Archive for the 'Israel' Category

BDS = “Kill All The Jews”

Andrew Klavan is a commentator on PJ Media (pjmedia.com), who from time to time does short YouTube videos explaining complex subjects with as much humor as they can bear.  His latest is a 2-minute lecture on the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) to destroy Israel, a movement which continues to spread on the left – including, most disturbingly, such “mainstream” “Christian” churches as the Presbyterians.

Not much of a subject for humor, you say?  You are correct.  Take a look anyway:

 

Advertisements

Why Would We Abandon Israel?

Our Montana correspondent David Smith continues to fight the good fight in the Great White North.  Countering the latest anti-Israel screed in the Helena Independent Record (how we shall miss these glorious names when the last newspapers are herded together in a national park somewhere, straggling survivors of a great era rubbing shoulders with the bison!)

Anyway, Smith makes a simple and overwhelming case against the calls to “Boycott, Divest, Sanction” and generally screw Israel.  Here it is.

_______________________________________________________

Once again, the pages of the IR are disgraced by a flood of hatred against Israel. Once again the true and obvious facts of the situation are ignored, distorted or denied by those who seek to leave the embattled Jewish state as defenseless as possible. Why? Why?

Why the endless condemnation of free, democratic Israel, fighting for its life against a relentless terrorist war?

Why the crocodile tears for the Palestinians, who are in fact the victims of their own leaders’ obstinate refusal to accept peace when it is offered?

Consider the contrasts:

Israel is a steadfast, reliable ally of the United States. Palestinians danced in the streets when we were attacked on 9/11. Why would we spurn our only trusted friend in this unstable region? Continue reading ‘Why Would We Abandon Israel?’

Anti-Israel Lies Effectively Refuted…Again!

The Helena (Montana) Independent Record published a viciously anti-Israel op-ed on Monday, August 19, by a “writer” from San Diego named Steve Kowit.  Entitled “Israel no beacon of democracy diversity,” it retailed the usual lies and libels:  Israel treats the poor harmless Palestinians so cruelly, they are just like the Nazis.  If you need to read more of this stuff, here it is.

Fortunately, our friend David Smith responded immediately, and the IR (that’s the local’s name for the paper) printed it at once, this Wednesday.  His rebuttal, “More lies published about Israel,” can be read here.

I wish every two-bit purveyor of the New Protocols of the Elders of Zion received such quick and forceful refutation.

 

Hope, Experience, the Peace Talks and Bill Clinton

As the Israelis prepare to sit cross the table from the Palestinians for yet another try, one must catch one’s breath and say a prayer.  But before expectations go too high, it is worth a quick look back…to the  final days of the Clinton administration.

In his biography My Life, Bill Clinton has a lot of interesting things to say, but none more so than his account of the last serious Mideast Peace Talks, conducted at Camp David in 2000, with the president himself as mediator.

Here are some highlights.

“[Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Barak believed that if he could present a comprehensive peace plan to Israeli citizens, they would vote for it as long as Israel’s fundamental interests were achieved: security, the protection of its religious and cultural sites on the Temple Mount, an end to the Palestinian claim to an unlimited right of return to Israel, and a declaration that the conflict was over.”  [p. 911]

“Barak did not want to meet alone with Arafat [without US mediation]; he was afraid that they would fall into the old patterns where Barak did all the giving and Arafat made no response in kind.”  [p. 913]

“On the ninth day, I gave Arafat my best shot again.  Again he said no.  Israel had gone much further than he had, and he wouldn’t even embrace their moves as the basis for future negotiations…Again, Arafat said no.  I shut down the talks.” [p. 915]

“As Abba Eban had said long ago, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” [p. 924]

[Later] ”I brought the Palestinian and Israeli teams into the Cabinet Room and read them my ‘parameters’ for proceeding. These were developed after extensive private talks with the parties separately since Camp David. If they accepted the parameters within four days, we would go forward.  If not, we were through.”  [p. 936]

[Under Clinton’s proposed parameters,] “The Palestinians would give up the absolute right of return; they had always known they would have to, but they never wanted to admit it….It was a hard deal, but if they wanted peace, I thought it was fair to both sides.” [p. 937]

“Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway.  It was historic; an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97 percent of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza, where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.”

“Finally Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres…Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameters as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement.  Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything….Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes.” [p. 944]

Hope says that a peace agreement is possible.  Experience suggests that the talks will fail, and it will be the fault of the Palestinian leadership.  That’s not me talking; that is the voice of experience, the notorious Neo-Con Right-Winger Bill Clinton.

Israel’s critics need to face facts

Every critic of Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians must (apparently) be reminded of several basic facts.

First, a historical fact: Israel did not start the war.  In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine between Israelis and Arabs. Israel accepted the Partition Plan and announced its intention to live within its borders, in peace with its Arab neighbors.  Those same Arab neighbors rejected the plan, declared war, and vowed to wipe Israel off the map and sweep the Jews into the sea.  The borders have changed with every Arab failed attempt to accomplish this, but the aims of both parties have remained the same.

Second, another historical fact:  Israel has voluntarily withdrawn from territory occupied by its armies, sometimes unilaterally, several times in the past (Lebanon in 2000, Gaza in 2005).  In almost every case, the territory has then been used as a base for attacks on Israel, resulting in the murder of Jewish civilians.

Now, some current facts.

First, Israel is prepared to meet with the Palestinian Authority anywhere, at any time, without pre-conditions, to discuss peace.  This offer is frequently repeated by Israel, and consistently rejected by the Palestinians. (See most recent offer here.)

Second, Israel recognizes the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own.  In contrast, Palestinian leaders refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist within ANY borders.  Here is the Palestinians’ most “moderate” leader, Mahmoud Abbas:

“They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state,” Abbas said in a meeting with some 200 senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the US, shortly before taking the podium and delivering a speech at the United Nations General  Assembly.”

If Israel’s critics wish to be taken seriously, they need to admit these facts and explain how these problems can be addressed by Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.  If not, they stand exposed as anti-Semites demanding that Israel commit national suicide.

Remembering Why They Hate Israel – and Us

I have not been a big fan of William Kristol.  He often seems to derive too much enjoyment from being different and clever.   I have always put great stock in Burke’s commitment to avoid such things: “I assure you I do not aim at singularity.”  Kristol sometimes seems to aim for it. (Maybe all pundits have to do that these days.)

But his piece in the upcoming issue of Weekly Standard, entitled “The West Fights Back”, is a cogent and powerful reminder of something that is all too forgotten in America today: Israel and the US are both hated and attacked by the same people and for the same reasons.

The Walt-Mearsheimer hypothesis, embraced by right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats alike, says that Israel and the Jewish Lobby run US foreign policy for Israel’s benefit, to our own detriment.  Now this stuff is at least as old as the Zionist movement.  It was the thinking of FDR when he suppressed support for Zionism in order to appease Ibn Saud.  It was the mindset of the “realists” in the State Department who urged Truman to withhold recognition of the State of Israel.  (Their “realism” invariably fell back on the belief that Israel would require 100,000 US troops, “boots on the ground”, for its survival in the first year.  The “realists” were wrong, of course, but never acknowledged it.)

And it underlies the thinking of today’s administration “realists”, who think a little “daylight” between the US and Israel will somehow improve things in the world.

Kristol quickly and brilliantly lances the boil of this thinking.  The anti-Israel front doesn’t hate us because we support Israel; they hate us because we are LIKE Israel:  democratic, respecting free speech and religious freedom, willing to live in peace with our neighbors, modern, and economically successful.  Everything the Arabs and Iranians and their allies are not.

Anyway, I suggest you read Kristol’s column here.    And let me know what you think: click the “Comments” button up top.

A Letter to the Times…

I somehow missed this back when it happened.  Last December, the New York Times offered Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu an “op-ed” for the prestigious pages of the “Newspaper of Record”.  Through press aide Ron Dermer, Netanyahu declined the offer, stating the reasons in the letter below.

There was no US media coverage of the exchange, at the time or since.  But there should have been.   The Israeli letter exposes the open anti-Israel bias of the NY Times for all to see.

It comes to light now because of a recent particularly ugly bit of anti-Zionist anti-Semitism in the NYT.  Barry Rubin at Pajamas Media points out an article lionizing imprisoned Palestinian terrorists for their heroic hunger strike – without mentioning the murderous crimes that got the into prison.

Anyway, here is the letter

“Dear Sasha, [presumably Op-Ed Page Editor Sasha Polakow-Suransky]

“I received your email requesting that Prime Minister Netanyahu submit an op-ed to the New York Times.  Unfortunately, we must respectfully decline.

“On matters relating to Israel, the op-ed page of the “paper of record” has failed to heed the late Senator Moynihan’s admonition that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that no one is entitled to their own facts. Continue reading ‘A Letter to the Times…’


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow Mister Moleman and his Friends on WordPress.com