any disturbances.

I hope I'll have time this week to write about the war of 1967, and its implications and those odd little details which MainStream Media seems to ignore/intentionally omit and which make the whole difference.
Anyhow, today 40 years ago started the Six Day War, during which Israel conquered todays disputed territories, Gaza and the West Bank. The war was imposed onto the Israeli population,

404 errors

Haha.

I just came across a funny 404 error page. Well you have to know the general "all your base are belong to us" bit in order to appreciate, but it made me smile :)



You don't see so many "private joke" 404's anymore. Not that there were so many of them before. I'm glad some people manage to add this little sprinkle of fun to their everyday lives like this.

Sour grapes

People are so ignorant.
At least that's what I hope. Because if they're not ignorant than they're just plain anti-Israeli.
On the way home today, I came across a house which was displaying the following poster on a front window.

It shows a shrinking "Palestine" in green in 1946, 1947, 1948-1967, and 2005 alongside a growing Israel. "Israel speaks of peace, but takes the land". No context, no history, no facts.
Context, History and Facts:
1946:
"Palestine" as such does not exist. It is a region, much like the Sahara is a region and not a country. The British Mandate of Palestine. The green mistakenly covers a very large portion of this "Palestine" as if to say that no Jews even lived there.
1947:
Partition plan, voted on by the UN on November 29th. Plan accepted by the Jews. Plan rejected by the Arab population. Revolts started against the Jews in order to stop them from creating a state in the Jewish part. They were getting prepared to launch a war once the British were to leave.
Palestine is still a region and not a country.
1948:
May 14th, the State of Israel is born and the British Mandate of Palestine is over (in the opposite order). In its "birth speech" as I like to call it, Israel extends a hand to its Arab citizens as well as to its Arab neighbors, in hope of a peaceful start. Arab states launch a war against the newborn state, in the hopes of pushing all the Jews to the sea and not having an Israeli state. They lose. Territory is conquered. They complain that they lost and would like to go back to the way it was before they lost. Because if it had been them who had won the war and had made Israel vanish, they would have agreed to pretend it never happened and go back to square one. Sore losers.
Palestine is still not a country. In fact, documents of that period do not refer to the local non-Jewish population as "Palestinian" (since that meant anyone and everyone living in the British Mandate of Palestine), but as Arabs. The green blotches on the map are Egypt on the left side and Jordan on the right side.
1967:
Unhappy with Israel's existence, Arab states launch yet another war against Israel, in the hopes of pushing all the Jews to the sea and not having an Israeli state. Israel finds out in the nick of time and launches preemptive attacks, legally recognized as self defense. Arab states are caught off guard. They lose. Territory is conquered. They complain that they lost and would like to go back to the way it was before they lost. Because if it had been them who had won the war and had made Israel vanish, they would have agreed to pretend it never happened and go back to square one. Sore losers.
Israel accepts resolution 242 which included returning some of the territories back to the original "owners" which are Egypt and Jordan. Not Palestine, since that country still doesn't exist and never had. The reply is the famous (though not to everyone apparently) "three no's". No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel.
Palestine still doesn't exist. For the record, the PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization - was created in 1964. 3 years before territories were "occupied". So what did they want to liberate exactly?
2005:
(I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that the poster was printed before the disengagement, even though we are now 2007 and that gives them plenty of time to take down that poster and buy/make a new one).
After incessant attacks from terrorists on Jewish settlements, Israel decides to unilaterally disengage from the Gaza Strip. Settlements are dismantled (because Jews are not allowed to live in future Palestine apparently) and Gaza is entirely in the hands of the Palestinian Authority. The territory is no longer "occupied".
Palestine could maybe finally start to exist.
No. Palestine still does not exist. What exists is daily Kassam rockets being fired into Israel. What exists is the Palestinian government factions fighting and killing each other. What exists is a Palestinian people who still haven't got a state, as any people willing to have a state should deserve. What exists is the constant fact that for some obscure reason, Israel is blamed for this.


I remember the house number. I could send them explanations, or easy to read posters (they seem to like that) and pamphlets about Israel. But they won't even bother to read. I think. Should I send?