American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been working hard for weeks on a Middle East peace conference to be held in Annapolis, Maryland in November. There are solid reasons for her efforts. The United States has undeniably lost a great deal of support in the Middle East both because of its lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saadam’s supposed ties to El Qaeda and its unbelievably clumsy conduct of the Iraq War. Most people in the region regard the United States not as the guarantor of democracy but as an imperialist power propping up corrupt regimes and favoring Israel in its conflict with those whom they regard as hapless Palestinian victims. Through these last six years of the Bush administration, the U.S. has disengaged from the peace efforts of the Clinton administration and given the Israelis free rein in dealing with the Palestinians. Now, however Secretary Rice is understandably anxious to restore American credibility, especially in the Sunni world, and the United State has once again, taken on the role of Middle Eastern peace maker.
As a long time advocate of peace in the Middle East, I would love to find cause for optimism but I see little reason to believe that a conference in November can accomplish much. First, there is little evidence of adequate American preparation. The real work of such a conference is not done at the meeting itself but for months beforehand, through policy papers, frequent meetings with the players and major understandings reached before the conference. Camp David, many experts agree, may have failed, in part, because of inadequate preparation but the experienced Clinton team did shuttle constantly between the key players in a manner we have not seen, at least openly duplicated by Ms. Rice and her associates. All we have seen are a series of meetings between Olmert and Abu Mazen, with the former urging agreement on a series of “principles” and the latter asking for commitments and progress towards a final accord.
A second reason for my pessimism is the state of the Palestinian Authority under Abu Mazen. The years of the second intifadah spent in counter-productive suicide bombings and armed conflict, the great division in Palestinian ranks between Hamas and Fatah, the continuing corruption of the latter, and the undeniable pressures of the Israeli occupation have left Palestinians with little more than a figurehead government. Yes, part of the blame for this state of affairs can be placed on Israel but regardless of how the blame is apportioned, it is difficult to understand how any Israeli government could rely on the undertakings of a now pathetic PA leadership. Moreover, both Israeli and Western observers are keenly aware that Hamas, through the instrument of terror, has a fearsome veto power over any peace agreement. If Israel was prepared to grant major concessions to the PA, then the threat from Hamas might decline but that does not seem likely.
Of course, Israeli society is also much divided on the issue of peace. We all know the broad outlines of what a final status agreement should look like, along the lines of Camp David or Geneva, but the settler movement will fight any attempt to sacrifice large areas of the West Bank, the religious will oppose compromise on sovereignty over the Temple Mount and many Israelis will oppose any division of Jerusalem. Prime Minister Olmert’s own Kadima Party is divided merely over rumors coming from the negotiations. The new Labor Leader Ehud Barak, is trying to burnish his security credentials and openly opposes a peace agreement until Israel can construct a system to counter short range rockets, in four years or so. He advises that no concessions should be made to a lame-duck Bush administration. Haunted by Camp David, Barak has taken a sharp turn to the right, to compete with Bibi Netanyahu. There is, then, no substantial peace constituency in the Knesset.
If Secretary Rice proves capable of moving Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab powers to the bargaining table, with a realistic possibility of a constructive agreement, even on interim steps, then I will be pleasantly amazed. She has not much to show for her own legacy or that of the Bush administration. We should all wish her well.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
JEWS FACE THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
There is a controversy raging among American Jews which may get even hotter in the coming days. The issue arises because the U.S. congress will once again be asked to vote for a bill recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915. One might think that this would not be a difficult issue for the Jewish community but unfortunately several of the major Jewish organizations in the United States have seen fit to intervene against the bill.
First, let me explain to those of you who are not well acquainted with the events of 1915 that an overwhelming number of historians recognize that the Turkish government of the day engaged in the pre-meditated murder of between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians. Jewish holocaust scholars including Raul Hilberg, Elie Wiesel , Yehuda Bauer, Daniel Goldhagen and Deborah Lipstadt have all signed ads urging the congress to pass the resolution. The scholarship is overwhelming; including even some Turkish writers, but the Turkish government persists in its refusal to acknowledge responsibility. Armenian genocide denial is close kin to holocaust denial and as morally reprehensible.
The current bill in the Congress was introduced in January by Representative Adam Schiff of California and has wide Jewish support in both the House and Senate, from Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not clear if or when the bills will come to a vote. The Turkish government has been active in supporting opposition to the bill, hiring prominent lobbyists and meeting with Jewish leaders. This leadership was obviously reminded, at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdula Gul, of Turkey’s good relations with Israel as well as with the United States, her support for her own Jewish community numbering approximately 40,000, and her record as a sanctuary for Jewish refugees over the centuries. It is difficult to say whether it was Turkish lobbying, their own sentiments, or possibly direct intervention from Israel which led the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Brith International, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs to pass along to members of congress a letter from Turkish Jews opposing the resolution, thus implicitly taking the side of Turkey.
It was the ADLs Abraham Foxman who was the most outspoken of the Jewish leaders, declaring that “this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.” One has never heard Foxman, a child survivor of the holocaust; make such a cavalier reference to the death of six million Jews. He has given further fuel to his critics by firing the ADLs New England regional director who had urged that the organization recognize the genocide. A former ADL regional board member condemned the firing as “a vindictive, intolerant, and destructive act” by an organization and leader whose “fundamental mission – is to promote tolerance.” Foxman has subsequently, following much criticism and a conversation with Elie Wiesel, to agree that the events of 1915 constituted genocide but continues to oppose the bill as counterproductive.
For her part, Israel has not made any public reference to the Armenian genocide and has carefully deleted such references from text books and even withdrawn support from international conferences at which the genocide would have been a subject for discussion. Before a trip to Turkey then-foreign minister Shimon Peres said of the genocide, that it was “a matter for historians to decide.” There are many prominent Israelis who deplore their government’s failure to act on a significant moral issue. However, in the case of a nation state, realpolitik often triumphs over morality. Israel obviously considers that her relations with Turkey are too important to be possibly undermined by taking the moral road, though Israelis from across the political spectrum have disagreed on the consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, the American Jewish leadership is not and should not be tied to Israeli realpolitik. Individual morality cannot be waived in the interest of Israel, the United States or Canada. Perhaps if the Armenian genocide resolution is again defeated these same community leaders will be at pains to deny the influence of the Jewish lobby. Neither Israel nor the American Jewish community will be well served by a community leadership that abandons elementary standards of behavior for a misguided assessment of the needs of Israel or Turkish Jewry. Perhaps they should recall the infamous words attributed to Adolph Hitler, calling on his troops to pursue their destructive work he stated: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” As Jews, we are obliged to speak, and our voices must be heard on the side of justice and morality.
First, let me explain to those of you who are not well acquainted with the events of 1915 that an overwhelming number of historians recognize that the Turkish government of the day engaged in the pre-meditated murder of between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians. Jewish holocaust scholars including Raul Hilberg, Elie Wiesel , Yehuda Bauer, Daniel Goldhagen and Deborah Lipstadt have all signed ads urging the congress to pass the resolution. The scholarship is overwhelming; including even some Turkish writers, but the Turkish government persists in its refusal to acknowledge responsibility. Armenian genocide denial is close kin to holocaust denial and as morally reprehensible.
The current bill in the Congress was introduced in January by Representative Adam Schiff of California and has wide Jewish support in both the House and Senate, from Democrats and Republicans. However, it is not clear if or when the bills will come to a vote. The Turkish government has been active in supporting opposition to the bill, hiring prominent lobbyists and meeting with Jewish leaders. This leadership was obviously reminded, at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdula Gul, of Turkey’s good relations with Israel as well as with the United States, her support for her own Jewish community numbering approximately 40,000, and her record as a sanctuary for Jewish refugees over the centuries. It is difficult to say whether it was Turkish lobbying, their own sentiments, or possibly direct intervention from Israel which led the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Brith International, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs to pass along to members of congress a letter from Turkish Jews opposing the resolution, thus implicitly taking the side of Turkey.
It was the ADLs Abraham Foxman who was the most outspoken of the Jewish leaders, declaring that “this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.” One has never heard Foxman, a child survivor of the holocaust; make such a cavalier reference to the death of six million Jews. He has given further fuel to his critics by firing the ADLs New England regional director who had urged that the organization recognize the genocide. A former ADL regional board member condemned the firing as “a vindictive, intolerant, and destructive act” by an organization and leader whose “fundamental mission – is to promote tolerance.” Foxman has subsequently, following much criticism and a conversation with Elie Wiesel, to agree that the events of 1915 constituted genocide but continues to oppose the bill as counterproductive.
For her part, Israel has not made any public reference to the Armenian genocide and has carefully deleted such references from text books and even withdrawn support from international conferences at which the genocide would have been a subject for discussion. Before a trip to Turkey then-foreign minister Shimon Peres said of the genocide, that it was “a matter for historians to decide.” There are many prominent Israelis who deplore their government’s failure to act on a significant moral issue. However, in the case of a nation state, realpolitik often triumphs over morality. Israel obviously considers that her relations with Turkey are too important to be possibly undermined by taking the moral road, though Israelis from across the political spectrum have disagreed on the consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, the American Jewish leadership is not and should not be tied to Israeli realpolitik. Individual morality cannot be waived in the interest of Israel, the United States or Canada. Perhaps if the Armenian genocide resolution is again defeated these same community leaders will be at pains to deny the influence of the Jewish lobby. Neither Israel nor the American Jewish community will be well served by a community leadership that abandons elementary standards of behavior for a misguided assessment of the needs of Israel or Turkish Jewry. Perhaps they should recall the infamous words attributed to Adolph Hitler, calling on his troops to pursue their destructive work he stated: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” As Jews, we are obliged to speak, and our voices must be heard on the side of justice and morality.
Monday, October 1, 2007
ALI ABUNIMEH
I have now been subjected twice by the CBC to one Ali Abunimeh, a Palestinian-American who somehow picked up a posh English accent in the course of his studies. This gentleman is currently promoting a book titled “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Credulous interviewers seem to accept him, at his word that he offers some new, perhaps helpful, view toward resolving the conflict but they mistake his purpose.
Abunimeh’s tone and his accent serve to mask his extremism. He is in fact urepresentative of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza who advocate a two state solution, while he takes us back to the older, more militant demand, of one secular, democratic Palestinian state. Of course he never tells us on which planet his model of Arab democracy exists. He never tells us why even the most moderate Israelis would trust their lives and that of their children to his vision of a shared state in which Jews would soon be subject to a Muslim majority. More seriously, he never tells the Palestinians why they should enlist in perpetual conflict, for most of those who live in the West Bank and Gaza would recognize that Abunimeh offers a recipe for perpetuating the disaster of their current lives.
Abunimeh is offering a made in the diaspora solution that partakes of the same brand of extremism as that of those diaspora Jews who would fight to the last Israeli for all the lands of ancient Israel. We in diaspora communities can, at no personal cost, enjoy the luxury of extremisms which may further our own political or ideological goals. So, if Abunimeh offers nothing new, one must ask what his book and current promotion tour are all about, what is he seeking?
Ali Abunimeh is vying for leadership of the Palestinian diaspora. It is in their diaspora communities of North America and Western Europe that his message will resonate; it is in these communities that the so-called “right of return”, a non-starter for almost all Israelis,” is still cherished as an almost Koranic injunction. The Palestinian-American Professor Edward Said, who died in 2003, in his later years also advocated a one state solution and denounced the Oslo agreements because they did not embrace the right of return. Said’s death left a leadership vacuum, at least in the diaspora’s intellectual ranks and Abunimeh is attempting to fill it.
Thus, with his book of recycled early Arafat, with a Said veneer, Abunimeh launches a leadership campaign. Of course, on the way to his goal, he may snare some of the gullible who swallow his dubious logic. The more wary will understand that he offers not conflict resolution but conflict enhancement, with a program that Israelis can never accept, thus promoting more years of personal insecurity for Israelis and economic disaster for his Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Abunimeh’s tone and his accent serve to mask his extremism. He is in fact urepresentative of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza who advocate a two state solution, while he takes us back to the older, more militant demand, of one secular, democratic Palestinian state. Of course he never tells us on which planet his model of Arab democracy exists. He never tells us why even the most moderate Israelis would trust their lives and that of their children to his vision of a shared state in which Jews would soon be subject to a Muslim majority. More seriously, he never tells the Palestinians why they should enlist in perpetual conflict, for most of those who live in the West Bank and Gaza would recognize that Abunimeh offers a recipe for perpetuating the disaster of their current lives.
Abunimeh is offering a made in the diaspora solution that partakes of the same brand of extremism as that of those diaspora Jews who would fight to the last Israeli for all the lands of ancient Israel. We in diaspora communities can, at no personal cost, enjoy the luxury of extremisms which may further our own political or ideological goals. So, if Abunimeh offers nothing new, one must ask what his book and current promotion tour are all about, what is he seeking?
Ali Abunimeh is vying for leadership of the Palestinian diaspora. It is in their diaspora communities of North America and Western Europe that his message will resonate; it is in these communities that the so-called “right of return”, a non-starter for almost all Israelis,” is still cherished as an almost Koranic injunction. The Palestinian-American Professor Edward Said, who died in 2003, in his later years also advocated a one state solution and denounced the Oslo agreements because they did not embrace the right of return. Said’s death left a leadership vacuum, at least in the diaspora’s intellectual ranks and Abunimeh is attempting to fill it.
Thus, with his book of recycled early Arafat, with a Said veneer, Abunimeh launches a leadership campaign. Of course, on the way to his goal, he may snare some of the gullible who swallow his dubious logic. The more wary will understand that he offers not conflict resolution but conflict enhancement, with a program that Israelis can never accept, thus promoting more years of personal insecurity for Israelis and economic disaster for his Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
YOU GO TOO FAR MR. DERSHOWITZ
Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor and one time defender of O.J. has more recently emerged as one of the toughest critics of books and authors he deems unfair to Israel. His first target was Norman Finkelstein, who was recently denied tenure by DePaul University in Chicago. I could not feel too sorry for Finkelstein whose own style is angry and polemical. I had first encountered Finkelstein when I read his attack on Prof. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s work, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. I found Finkelstein to be angry and destructive in his critique of Goldhagen which he wrote in a take no prisoners style. Evidently, not satisfied with trying to destroy the reputation of a young scholar, Finkelstein turned his guns on Dershowitz, who replied in kind. I learned little from either of them since they presented little or nothing in the way of new evidence to help me to learn more about the holocaust or Israel.
Dershowitz next attacked former President Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Before I found time to read the book, I had been e-mailed the Dershowitz critique by several friends who likewise had not read the book but now thought they knew something. In addition people I met at Jewish functions were all attacking Carter because they had read Dershowitz. Ultimately, I read both and could make my own mind up. I hate the use of the word apartheid by Carter or his publishers as much as I loath the use of terms such as “Nazi” or “genocide” by thoughtless critics of Israel. “Apartheid” was probably used in the title to promote sales but it sets off useless debates, often by people who know very little about the old South African system, and it discourages many Jews from reading or listening.
Dershowitz also usefully pointed out some serious errors in Carter’s work. However, most books have errors and that does not stop intelligent readers from learning from them. Hundreds of Brandeis University students who respectfully listened to Carter, despite these attacks, gave him a standing ovation. At the least, they and subsequent University audiences learned that the former President had not turned anti-Semite or enemy of Israel. Carter could be read or heard by those who Dershowitz had not inspired to close their eyes or ears.
Prof. Dershowitz has most recently taken on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose article and now a book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
has excited many Jewish critics of varying political stripes. From my own point of view some of the criticisms have merit but I do not regard the authors’ purpose as that of dredging up an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Intelligent readers of the book and its critics can decide for themselves just how strong the Israel lobby is in the United States, and certainly its existence and power cannot be denied.
However Dershowitz sank to a new low, when he stated that Presidential candidate Barack Obama had to repudiate his new foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brezezinski, a former National Security Advisor. Why, because Dr. Brzezinski had written in Foreign Policy that Mearsheimer and Walt “have rendered a public service by initiating a much-needed debate on the role of the ‘Israel Lobby’ in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy.” Dershowitz characterized this as an endorsement of “a bigoted attack on the American Jewish community.” Nonsense, Dershowitz has descended into guilt by association linking the authors of The Israel Lobby to Brzezinski and then to Obama. You may be interested to know that Dershowitz supports Obama’s rival, Hillary Clinton
The pattern is clear. Books critical of Israel or of some of its American supporters are to be subjected to destructive attack. They should not be subject to balanced criticism and consideration; rather they should be effectively eliminated, not by a book burning, but in a torrent of condemnation which serves to drown out critical voices.
Dershowitz next attacked former President Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Before I found time to read the book, I had been e-mailed the Dershowitz critique by several friends who likewise had not read the book but now thought they knew something. In addition people I met at Jewish functions were all attacking Carter because they had read Dershowitz. Ultimately, I read both and could make my own mind up. I hate the use of the word apartheid by Carter or his publishers as much as I loath the use of terms such as “Nazi” or “genocide” by thoughtless critics of Israel. “Apartheid” was probably used in the title to promote sales but it sets off useless debates, often by people who know very little about the old South African system, and it discourages many Jews from reading or listening.
Dershowitz also usefully pointed out some serious errors in Carter’s work. However, most books have errors and that does not stop intelligent readers from learning from them. Hundreds of Brandeis University students who respectfully listened to Carter, despite these attacks, gave him a standing ovation. At the least, they and subsequent University audiences learned that the former President had not turned anti-Semite or enemy of Israel. Carter could be read or heard by those who Dershowitz had not inspired to close their eyes or ears.
Prof. Dershowitz has most recently taken on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose article and now a book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
has excited many Jewish critics of varying political stripes. From my own point of view some of the criticisms have merit but I do not regard the authors’ purpose as that of dredging up an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Intelligent readers of the book and its critics can decide for themselves just how strong the Israel lobby is in the United States, and certainly its existence and power cannot be denied.
However Dershowitz sank to a new low, when he stated that Presidential candidate Barack Obama had to repudiate his new foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brezezinski, a former National Security Advisor. Why, because Dr. Brzezinski had written in Foreign Policy that Mearsheimer and Walt “have rendered a public service by initiating a much-needed debate on the role of the ‘Israel Lobby’ in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy.” Dershowitz characterized this as an endorsement of “a bigoted attack on the American Jewish community.” Nonsense, Dershowitz has descended into guilt by association linking the authors of The Israel Lobby to Brzezinski and then to Obama. You may be interested to know that Dershowitz supports Obama’s rival, Hillary Clinton
The pattern is clear. Books critical of Israel or of some of its American supporters are to be subjected to destructive attack. They should not be subject to balanced criticism and consideration; rather they should be effectively eliminated, not by a book burning, but in a torrent of condemnation which serves to drown out critical voices.
ISRAEL'S HIGH COURT VACILLATES
In two important, but strikingly different decisions the High Court of Israel ruled on the route of the security barrier in the area of Mod’in Ilit and the Palestinian village of Bil’in. Weekly protests had taken place there for over two years. The villagers have claimed that they were unjustly cut off from much of their agricultural land, without any security justification. They not only protested but took their case to the Israeli courts and were supported by Israeli human rights organizations and by Peace Now.
The first case challenged the routing of the fence and a three judge panel, headed by the Court’s President Dorit Beinisch, found unanimously for the villagers. Peace Now had long contended that the routing of the fence in certain areas constituted a land grab. Judge Beinisch pointed out that at Bil’in the government had actually ignored security considerations by building the fence through a valley, with the Palestinians occupying the high ground. She wrote that “the route of the separation barrier should not be planned based on the desire to include land earmarked for expanding settlements.” The court then ordered that the fence be moved within a reasonable period of time.
This ruling may constitute an important precedent. It in no way threatens the security of Israelis, quite the contrary, but it does recognize that the mask of security cannot be used for the unjust expropriation of Palestinian lands. In this instance the Court proved that it could be the major institutional bulwark of Israeli justice and democracy.
It is then, all the more surprising that a different panel of the court reversed course in its next decision affecting an adjacent area. Peace Now and the village council of Bil’in had petitioned the Court for the demolition of apartment construction in the Matityahu Mizrach neighborhood, east of the settlement. Whereas, only a year ago Justice Aharon Barak had issued an injunction against the project, the judges now have revoked the injunction despite recognizing “the very serious problem of mass building without any plans or permits.”
Much of the construction was built by Heftsibah, a company now in bankruptcy and with its CEO Boaz Yona presently in Italy trying to avoid extradition, for alleged corruption. The Court rested its decision on narrow technical grounds, that the petitions should have been filed in 1998 when the first plan for the neighborhood was deposited. It is possible that the Court deemed it easier to move a fence rather than to order the destruction of squatter occupied apartments. Still, it is a bewildering decision, standing along side the other Court panel’s ruling in the fence case. One can only guess that either the Court was trying to balance its two opinions or yielded to the settler’s usual tactic of creating “facts on the ground.” Still, the Palestinian villagers did get a half-measure of justice, which is more than they usually obtain.
On Tuesday, Sept. 25 Akiva Eldar, one of Israel’s most brilliant journalists speaks for Peace Now at the Gelber Auditorium, at 7:30P.M. His topic is “Rumors of Peace, Rumors of War: Israel’s Quest for Security in the ‘hood.”
The first case challenged the routing of the fence and a three judge panel, headed by the Court’s President Dorit Beinisch, found unanimously for the villagers. Peace Now had long contended that the routing of the fence in certain areas constituted a land grab. Judge Beinisch pointed out that at Bil’in the government had actually ignored security considerations by building the fence through a valley, with the Palestinians occupying the high ground. She wrote that “the route of the separation barrier should not be planned based on the desire to include land earmarked for expanding settlements.” The court then ordered that the fence be moved within a reasonable period of time.
This ruling may constitute an important precedent. It in no way threatens the security of Israelis, quite the contrary, but it does recognize that the mask of security cannot be used for the unjust expropriation of Palestinian lands. In this instance the Court proved that it could be the major institutional bulwark of Israeli justice and democracy.
It is then, all the more surprising that a different panel of the court reversed course in its next decision affecting an adjacent area. Peace Now and the village council of Bil’in had petitioned the Court for the demolition of apartment construction in the Matityahu Mizrach neighborhood, east of the settlement. Whereas, only a year ago Justice Aharon Barak had issued an injunction against the project, the judges now have revoked the injunction despite recognizing “the very serious problem of mass building without any plans or permits.”
Much of the construction was built by Heftsibah, a company now in bankruptcy and with its CEO Boaz Yona presently in Italy trying to avoid extradition, for alleged corruption. The Court rested its decision on narrow technical grounds, that the petitions should have been filed in 1998 when the first plan for the neighborhood was deposited. It is possible that the Court deemed it easier to move a fence rather than to order the destruction of squatter occupied apartments. Still, it is a bewildering decision, standing along side the other Court panel’s ruling in the fence case. One can only guess that either the Court was trying to balance its two opinions or yielded to the settler’s usual tactic of creating “facts on the ground.” Still, the Palestinian villagers did get a half-measure of justice, which is more than they usually obtain.
On Tuesday, Sept. 25 Akiva Eldar, one of Israel’s most brilliant journalists speaks for Peace Now at the Gelber Auditorium, at 7:30P.M. His topic is “Rumors of Peace, Rumors of War: Israel’s Quest for Security in the ‘hood.”
Monday, September 3, 2007
NOTHING TOO GOOD FOR THE SETTLERS: LUXURY ROADS ON THE WEST BANK
NOTHING TOO GOOD FOR THE SETTLERS: LUXURY ROADS ON THE WEST BANK
9/12/07
Recently, Shalom Akshav (Peace Now) issued a report on road construction to the West Bank settlements. It is another demonstration of the cost to Israeli society of maintaining settlements for approximately 3.5% of her population. In this instance, it costs lives.
Israel has long suffered from an epidemic of highway fatalities. On average, roughly 500 persons are killed on her roads each year, a number that can, of course, be deemphasized by citing population growth, kilometers traveled and other factors, or highlighted by comparing it to the much lower numbers of deaths attributable to war and terrorism. There are many factors governing the rate of traffic fatalities in particular countries, among them national culture, traffic enforcement, and drinking. However, it is undeniable that the condition of the highways plays a vital role. European nations including Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands have some of the best roads and the fewest fatalities. Central dividers are, for example, one simple method of reducing the number of head-on crashes and may cut the number of fatalities by half.
Israel understands this and the Transportation Minister promises to pursue the program of promoting safe highways providing “all the necessary means are received.” Thus, the Tel-Aviv – Haifa road and the Jerusalem – Tel-Aviv highway and others can be slowly improved if the budgets are not cut. Meanwhile, as the work drags on, needless deaths will occur. But, at the same time, large sums of money are being spent to build new roads to serve a few settlers.
Peace Now Secretary General, Yariv Oppenheimer, puts it this way: “The State spends at least $12,000 (50,000 NIS) for each settler’s vehicle, on infrastructure and new roads. While people in Israel get killed on a daily basis due to a shortage in funds for infrastructure, the settlers get luxury roads.” Separation barriers which were deemed not affordable for some of Israel’s main highways were constructed on a road in the southern Mount Hebron area. The High Court ordered the barrier dismantled when it found that it was built not to keep Palestinian cars off the road but to stop Palestinian shepherds from grazing their flocks close to settlements. The cost of building and then dismantling this “sheep barrier” was (80 million NIS) 18.5 million U.S. dollars.
One, particularly exasperating use of Israeli tax dollars, and one of the most costly projects underway is to the south east of Bethlehem. This is a road linking four small settlements with a total of 2500 people 500 cars will use this “Liberman Road”, so-called because one of the small band of settlers is Avigdor Liberman, who just happened to be Minister of Transportation when the project was initiated.
Peace Now’s study finds that current road construction projects on the West Bank require a minimum investment of $75,000,000 (315 million NIS). The share of investment devoted to West Bank roads in 2005 was 13.2% of the total highway budget and went as high as 17% in previous years. 33,279 settlers and 6390 vehicles will be served by the roads now under construction.
Nehemiah Strassler, economics editor of Haaretz sums up the matter: “It is true that not all Israelis drive carefully, responsibly and ‘in keeping with road conditions.’ Do they deserve the death penalty?” They, of course, do not and the vast majority of Israelis deserve their fair share of road building funds to assure adequate safety standards. The settlements continue to exact a high cost from Israeli society.
9/12/07
Recently, Shalom Akshav (Peace Now) issued a report on road construction to the West Bank settlements. It is another demonstration of the cost to Israeli society of maintaining settlements for approximately 3.5% of her population. In this instance, it costs lives.
Israel has long suffered from an epidemic of highway fatalities. On average, roughly 500 persons are killed on her roads each year, a number that can, of course, be deemphasized by citing population growth, kilometers traveled and other factors, or highlighted by comparing it to the much lower numbers of deaths attributable to war and terrorism. There are many factors governing the rate of traffic fatalities in particular countries, among them national culture, traffic enforcement, and drinking. However, it is undeniable that the condition of the highways plays a vital role. European nations including Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands have some of the best roads and the fewest fatalities. Central dividers are, for example, one simple method of reducing the number of head-on crashes and may cut the number of fatalities by half.
Israel understands this and the Transportation Minister promises to pursue the program of promoting safe highways providing “all the necessary means are received.” Thus, the Tel-Aviv – Haifa road and the Jerusalem – Tel-Aviv highway and others can be slowly improved if the budgets are not cut. Meanwhile, as the work drags on, needless deaths will occur. But, at the same time, large sums of money are being spent to build new roads to serve a few settlers.
Peace Now Secretary General, Yariv Oppenheimer, puts it this way: “The State spends at least $12,000 (50,000 NIS) for each settler’s vehicle, on infrastructure and new roads. While people in Israel get killed on a daily basis due to a shortage in funds for infrastructure, the settlers get luxury roads.” Separation barriers which were deemed not affordable for some of Israel’s main highways were constructed on a road in the southern Mount Hebron area. The High Court ordered the barrier dismantled when it found that it was built not to keep Palestinian cars off the road but to stop Palestinian shepherds from grazing their flocks close to settlements. The cost of building and then dismantling this “sheep barrier” was (80 million NIS) 18.5 million U.S. dollars.
One, particularly exasperating use of Israeli tax dollars, and one of the most costly projects underway is to the south east of Bethlehem. This is a road linking four small settlements with a total of 2500 people 500 cars will use this “Liberman Road”, so-called because one of the small band of settlers is Avigdor Liberman, who just happened to be Minister of Transportation when the project was initiated.
Peace Now’s study finds that current road construction projects on the West Bank require a minimum investment of $75,000,000 (315 million NIS). The share of investment devoted to West Bank roads in 2005 was 13.2% of the total highway budget and went as high as 17% in previous years. 33,279 settlers and 6390 vehicles will be served by the roads now under construction.
Nehemiah Strassler, economics editor of Haaretz sums up the matter: “It is true that not all Israelis drive carefully, responsibly and ‘in keeping with road conditions.’ Do they deserve the death penalty?” They, of course, do not and the vast majority of Israelis deserve their fair share of road building funds to assure adequate safety standards. The settlements continue to exact a high cost from Israeli society.
MIGRON AND GOD'S JEWISH WARRIORS
MIGRON AND GOD’S JEWISH WARRIORS 9/5/07
Many of us watched, with interest, CNN’s recent documentary hosted by their superb journalist Christiane Amanpour. Perhaps some Jewish viewers felt more comfortable watching her segment on Muslim fanaticism than they did seeing her portrayal of the religious settlers of the West Bank. She did not equate Islamist suicide bombers with the settlers but did find one common thread for Jewish, Christian and Muslim extremists. All of them proclaimed that they were following the message of their God, bringing the holy word directly into politics. Of course, CNN’s message is that this produces a politics on all sides which is rigid and uncompromising, for who can compromise God’s will.
Amanpour did not seek to determine the influence of the Jewish Warriors, on today’s state of Israel, but did show how the state constantly acquiesced in and even encouraged settlement expansion on Palestinian lands. Long time settlers winked and smiled at the subterfuges that had been used, masking a settlement as a military base, and the like.
Hanan Porath, a founder of the Gush Emunim, is contrasted to another veteran of the ’67 war, Yakov Barnea, who proclaims that the only Messiah he listens to is Handel’s. Leaders of the state do not themselves listen to God but they have certainly listened to the settlement movement, as it continues to expand not only established settlements, often on Palestinian owned land, but also almost 100 illegal outposts. These outposts, ruled as illegal not only by the American roadmap, but also by the Israeli courts, remain as evidence to the Palestinians and to the world that Israel is not following the path of peace.
The largest of these illegal outposts of God’s Warriors is Migron, begun five years ago, but now containing 43 families, 60 trailers and two permanent homes. It began at the end of 2001 when the IDF received a request to place a cellular antenna at the top of a hill, in order to improve communication, and with the potential to rescue terror victims. Brigadier General Ilan Paz, who granted the request, only realized later that he had been deceived, when the area was fenced and trailers brought in. The settlers’ trickery had worked once again, to establish an outpost on private Palestinian land. This was compounded by a government which invested 4 million (NIS) of public funds in this illegal enterprise.
In October 2006 Peace Now, acting for the first time with the rightful Palestinian landowners, petitioned the courts for the evacuation of the outpost. Talia Sasson who authored an outposts report, on the request of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that “The establishment of unauthorized outposts involves the commission of crimes.” The issue now is whether the state has the desire or the will to confront the Migron “criminals”, more of God’s warriors, and those in the other illegal outposts. In response to Peace Now’s petition, the State admitted that establishment of the outpost was a mistake and admitted that Migron stands on private Palestinian lands. Finally this February the Supreme Court ordered the State to report within 60 days on the steps it had taken to remove the outpost. With a new Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, the State has asked for more time, in order for the Minister to master his dossier.
Migron and the other outposts are manifestations of God’s Jewish Warriors determination to realize the biblical imperatives of occupying, what they regard, as the entire ancient land of Israel. There is much discussion now of a deal between the settlers and the State whereby the former would leave a few dilapidated shacks in return for a broad government “laundering” of most of the outposts. In any case, the continuing failure of the State to deal with the outposts casts doubt on the intentions of a government which even now is negotiating with the Palestinians on the principles for ending the occupation. No Palestinian government can make peace with an Israel which continues to sanction the illegal occupation of their land. Olmert, Barak and all of Israel’s leaders must decide whether they govern in the interest of most Israelis, who desire peace and security more than land, or continue to bow to the threats of God’s Warriors.
Many of us watched, with interest, CNN’s recent documentary hosted by their superb journalist Christiane Amanpour. Perhaps some Jewish viewers felt more comfortable watching her segment on Muslim fanaticism than they did seeing her portrayal of the religious settlers of the West Bank. She did not equate Islamist suicide bombers with the settlers but did find one common thread for Jewish, Christian and Muslim extremists. All of them proclaimed that they were following the message of their God, bringing the holy word directly into politics. Of course, CNN’s message is that this produces a politics on all sides which is rigid and uncompromising, for who can compromise God’s will.
Amanpour did not seek to determine the influence of the Jewish Warriors, on today’s state of Israel, but did show how the state constantly acquiesced in and even encouraged settlement expansion on Palestinian lands. Long time settlers winked and smiled at the subterfuges that had been used, masking a settlement as a military base, and the like.
Hanan Porath, a founder of the Gush Emunim, is contrasted to another veteran of the ’67 war, Yakov Barnea, who proclaims that the only Messiah he listens to is Handel’s. Leaders of the state do not themselves listen to God but they have certainly listened to the settlement movement, as it continues to expand not only established settlements, often on Palestinian owned land, but also almost 100 illegal outposts. These outposts, ruled as illegal not only by the American roadmap, but also by the Israeli courts, remain as evidence to the Palestinians and to the world that Israel is not following the path of peace.
The largest of these illegal outposts of God’s Warriors is Migron, begun five years ago, but now containing 43 families, 60 trailers and two permanent homes. It began at the end of 2001 when the IDF received a request to place a cellular antenna at the top of a hill, in order to improve communication, and with the potential to rescue terror victims. Brigadier General Ilan Paz, who granted the request, only realized later that he had been deceived, when the area was fenced and trailers brought in. The settlers’ trickery had worked once again, to establish an outpost on private Palestinian land. This was compounded by a government which invested 4 million (NIS) of public funds in this illegal enterprise.
In October 2006 Peace Now, acting for the first time with the rightful Palestinian landowners, petitioned the courts for the evacuation of the outpost. Talia Sasson who authored an outposts report, on the request of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that “The establishment of unauthorized outposts involves the commission of crimes.” The issue now is whether the state has the desire or the will to confront the Migron “criminals”, more of God’s warriors, and those in the other illegal outposts. In response to Peace Now’s petition, the State admitted that establishment of the outpost was a mistake and admitted that Migron stands on private Palestinian lands. Finally this February the Supreme Court ordered the State to report within 60 days on the steps it had taken to remove the outpost. With a new Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, the State has asked for more time, in order for the Minister to master his dossier.
Migron and the other outposts are manifestations of God’s Jewish Warriors determination to realize the biblical imperatives of occupying, what they regard, as the entire ancient land of Israel. There is much discussion now of a deal between the settlers and the State whereby the former would leave a few dilapidated shacks in return for a broad government “laundering” of most of the outposts. In any case, the continuing failure of the State to deal with the outposts casts doubt on the intentions of a government which even now is negotiating with the Palestinians on the principles for ending the occupation. No Palestinian government can make peace with an Israel which continues to sanction the illegal occupation of their land. Olmert, Barak and all of Israel’s leaders must decide whether they govern in the interest of most Israelis, who desire peace and security more than land, or continue to bow to the threats of God’s Warriors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)