| HOME | Featured Stories | January 2007 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
GAZA BURIED IN FLOUR
Posted by Bryna Berch, January 31, 2008. |
|
What's amusing in the Globe figures on daily flour consumption in Gaza (see below) is how they had to scramble to "correct" the first ridiculous figures. Was it a typo or their traditional embellishment of whatever comes straight from the Palestine Authority's (PA) mouth?" The corrected figure isn't credible, either. As an Arutz Sheva news item notes: "According to the PA, Gaza Arabs actually require 350 tons of flour daily, not 680,000, but this figure also works out to 250 pounds of flour per resident." Arithmetic in general is problematic when the PA/PLO is involved. Consider these separate pieces of information: From Sand Monkey, an Egyptian blogger, 29jan08
"The poor penniless people of Gaza don't seem to be really that Penniless. Between buying basic survival necessities such as Cement, Motorcycles, and Dish receivers, they have spent almost half a billion dollars there in less than 2 weeks: 480 million dollars to be exact." Another fact: 2/3 of the Gazan arabs are said to live on less
than $2 per day. These are obviously the ones not benefitting from
the billions Fatah gets from EU and siphons into Hamas coffers. So
where did they get the money? Some of the cash spent in Egypt was
funny money, distributed by Hamas. Elders of Ziyon, 28Jan08, "The Hamas movement illegally provided a number of traders and citizens with counterfeit currencies to be used in Egyptian territory to the needs of wills and goods". The fake bills -- on their face -- were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but this is still a relatively tiny amount of what was spent. Where did all the real money come from for the hundreds of thousands who didn't receive the counterfeit money? Hamas is said to have given $300 each to many of the people that rushed into Egypt. DEBKA (Jan 29, 2008) puts a $150 meg cap on this -- which would suggest some 500,000 people received money. I'm assuming of course that this was real money and not some of the fake currency. Come to think of it, there were no news stories of any irate Egyptians clobbering an arab from Gaza trying to pass a fake bill. Which leads to another giggle-making puzzle. When and where did all these money transfers take place? Were there underemployed police standing at the toppled fence? When were these guys told what to do? Who told them? When and how did the Hamas agents hand out the funny money? How'd they hand out the real money? First come, first served or did they sneak the the money to a few favorites? Bakshish involved? Did the Hamas leadership have a shopping list? ... Never mind how I know. Achmed, you'll be in Egypt tomorrow and I want you to buy these things for me... This would make a wonderful comedy. Hamas handing out fake bills says something about their general (un)trustworthiness. Its handing out real and fake money contributes to the suspicion that Hamas, which spent months on blowing up the fence between Gaza and Egypt, may want to destabilize the Egyptian economy or encourage the Muslim Brotherhood or plant terrorists in Egypt. But it doesn't change the figures on spending, per se. I haven't been able to get a straight answer on just how many Gazan arabs were –– and are –– in Egypt. The MSM sob sisters downplayed that these starving, medically-deprived arabs were surprisingly energetic, and emphasized that the new supplies wouldn't last long. How many Gazans crossed over? The figures given are "thousands" to "hundreds of thousands of Gazans flooded into Egypt." DEBKAfile's estimate was 350,000, later boosted to 750,000, with a sizable number not returning to Gaza. But, in any case, it is unlikely all one and a half million Gazans trotted off to Egypt temporarily or permanently. Using 750,000 as estimate of people –– and 480 million dollars as the amount spent –– that comes to $640 worth of goods per peripatetic Gazan. The average father of 10, with only 2 wives, purchased $8320 worth of goods. Wow! Not bad for a bunch of poverty-stricken people. And since goods are cheaper in Egypt, they could buy more with less money, so how did they transport all the goodies back home? The article below is called "Gaza Buried in Flour" and was written by Martin
Kramer. It appeared on his blogsite: |
|
The Boston Globe has just run an op-ed under the headline "Ending the Stranglehold on Gaza." The authors are Eyad al-Sarraj, identified as founder of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, and Sara Roy, identified as senior research scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. The bias of the op-ed speaks for itself, and I won't even dwell on it. But I do want to call attention to this sentence: Although Gaza daily requires 680,000 tons of flour to feed its population, Israel had cut this to 90 tons per day by November 2007, a reduction of 99 percent. You don't need to be a math genius to figure out that if Gaza has a population of 1.5 million, as the authors also note, then 680,000 tons of flour a day come out to almost half a ton of flour per Gazan, per day. A typographical error at the Boston Globe? Hardly. The two authors used the same "statistic" in an earlier piece. They copied it from an article published in the Ahram Weekly last November, which reported that "the price of a bag of flour has risen 80 per cent, because of the 680,000 tonnes the Gaza Strip needs daily, only 90 tonnes are permitted to enter." Sarraj and Roy added the bit about this being "a reduction of 99 percent." Note how an absurd and impossible "statistic" has made its way up the media food chain. It begins in an Egyptian newspaper, is cycled through a Palestinian activist, is submitted under the shared byline of a Harvard "research scholar," and finally appears in the Boston Globe, whose editors apparently can't do basic math. Now, in a viral contagion, this spreads across the Internet, where that "reduction of 99 percent" becomes a well-attested fact. What's the truth? I see from a 2007 UN document that Gaza consumes 450 tons of flour daily. The Palestinian Ministry of Economy, according to another source, puts daily consumption at 350 tons. So the figure for total consumption retailed by Sarraj and Roy is off by more than three orders of magnitude, i.e. a factor of 1,000. No doubt, there's less flour shipped from Israel into Gaza –– maybe it's those rocket barrages from Gaza into Israel? –– but even if it's only the 90 tons claimed by Sarraj and Roy, it isn't anything near a "reduction of 99 percent." Unfortunately, if readers are going to remember one dramatic "statistic" from this op-ed, this one is it –– and it's a lie. Sarraj is a psychiatrist, but his co-author, Sara Roy, bills herself in her bio as a "political economist." Her research, the bio reports, is "primarily on the economic, social and political development of the Gaza Strip." You would think someone with this claim to expertise would know better than to copy some impossible pseudo-statistic on the consumption of the most basic foodstuff in Gaza. Indeed, in a piece she wrote a decade ago, she herself put Gaza's daily consumption of flour at 275 tons. Did she even read her own op-ed before she sent it off to Boston's leading paper? If she did, what we have here is a textbook example of the difference between a "political economist" and an economist. Update: The Boston Globe, presumably after consulting the authors, has added this correction: A column on Saturday by Eyad al-Sarraj and Sara Roy incorrectly said that Gaza requires 680,000 tons of flour daily to feed its population. It is 680,000 pounds, which means a reduction of 73 percent, not 99 percent, of flour allowed into Gaza. What originated as a half-malicious, half-unthinking repetition of a fantastic charge against Israel, is now presented by Sarraj and Roy as somebody's typo, compounded by a little bad math. In fact, the "correction" is nearly as pathetic as the "error" it is meant to fix. Measuring the flour needs of Gaza in pounds is like measuring the distance from Boston to New York in yards. The UN, Palestinian ministries, and aid agencies all use tons. The pounds-for-tons "correction" is an attempt to cover up the authors' original sin: they just copied the figure straight from the Ahram Weekly (which anyway doesn't use pounds –– it uses metric measurements). The Boston Globe should go back to the authors and ask for the precise source of their figures. It's called fact-checking. |
|
CHELM? THIS IS GROTESQUE, UNBELIEVABLE... UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT'S REALLY BEEN GOING ON IN HEBRON
Posted by David Wilder, January 31, 2008. |
|
A Building Freeze. A Freezing Building |
|
It's out of the theatre of the absurd. Yesterday a colleague of mine received a phone call from an officer in an IDF unit stationed in Hebron. He had a request/demand. Two soldiers are stationed outside Beit HaShalom for security purposes. The officer told my friend that the soldiers are 'cold' and requested/demanded that people in the building supply them with an electric line for a heater to keep them warm. My friend could not believe his ears. Only days before, Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused Hebron's request to allow humanitarian renovations in the building, including instillation of simple windows, electric current, and sealing of the building's roof to prevent water leakage. The letter received from the Defense ministry stated clearly: If you're cold, go live somewhere else. The same defense ministry, who refused us electricity, was now demanding that we supply electricity to IDF soldiers. My friend's answer was short and sweet –– Go talk to the Defense Minister. If he gives us electricity, we'll be happy to share it with you. A little while later this information was passed on to an Israeli journalist, who requested a response from the IDF. 'How can you ask for electricity from Jews in Hebron when you yourselves refuse to allow them electric lines?' A little while later he received his response: 'The entire episode was a mistake. The IDF unit requesting electricity was not supposed to call the Jewish Hebron municipality. Rather, they should have made contact with the Arab Hebron municipality and asked to receive electricity from them.' In other words, the army can take electricity from the Arabs to keep their soldiers warm, but Hebron's Jews cannot receive any more electric lines to keep their children warm.
THIS AFTERNOON I spoke to one of the building's residents who told me as follows: We don't have enough electricity for ourselves, but we've tried to help the soldiers guarding at the entrance because it's freezing there. We've given them two of our own electric heaters, but due to the lack of electric current, both of them have burned out. Early this afternoon I visited Beit HaShalom with my cameras. My daughter, son-in-law and their three children, aged three to three months, have lived there for the past ten months. They live in a one room apartment, divided into parent's space, children's space, kitchenette and living room. Their windows are filled withsome kind of corrugated plastic sheets, somehow sealed onto the walls. Two small heaters keep the room from freezing. Another family in Beit HaShalom just welcomed their seventh child a few days ago. They live in similar conditions to my daughter. Last night winter finally arrived in Israel. Extremely strong winds pounded the Hebron area, and Beit HaShalom was quite adversely affected. Many of the residents had closed their windows with large sheets of plastic, which up until yesterday were sufficient. That changed in the middle of the night, when the strong winds literally blew the plastic window-coverings away. Families found themselves as if they were camping outdoors in the middle of the winter. Rain started leaking into people's rooms from the walls and roof, and puddles formed in their apartments. For a good part of today many Beit HaShalom residents attempted to fix their windows, again hanging huge plastic sheets against the window frames, attaching them with screws and glue, hoping that tonight won't be a repeat of last night. However, many of them expect it to be worse. Snow is expected in Hebron, starting tonight and ending sometime on Thursday. One of the families has three heaters in their room, but can only use two of them, the two smaller ones. The larger radiator remains cold; it uses too much electricity. Each family has an 'electric budget' which they cannot go over, or else the generator which provides the building's current will break down. The Hebron Jewish Community is spending some $20,000 a month to keep the building warm. The generator works 24 hours a day, at full power, to heat up the family's apartments. (You can help if you'd like, and your assistance would be much appreciated: [www.hebrontruma.com]) No one I've spoken to have any plans to leave. I interviewed Shlomo Levinger, who lives there with his wife and five children and asked him why he doesn't find somewhere else to live, as Ehud Barak suggested. His answer: "This is my home, I live here. Just like anyone else in their home can install windows, so too I should be able to. We haven't asked for very much, just to replace these plastic sheets with something a little more solid to offer us protection, on humanitarian grounds. Last night the wind blew so hard that it knocked the screws holding on the plastic sheets out of the wall. Each child needed at least three blankets; it was very cold." While I was there, Shlomo was attempting to repair the window space, hoping that tonight would be a little warmer in his children's room. (Short videos of Beit HaShalom, filmed today, can be seen on the Hebron home pages –– www.hebron.org.il in Hebrew and www.hebron.com in English). The Israeli government is doing its utmost to force Beit HaShalom's residents to leave; Ehud Barak, the current Defense Minister, is acting like a Russian Cossack. As another friend exclaimed today: 'This is acting like a Jew? This is the way one Jew acts towards another Jew?' The other Ehud has the authority to overrule his defense minister. But at the moment he's more concerned with surviving in the Prime Minister's office follow tomorrows' release of the Winograd Commission Report, dealing with his failures during the Second Lebanon War. That certainly takes precedence over a few dozen men, women and children in subhuman conditions in Hebron. Besides which, Olmert already declared a full building freeze in all of Judea and Samaria. So the situation in Hebron falls directly within that category: Windowless, electric-less Beit HaShalom, if not part of Olmert's building freeze, is quite literally a freezing building. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com |
|
MY HEADSCARF HEADACHE
Posted by Phyllis Chesler, January 31, 2008. |
|
My headscarf is giving me a headache! What I mean, is that the issue of the Islamic headscarf is a tricky, thorny one with no hard-and-fast solution in sight precisely when one is required. Just yesterday, a dear friend challenged me on this very subject. She said: "How can you favor the state forbidding women from doing something that they want to do for religious reasons?" A fair enough question. My immediate response: Women's freedom may depend upon the separation of religion and state. What one does at home or in one's mosque, church, temple, or synagogue is one thing. But, is it wise to subsidize diverse religious expressions in a taxpayer-supported public school? Especially in the West where the headscarf is as much a symbol of jihad and women's subordination as it is an expression of a modest, religious choice? In 2004, the headscarf was a burning issue in France when the country passed a law forbidding the wearing of "ostentatious" religious symbols. This meant that no one could wear a cross, a turban, or a yarmulke either but the law was truly aimed at hijab –– the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women. Feminists argued both sides of this controvery. In 2008, the headscarf is again a burning issue in Turkey where an increasingly religious population, including women, is demanding the right to veil in university. This is seen as a complete reversal of the enormous gains made by Attatturk in 1921. It is also a pendulum swing from the various Arab and Muslim feminist movements of that era in which unveiling was a linch-pin issue. Egypt's Huda Shaarawi must be turning in her grave. I wonder what she would say? Yes, it is true: Religious families in the West rarely give their children "freedom of choice" when it comes to religious education and practices. Both girls and boys are indoctrinated from an early age. This is true for secular fundamentalist families as well. Western law does not intefere with this. On what basis could we do so where only Muslims are concerned? Or rather, like France, are we now willing to interfere in the private religious realm because of new, Islamist "clear and present dangers?" Ideally of course, tolerating diverse ethnic and religious choices is a great Western virtue. The problem arises when those who themselves are intolerant wish to use such Western virtues in order to achieve separatist, hostile-parasitic enclaves. But, hasn't some degree of separatism been true for every immigrant group –– at least in America? Hasn't the genius of America resided precisely in allowing each immigrant group to remain identified in separate ways while simultaneously becoming identified similarly as Americans? My friend is a religious Jew and is therefore very sensitive to the dangers involved when Jewish religious expression is forbidden. Indeed, even today, the Jews of Europe have been advised by their rabbis to hide their yarmulkes and stars of David lest they be scorned or beaten on the streets—something which has, alas, been happening. But, said I, with a heavy heart: We can't really compare apples and oranges. Crosses and yarmulkes are not the same as hijab or niqab. With some exceptions, both Jews and Christians are not only or solely defined as members of their religious group. They also partake of the public, secular, modern culture. Also, there are only about 15 million Jews world-wide. There are 1.2 billion Muslims and counting. If every single Jew covered every inch of themselves with Jewish symbols it would be as a drop in the sea compared to every single Muslim doing so. Of course, as a religious Jew, my friend is still concerned with the morality involved. From a Jewish point of view, what's good for a Jew should be good for every other religious group since all humanity has been created in "God's image." But, what about women's rights? Where do we stand on a woman's right not to wear a headscarf? Will we protect her (at least in the West) from being honor-murdered when she refuses to do so? However, what do we do when a woman claims that her right to freely practice her religion is being interfered with if we stop her from veiling? Does the state have the right to force her, against her will, to expose her hair to strange men? Indeed, this is the subject of a 2007 federal lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of Jameela Medina. She is a Los Angeles PH.D student who was riding a commuter train without a proper ticket. For what should have been a minor matter, she was taken off the train, arrested, kept in jail for several hours where she was forced to remove her headscarf.Medina also claims that she was "intimidated" by a deputy sheriff who accused her of "being a terrorist" and who called Islam an "evil" religion. No one should be so insulted in America. And, prisoners are actually allowed to wear headscarves in jail –– a point which the ACLU is arguing. Yes, I know that many educated Muslim women choose to wear hijab or niqab. But, I also know that many educated Muslim women who choose not to do so are threatened, pressured, shunned, and even killed for this reason, both in the West and in Muslim lands. Yes, I also know that some feminists have claimed that historically, veiled women on the streets may have been less harassed by men in the East than unveiled women were at the same time in the West. Today, separate buses and railway cars for women-only have been launched in India and Mexico in response to the still ongoing harassment of women. (Insisting, in ugly or violent ways, that women sit at the back of the public bus used by ultra-religious Jewish populations in Jerusalem, is a slightly separate although equally awful reality and one that the Israeli Supreme Court will hear). I also know that many Muslim women do not feel "coerced" into wearing a headscarf in the West as much as they feel called upon to register a permanent, visible, protest against promiscuity and the eroticization of women in the West. (Like nuns do). In the 1960s and 1970s, I thought it was poetic justice for former "colonials" to sport their colorful customs all over London. Bangles, nose-rings, turbans, long flowing robes on both men and women –– yes! But, by the 21st century, these exotic garments are ominously value-laden and less lovely. Now, they signify a serious cultural, military, political, and theological invasion of Britain and the West. Quo Vadis my friends? What shall we do in America? Do we allow headscarves or do we ban them? What about female genital mutilation, daughter- and wife-beating, and secret polygamy? Finally, what about the indoctrination into hating Jews and other infidels which begins in childhood and is theologically driven in certain mosques and religious schools? Right here in the USA? Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's
Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer
and s co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in
Psychology (1969). Visit her website at
|
|
FOREIGN MINISTRY MISCALCULATES; DEMOCRACIES TOO SELF-INDULGENT?; PEACE NOW FOREIGN-FUNDED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, January 31, 2008. |
|
FOREIGN MINISTRY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ENEMY "Every country is obliged to protect its citizens and would act as Israel to defend them," states the Foreign Ministry. But Israel does not root out the terrorists. No other country would fail, like Israel, to defend itself strongly enough. "Israel believes that the Palestinian people are entitled to national self-determination and a state of their own." "Israel does not view the people of Gaza as its enemy and is doing everything possible to prevent harm to innocent Palestinian civilians." "Unfortunately, the Islamic extremists gaining control of the Gaza street are the greatest obstacle to a two-state solution... These extremists in Gaza oppose reconciliation, oppose the peace talks... For these reasons, Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization... (IMRA, 1/17). Nonsense! The Israeli Far Left believes that the non-nation of the western Palestinian Arabs are entitled to national self-determination, but that would be like suggesting national self-determination for New Jerseyans. New Jerseyans are not a separate nationality. Gaza voters chose Hamas and Fatah. Fatah negotiates but also terrorizes and wants war. Therefore, the people are the enemy and not so innocent. Hamas is not terrorist for the reasons given, but because it deliberately attacks civilians. SHAS: DEFENDER OR BETRAYER OF JERUSALEM? Shas demanded that all other negotiations be concluded before Jerusalem. Then it would invoke new elections as "defender of Jerusalem." PM Olmert agreed. Defenders of the now evacuated Jewish communities in the Territories let the government prepare everything on the theory that at the last minute, they could stop the steamroller government. In this case, Olmert would reach an agreement on everything else, have no bargaining chips left, and then pressure Shas that but for Jerusalem, peace would be made and Jews spared. He would persuade the head of Shas to give. The saving of lives would be brief, for soon the war would resume without Israel having the strategic barrier to invasion and the Muslims placed to inflict greater casualties (IMRA, 1/17). There is no saving of lives in temporary agreements with jihadists. Security, and the integrity of the Land of Israel and its holy places go together. If Israel and the hostile West hadn't gone soft and treacherous, Israel could threaten to execute terrorist prisoners unless the P.A. gives in to Israeli demands. ARE DEMOCRACIES TOO SELF-INDULGENT? You must know that jihad is assaulting civilization, but democracies cripple their defenses with political correctness, multi-culturalism, ignorance, partisanship, and defeatism. Democracies are slow to make obviously fateful decisions, too. Another weakness of democracies may be self-indulgence and being short-sighted and averse to serious discussion. To defend civilization against a patient, resourceful, and rich enemy requires patience resourcefulness, and economic growth and power. Unfortunately, Americans are impatient, don't recognize the struggle enough to be resourceful about it, and squander their national wealth. They are too self-indulgent. They don't ask what can they do for their country, they, or at least their politicians and lobbyists, ask what can their country do for them. They don't save much; they spend. They not content with spending their own money, they tax their fellow Americans to spend more on themselves. Almost every group puts its own welfare first. The country falters under debt to its enemies. After its over-spending has cheapened the dollar, and the economy slows down, the politicians suggest that the remedy for over-spending is to spend more. New York, a state heavily taxed and heavily in debt, had some prosperous years –– at least New York City was prosperous –– did not use the opportunity to retain and attract business by reducing taxes and spending. It did not invest in infrastructure that facilitates business. It did not pay off debt in order to become sounder fiscally and curb interest payments. It handed out the surplus and praised itself as benefiting the citizenry. Prosperity has gone; the debt remains. Nevertheless, the people are not understanding. They demand of the new governor that he keep his campaign promises to spend more, much more, without raising taxes. He had failed to hedge his promise by stating, "provided revenues hold." He proposes to fulfill some of those spending increases by raising fees and taxes that he denies are tax increases, because he calls them loophole-closing. I would call them tax increases that may close loopholes. In any case, Americans lack discipline. Our troops have grit. We civilians pretend that there isn't much of a war. THE NY SUN PLUMPS FOR DE-ZIONIZATION It suggests that instead of setting up an independent state combining Gaza and Judea-Samaria, Israel give Gaza to Egypt and give Judea-Samaria (presumably less the main Jewish towns in it) to Jordan. It referred to Gaza as "its pre-1967 status as part of Egypt. Egypt, at least is a country with which Israel has a peace treaty and diplomatic relations..." Israel wouldn't have to complain about arms being smuggled into Gaza. It could hold Egypt responsible for rocket attacks, and the US could threaten to reduce aid to Egypt. This would be a "just solution." (NY Sun, 1/24, Ed.). It isn't a "just solution" to let the Arabs finally deprive Israel of its core homeland area as a reward for terrorism and violating peace agreements. It isn't a solution to erase Israel's secure borders. The Arabs have violated all their peace agreements with Israel. The Sun shouldn't rely on broken agreements. Gaza wasn't part of Egypt. Egypt simpIy seized it. In suggesting that Israel hold Egypt responsible for rocket attacks, the editor seems to anticipate such attacks. Then what was the point? How would Israel hold Egypt responsible? Making Gaza part of Egypt would enable Egypt to place its big standing army alongside Israel, ready swiftly to pounce on Israel, whose reserves would not have time to assemble. Israel has diplomatic relations with Egypt now, half frozen as they are. That doesn't stop Egypt from allowing arms smuggling. Let the US terminate military aid to Egypt now. If it doesn't do it now, it won't do it later. The Sun's editorial is as much wishful thinking as any treasonous Olmert proposal. I never see any suggestions that would be good for the Jewish people, just make-believe peace with fanatics. IS PEACE NOW AN ISRAELI ORGANIZATION? Peace Now receives several million dollars, most of its budget, from European governments who share its wish to detach the Territories entirely from Israel. One of the donors paid Peace Now to spy on settlers. Peace Now had to register with some Israeli list of organizations receiving foreign donations, but otherwise it hid its source of income from Israelis by subterfuge. The Knesset passed a law requiring Israeli organizations to list their foreign funding on the Internet (Arutz-7). Should Peace Now be considered an Israeli organization or a foreign and enemy stooge? Perhaps Israelis will see how much of their subversion is financed by the New Israel fund, and ask American Jewry to stop donating to it. ISRAEL LETS KILLERS GET AWAY Abbas' P.A. told Israel that it had the recent killers of two Israeli hikers in custody. It asked Israel not to demand they be turned over. Instead, it promised to keep them confined to their place of employment. The Olmert regime granted the request (Arutz-7, 1/17). That not punishment of the killers. It encourages other terrorists. Olmert has forfeited some Israeli sovereignty in this. Arafat started this kind of defiance of Israeli law and upholding of terrorism when he refused to extradite wanted terrorists. He was showing that he does not recognize Israeli legitimacy. This instance further proves that Abbas a supporter of terrorism. WHAT TO DO ABOUT OLMERT The Winograd Committee report is about to be disseminated. PM Olmert will try to counter it by claiming to have implemented its recommendations. He will be misleading the public. People should be ready to refute him. The line of argument against hiom should be that the report will show his incompetence in the Lebanon War, and that incompetence remains. Examples of his continuing incompetence abound. Among them are: (1) Amenability to a truce with Hamas, during which Hamas can freely prepare for war; (2) Failure and rescinding of fuel cutoff to Gaza; (3) Arms smuggling due to his surrendering supervision of the border with Egypt (IMRA, 1/17). ANSWERING RICE'S SLANDER Sec. Rice has been comparing Israel to her segregated childhood and asserting that checkpoints are everywhere in Judea-Samaria and Arabs can't use the same roads as Jews. She has met little journalistic challenge. (She does not compare the P.A. to her segregation, though the P.A. punishes Arabs who sell land to Jews.) An Israeli couple refute her assertion in detail. They made a 200 mile trip south to Eilat. In Judea-Samaria, so many Arab vehicles shared the road with them, and there were so few checkpoints, those being mostly at the entrances to the State of Israel, that they were apprehensive. The Arabs were not inconvenienced on the road. At Eilat, Muslim children swam at the pools or beaches with Jewish children, Muslim families ate Jewish cooking at the hotels, and their cars crowded the parking lots. The US civil rights movement that Rice cited was peaceful, whereas the Muslim struggle with Israel is violent and intolerant (IMRA, 1/17). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
FORD FOUNDATION ET AL: 2007 REVIEW OF FUNDING FOR POLITICAL NGOS ACTIVE IN THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
Posted by NGO Monitor, January 31, 2008. |
|
Summary: * Ford-funded NGOs led the campaign against Israel at the UN World Conference Against Racism, at Durban in 2001. Ford Foundation Grantees 2007 –– Improvement? In 2006, NGO Monitor reported a comparative reduction in the Ford Foundation's support for the most virulent NGOs that focus primarily on demonization of Israel under the "Durban strategy". In 2007, none of the problematic NGOs from 2006 were found in the Ford Foundation's grants database. If funding had indeed ceased, this would constitute a marked improvement in Ford's funding practices. However, research throughout 2007 has revealed that Ford continues to support some of the most radical and politicized NGOs, despite the fact that they have not appeared in its grant database since 2005. The Ford Foundation has consistently failed to answer NGO Monitor's enquiries about multi-year grants and indirect funding not included in its database. In March and November 2007, NGO Monitor contacted the Ford Foundation repeatedly to establish whether any 2005 grant recipients continued to receive support in 2006/7. Ford failed to provide a substantive response. Ford-funded NGOs from previous years continue to list Ford as donor NGOs which continue to list Ford as a funding source on their websites, although these are not included in Ford's 2007 database, include * Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) website states that the organization is funded by the Ford Foundation. All of these NGOs were contacted[1] in November and December 2007, and asked whether the Ford Foundation remains an active donor. Only PCHR, Miftah, PHRO, Save the Children –– UK and HRW responded. PCHR PCHR has not appeared in Ford's grant database since 2005. In an email of October 31, 2007 PCHR Director Raji Sourani confirmed that the website was indeed up to date, including the sections on funding. As NGO Monitor has reported, "while PCHR does an important job of describing intra-Palestinian human rights abuses, it is blatantly one-sided in its removal of the context of terror and disregard of human rights abuses committed against Israeli civilians. PCHR also supports 'all the efforts aimed at enabling the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights in regard to self-determination and independence,' including calls for political, economic, and academic boycotts against Israel." MIFTAH Miftah has not appeared in Ford's grant database since 2005. Miftah's administrative and financial director Rula Muzaffar attached a list of Miftah's donors for the year 2007 to his email of October 30, 2007. [link to attached excel file] The Ford Foundation appears as a donor for the period March 2003-February 2007, supporting three different projects/activities: 1. Institutional Support and Policy Formulation. Miftah is a political lobbying group which claims to increase "global awareness and knowledge of Palestinian realities by providing policy analysis, strategic briefings and position papers." However, despite claiming to be politically independent, Miftah uses Durban strategy rhetoric, characterizes terrorists as "activists" and "freedom fighters," and promotes highly politicized campaigns that do not contribute to peace. An op-ed on the Miftah website (August 2, 2006) claimed that Israel was deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians. The author wrote that Lebanese civilian deaths "are part of a systematic policy carried out by the Israeli military establishment, approved by the highest political echelons, aimed at squashing, silencing and obliterating any voice of rebellion, anyone who dares stand up to the beast." Miftah has also described suicide bombings against civilians as "resistance." An article of July 5, 2006 about Palestinian women during the last six years of violence stated that "several young women also decided to join the ranks of the resistance movement", went on to describe the first Palestinian female suicide bombing and commented that "this marked the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause." Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO) PHRO was listed in Ford's 2006 grant database, but not in the 2007 list. General Director Assistant Rola Badran responded to NGO Monitor's inquiry that all the details requested were available in the following link: PHRO's Annual Report 2006 (page 48). The Ford Foundation is listed as contributing $74,972.00 to support PHRO's strategy at the end of September 2006. PHRO is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) and La Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH) (also listed as supported by the Ford Foundation), both heavily involved in the demonization of Israel. PHRO also participated in the 2001 Durban Conference and continues to promote the NGO strategy adopted there, including accusing Israel of "apartheid and ethnic cleansing," as well as "perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including... acts of genocide," and calls for "complete and total isolation of Israel." In July 2006, PHRO issued a report titled, "Lebanon Crisis... Israel Severe Breaches to the International Law". This report was prepared "in light of Israel's assault on Lebanon" and describes "genocide in Qana" and "Israel's actions in Killing Civilians, imposing a Siege on Lebanon, Disproportionate Use of Forces, Using Prohibited Weapons in addition to Collective Punishment." Human Rights Watch (HRW) HRW featured in Ford's list of 2006 grantees, as receiving a restricted $300,000 grant for an HIV/AIDS program and a $60,000 grant for a full-time researcher in Brazil. Yet HRW still lists the Ford Foundation as a donor of "$100,000 or more" among the organization's "Supporters of General and Endowment Funds –– April 2005 –– March 2006". In response to NGO Monitor's request for clarification Helen Raynsford from HRW UK replied that "the information that you have asked for is confidential." Save the Children –– UK The Save the Children Fund received two grants from the Ford Foundation in 2006: $50,000 to support the prospective Save the Children China Foundation, and $200,000 was given to Save the Children to fund human rights education in Egypt, Lebanon, and Morocco. Save the Children no longer list Ford as a donor, and Customer Service Advisor Ellie Mcleod (Individual Giving) said she could not offer a response to our enquiry due to "the number of similar requests that we receive and our limited resources." In the past, this organization has promoted the Palestinian version of the conflict in material designed for teachers. The New Israel Fund (NIF) As noted in NGO Monitor's 2006 report, following intense criticism of its role in funding NGOs involved in the 2001 Durban NGO Forum, the Ford Foundation announced a five-year partnership with NIF. This entailed a $20 million grant to establish a new peace and social justice fund. In September 2007, the Ford Foundation announced a second $20 million grant to extend this partnership for an additional five years. The Ford Foundation is mentioned on NIF's website under "Special Programs and Partners". However, NIF is not included in Ford's 2007 grants database. Conclusion The Ford Foundation released guidelines after the 2001 Durban conference which declare that it will not fund NGOS that " promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities." This prohibition is applicable to all of the organization's activities, and not merely those supported by a direct grant from Ford. The evidence presented in this update shows that changes in Ford's grant database in 2006 and 2007 do not fully reflect implementation of the post-Durban changes in funding policy, and raise questions about Ford's commitment to transparency. PCHR, Miftah and PHRO selectively apply human rights terminology to demonize Israel, and actively promote the Durban Strategy, including boycotts and divestment. Ford stated objectives are to "strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement." But the continued funding of these and possibly other groups not listed in the data base for 2007 contradicts these goals, as well as the commitments made after Durban 2001. In this context, there is a very real possibility that Ford-funded NGOs will again lead the demonization of Israel at the 2009 Durban follow-up conference. --- [1] NGO Monitor asked the following NGOs about their donors in 2007: PCHR, Al-Haq, Miftah, Al-Mezan, PHRO, DWRC, JLAC, Muwatin, Interpeace, PANORAMA, Save the Children –– UK (SCF), HRW, ICJ, FIDH, PASSIA, Ir Amim. Only PCHR, Miftah and PHRO were helpful in supplying relevant information. Save the Children –– UK (SCF) and HRW replied that they did not have resources to reply. The rest of the NGOs, as well as the EMHRN, failed to respond. The NGO Monitor organization (www.ngo-monitor.org) promotes critical debate and accountability of human rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli Conflict. Contact them at mail@ngo.monitor.org and visit them at www.ngo-monitor.org |
|
TENDING EVERYONE ELSE'S GARDEN
Posted by Arlene Peck, January 31, 2008. |
|
There was a time when I used to feel a burning desire to write about the injustice that I felt which were done to Israel. However, I' ve noticed that I'm not doing that as so much anymore and find myself turning the pages in the Los Angeles biased news reading the next incident about 'wild-child' Britney Spears melt-down, her pregnant teen sister Jamey, or who is up for an award in their latest movie. Oh, it still bothers me when I read about the latest 'activist', never terrorists, who lobbed in the daily 'homemade' bomb into Israel. I don't like it when the savages who never waver in their desire to destroy the Jewish state are still referred to as 'peace partners' or, 'extremists'. Yet, I'm tired of watching the scene and shaking my head in amazement and disgust at how two men, Ehud Olmert and George Bush, both of which have no credibility with their constitutes or concern for the country make decisions that have the potential to destroy the Jewish state. I used to wonder why the people living there weren't rioting or at least marching by the millions on a weekly basis in protest to obvious incompetence that is now running the country. But then I also used to wonder when Israel became a banana republic and it changed to when Condi Rice would snap her anti-Semitic fingers and shout "jump" Israel's Prime Minister would say "How high?" Closer to home, I remember when I first became discouraged when I had the brain storm that since I have a celebrity television talk show, I would start an organization called, "Hollywood Stars Against Terrorism" I even called a couple of meetings at my home and had some strong supporters of Israel such as Bridgette Gabriel and Wafa Sultan in attendance along with several stars and community leaders. The only ones who didn't respond were those at the Israeli Consulate. I called their office three, or four times and asked for a copy of the list they had might have cooperated with them during the Lebanon War and no response. Needless to say, they never attended any of our three meetings to give us the much needed input or help. Eventually, the new regime came in however, the moment had passed. I figured if they weren't interested, why I should make myself crazy. Now, however, I'm changing my thinking and the realization is coming closer to home with me that the strong tie of Israel is losing their connection because the link to Judaism by those living here is fading. Last year, I received a call from the Federation asking me for money. One of the first 'selling points' of the solicitor was "Let me tell you about our inner city program" Then she went on to relate how they are helping the poor Latino and black children in the crime areas. Lovely. Around the same time I had just attended a fabulous charity dinner at the Beverly Hills Hilton that was given by one of our local billionaires. Most of the well-heeled men in attendance were Jewish and real estate developers. Together, they raised over a million dollars that night to support a community center which was mostly used by poor Latinos in a suburban area. Massive amounts of money are being given by wealthy Jews for the opera, symphony, art and similar cultural organizations; much too selected universities, often with a name on a building; and much too medical activities. Some toward meeting the needs of the poor, minorities and/or the disadvantaged. All in the name of advancing society. Nothing wrong on the surface. Yet, the contributions by these wealthy philanthropists toward Jewish causes are only a small percentage of the total, usually in a single digit percentage. Out here, I see so many wealthy Jewish men with Barbie Doll trophy wives whose names are constantly in the papers for their philanthropic deeds. But rarely do they have anything to do with Jewish causes. The same goes for wealthy patrons of other faiths. The difference? They never give to Jewish organizations. The bottom line? Only Jews give to Jewish causes but never on the scale needed to meet the requirements of these same organizations. The Jewish Federations even have programs for Hispanics to leave charity hospitals with a layette or for black children to attend camp. I'd love to see a group of black preachers take a busload of Jewish day school kids...anywhere. Jewish day schools and community centers are closing at an alarming rate because of lack of funds yet, where are the Hilton dinners and benefits for them? Out here, everyone has a cause. I'm regularly invited to events to save the whales, dolphins and there is even an organization to save the ferrets. My daughter came home yesterday in tears because the synagogue sponsored school that her two year old, Ivy attends is closing because B'nai Tikvah Nursery School affiliated with Congregation Tikvat Jacob voted to shut their doors at the end of the school year. Why? Because, there are no funds to continue. A few months ago when she began going I was leery that she was too young. However, it wasn't long when I began to change my mind when I realized that unfortunately, this was the refuge where my grandbaby was acquiring her Jewish education. The amazing thing was that out of the thirty or so children who attend this school a third of them are Hispanic, black or Asian. Yet, every Shabbat these precious babies would share in the experience of having Sabbath services. I've watched the beauty of the rabbi and canter who would come to take part in leading the babies in making the Sabbath a fun time and most importantly a memorable one for these children. Yet, this has become the core of her early Jewish education. The non-children are benefiting just as much. I sat with tears in my eyes as I watched the beauty of these babies lighting the candles and saying their prayers over the chalet. Yet, to the rabbi and board members of Tikvat Jacob the doors to the school and the important early Jewish education and love of Israel are being slammed shut. Obviously, it's not important enough or trendy enough like the dog refuges to capture the attention of the money people to set aside the funds to keep these smaller independent schools going. The neighborhood schools don't have the funding or the wealthy members like those in Beverly Hills to write a check for seventy-five thousand dollars for a grant. And, for some reason, the wealthy men who sponsor the benefits for the poor and deprived residents from across the border don't see the need to keep the synagogue schools going. We wonder why the love of Israel isn't as strong as it ought to be. Strong enough to fight against corrupt and incompetent leadership? Maybe it begins at the three year old level? And, maybe it's time the Jewish organizations and Federations cut back on their bloated salaries and innercity programs and reiterate that the word is JEWISH Federation. My momma used to tell me, those who weed everybody else's garden, gets weeds in their own..." She was right. Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com |
|
NEW ATTACKS ON COPTS
Posted by Morris Sadek, January 31, 2008. |
|
Two articles below on the status of Christian Copts in Arab Egypt. |
|
Copts Will Never Forget
The extensive work that has been and is being done by the Armenian Diaspora to condemn the Armenian genocide is not intended to change the future. The Armenians do not aim to go back to regain their lands in Cilicia, nor are they asking for compensations from the Turks. Despite that, Armenians all over the world continue to lobby to pass resolutions in different countries condemning the Ottoman Empire's atrocities. What I mean is that Armenians know that they can not change the future but that does not mean that they should accept the past. Changing the future is one thing and accepting the past is a totally different thing. Similarly the inability of the Copts to change the results of the Arab occupation does not mean that we should accept it. We should never forget the Arab rulers' atrocities in Egypt. We should never forget the ethnic cleansing that happened in the Delta specifically the lower Delta after the different Coptic revolts in the first two centuries of the occupation. The 829-831 revolt ended in a bloodbath by Caliph Al-Maamoon. The remaining population of this area was expelled by force to Syria. It is really shocking to find a street in Cairo named after this mass killer. We should never forget the policies of colonization by Arab settlers, land confiscation from the Copts and deportation of Coptic peasants to plundered areas. All this caused the slow demographic shift that happened allover Egypt but at a higher speed in the Delta. We should never forget the Arabs' assault on the Coptic language. For the first time, Egypt lost its national language to adopt a foreign language. No other occupying force attempted to do that before. We should never forget the policies of the Arab invaders and their heirs (Mamluks and Turks) of heavy taxation and in "milking the cow" as the Arabs referred to Egypt; Policies that led to poverty, disease and famine. For the first time in Egyptian history, the Egyptian population declined more than 10 times. When the Arabs invaded Egypt, the population of the country was estimated to be between 15 to 24 millions. When the French came to Egypt in the 18th century, the population had dropped down to 2 millions only. We should always remember our religion, history, and identity and teach them to future generations. We should preserve what is remaining of our national language. If the invaders had succeeded in occupying our land, they should not succeed in occupying our minds and souls. "No Freedom Of Religion In Egypt" by Alexander Weissink Source www.freecopts.net
Former Muslim Mohammed Higazi is lucky that he was not present in an Egyptian courtroom on Tuesday. An Islamic fundamentalist lawyer made death threats against the Egyptian for converting to Christianity. To the dismay of Higazi's lawyer the judge made no objection. What made matters even worse, the judge went so far as to express his loathing off the accused because he had converted. There was no verdict but the judge vowed that he would never let Mr Higazy be registered as a Christian. He defended his decision by saying that Islam is the principal religion in Egypt. No mention was made of the freedom of religion established in the constitution which is a fundamental right of all citizens. Hideaway Mr Higazy and his pregnant wife have been hiding for months at a secret location. He is the first convert who is attempting to get a judge to change the faith on his identity card from Muslim to Christian. Egyptian identity cards must report the faith of the holder. While freedom of religion exists theoretically, in practice Muslims are not allowed to change their religion in the municipal register. At the age of 16 Mr Higazi converted to Christianity and took on the Christian name Beshoi. A classmate had left a book with takes from the Bible on his desk. "I began to read the book and was consumed by the love of Jesus,"he explained last year in an interview at a secret location. When his wife, who is also a convert, became pregnant last year he decided to make the change official. "Otherwise my child will automatically be registered as a Muslim." However, his application was rejected. Converts Mr Higazi's lawyer Ramsis el-Naggar, who specialises in conversions, says "there is no freedom of choice in Egypt, unless you're a Muslim."His law firm now represents some 400 converts. Most of his clients were originally Christian, for one reason or another converted to Islam, and now want to return to Christianity. Sometimes his clients are people who regret that they changed their faith. However, many times his clients are the victims of government bureaucracy, such as children whose Christian fathers became Muslims. "Many civil servants are overzealous. If a man changes his faith to Islam they also change the listing of his children. Others function on the automatic pilot. They type the word "Muslim' on the card as a matter of habit. A lot of mistakes are made and it takes years to correct them."An estimated 90% of Egypt's population is Muslim. Coptic Christians are the largest minority. Violence So far El-Naggar has only achieved success in cases in which he could prove the person had never changed faith. In 2004 he won for the first time in the case of Mira Makram (33). Her husband had converted to Islam in 2002 and had forced her to sign a statement confirming that she had converted to Islam. Her religion was changed to Islam in the register without her knowledge. After two years of legal proceedings.the judge ordered that the change be rectified. Fundamentalists called for the death of Mira Makram. The lawyer says "These kinds of cases lead to so much controversy that they are becoming even more difficult."El-Naggar is expecting a verdict on 22 similar cases at the beginning of February and is full of optimism. However, the Higazi case is more difficult since his client was originally a Muslim. His only chance of success would be a letter from the patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Shenouda III, acknowledging that he is a Christian. However even the pope does not dare to provide him with such a letter. Mr Higazi says he understands this. "It's too dangerous. If the pope were to give me the letter today,
churches would be burning tomorrow"
source www.freecopts.net
Mr. Morris Sadek, Esq, is President, National American Coptic Assembly
(NACA), Washington, D.C. Contact him at morrissadek@yahoo.com.
|
|
GEN. EHUD BARAK QUOTES U.S. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ON BORDERS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 31, 2008. |
|
Editor's Note: Read the Wheeler memo by accessing it on the Background.html page. Click here. |
|
1. Ask visiting Admiral Michael Mullen, the current Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff about confidential, Top Secret 1967 Report on Israel's defensible borders. He will visit Israel for 24 hours Sunday December 9, 2007. 2. As alleged in the New York Times December 6th, the whole NIE (U.S. National Intelligence Estimate) downgrade of Iran's nuclear weapons' capability was based on "notes acquired last summer from discussions between [un-named] Iranian military officials where they complain about Iranian leaders 2003 decision to shut down efforts to develop nuclear weapons." (1) 3. Ask Admiral Mullen if he believes what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says rather than "some notes". *** On May 4, 1999 we sent out the following article about the 1967 Secret Map by Gen. Earle Wheeler then Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff referencing the "Secret" Map of June 29, 1967. January 26, 1996, we published the following analysis of a May 20, 1993 interview with then Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Ehud Barak. Note the following points: Item #1. Barak's professional, military, strategic opinion as to what borders would be defensible for Israel's security and to ensure that Israel would remain a strategic asset to America were exactly what the US Joint Chiefs of Staff delineated when asked by President Johnson. See enclosed map which was Top Secret until March 1983. The May 1993 interview: "Ehud Barak as Israel's Foreign Minister under Shimon Peres is [was] negotiating the surrender of the Golan Heights. But on 5/20/93 when Lt. General Ehud Barak was Israel's Chief of Staff, he addressed an American Jewish Press conference. Asked to express his professional military, strategic opinion as to what borders would be defensible for Israel's security and to remain a US strategic asset, Gen. Barak quoted the 6/29/67 US Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum, which was top secret until The Wall Street Journal reported 3/9/83: "President Johnson asked 'what minimum territory Israel should retain for effective defense against conventional Arab attack and terrorist raids?' The Joint Chiefs under Gen. Earle Wheeler said: "returning Israel to pre-1967 boundaries would drastically increase its vulnerability. Israel would be threatened by West Bank artillery and tactical SAMs –– a sword constantly over its head and the need to maintain readiness with prohibitive mobilization costs. For stable future Arab-Israeli agreements, Israel must feel it can wait out a crisis rather than strike pre-emptively. Israel should retain...the Gaza Strip, mountains and plateaus of the West Bank, the tip of the Sinai, Sharm el Sheikh, the Golan Heights east of Quneitra, and all of Jerusalem." Four were negotiated away. [Now five, including the Gaza Strip –– as of August 2005]. The last three are presently on the table. Directly contravening the US Joint Chiefs, Rabin and Peres agreed to abandon the only deterrent/defensive positions which until now have guaranteed peace. They'll give the entire Golan Heights to Syria and most of the West Bank to the PLO and Jews who come under Arab sovereignty and police force can stay if they want.. The Arabs say all Jews must go. [Israel's current PM Ehud Olmert has said he's willing to give up crucial parts of Jerusalem as of December 2007] The top secret deep analysis by US Army, Navy, Air Force and Intelligence agencies assessed Israel's vulnerability according to U.S. interests. The US Administration did not want to be in the position of having to rescue Israel. The Wheeler recommendation was considered the best military option in order to protect Israel. In May 1993 when he was a General, Barak said that: "Israel's qualitative edge has disappeared as the West arms the Arabs with top-of-the-line planes, tanks and missiles –– the same models Israel receives in much smaller numbers. Israel can't afford to maintain present defense levels and has cut its defense budget from 15% of the GDP to 9%; in dollars from $7.2 billion to $5.8 billion and going down." Gen. Barak described "national, ethnic and Islamic Fundamentalism as the tribal motive driving the Arab countries' arms race. They are achieving nuclear capability; receiving and developing unconventional weapons; and virtually all are dictatorships." He continued, "Short run, with Iraq defeated and 'de facto' peace with Jordan, only Syria can make war. [While Israel sits on the Golan facing Damascus, Assad does not attack.] Long run, non-conventional weapons development will be resumed in Iraq as soon as the US leaves. Iraq, Iran and Syria will have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in 1-5 years. They have the whole spectrum of technological know-how in their minds." [As of May 1993. You do the math! Such catastrophic weapons of mass destruction are probably operative now. Ed. note.] Gen. Barak emphasized that, "Israel needs to maintain its armed strength. The combination of (our) conventional capability, Arab perception of (our) non-conventional capability and US aid gives Israel stability the way a three legged table is always stable. He asked: "Are the intentions of the Arab countries honorably peaceful? No! The Arabs declare openly their goals are to return to Jaffa, Haifa, Lod and especially Jerusalem, as the capital of ONLY the State of Palestine. They are arming prodigiously. Total Arab arms ratio in all categories runs against Israel from 10:1 in men, 5:1 in tanks, 3:1 in planes, 3:1 missiles, at minimum." [as of 1993] Some say territory is not important in this age of missiles. However, in the WASHINGTON TIMES Oct. 1988, 100 retired U.S. Generals and Admirals urged Israel NOT to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. The headline was "RETAIN THE ISRAEL ASSET": "The Samarian and Judean high ridges cannot be effectively demilitarized or adequately inspected. If Israel loses its extensive early warning line, it would have no warning of attack. Now [1993] the Arab armies are at least four times their size in 1967. Even with missiles and supersonic aircraft causing great devastation, they cannot occupy. Only infantry and armor can overrun a country. Those are vulnerable to natural barriers. To remain strong Israel must retain the Jordan River as its eastern border. Pressing Israel to withdraw from this line will neither bring peace nor serve America's interests." (2) The 'root cause' of Arab attacks against Israel isn't Arab frustration or poverty, but hatred of the non-Moslem 'infidel'. Peace talks with unilateral territorial concessions foster the impression that Israel is weak. Perceived weakness invites Arab attack. The American military knows these territories are minimal for Israel's security and would keep Israel strong enough to be the primary US strategic ally against violent Islamic Fundamentalism in the region. Why don't Israel's leaders?### We are trying to include the Original "Secret" Map of the Secret Memorandum of the Joint Chiefs of Staff dated 6/29/67 in this Email. If your Inbox does NOT receive it, we hope it will be available upon request within the week. Please request by FAX, Phone or Email & give us your FAX # & Email address. Call: Emanuel Winston ph: 847-432-1735 or FAX: 847-433-3981 Chicago. Email: gwinston@interaccess.com Websites: http://www.gamla.org &/or freeman.org 1. "IDF To Present Iranian Nuclear Evidence to U.S. Military Chief" by Ya'akov Katz Jerusalem Post Friday Dec. 7, 2007 (Pearl Harbor Day) 2. "Retain the Israel Asset" 100 retired U.S. Generals & Admirals Washington Times October 1988 Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinston.interaccess.com |
|
THE WINOGRAD MEGA MARKET
Posted by Batya Medad, January 31, 2008. |
|
Yes, that's the Winograd Report (see below), a long, convoluted composition of words in which almost all sectors in the Israeli political, military and civilian spheres can find something they agree with, and something they disagree with. Yes, a supermarket, a mega market, with an enormous variety of products in great and confusing quantities. Personally, the thing that bothers me the most is the blame on the army, as if the army is independent of its political bosses. Think about it: * Who provides the army with its budget? I can go on with those sorts of questions, but the answer is the same. It's The Israeli Government, Israeli politicians. So who is really responisble for the poor performance of the Army? * Ehud Olmert As many people with more patience than I have continue to go over the report, more and more "peculiar statements" will be discovered in the report, showing how political and unreliable it really is, a snow job for sure. G-d's joke is to give us weather to match. I'll start with the statement my husband found: Israel must –– politically and morally –– seek peace with its neighbors and make necessary compromises. (Para 38) That was not what they were supposed to "judge." That's a politically ideological statement at odds with reality and many of us Israelis. IMRA found something else which rankled them. ...(para 32). ... At the same time, we also note that...We have not found that the political echelon was aware of the details of the fighting in real time, and we have not seen a discussion, in either the political or the military echelons, of the issue of stopping the military operation after the Security Council resolution was adopted" The media here is ignoring the fact that Winograd Report condems the fact that the government, Olmert, Peretz etc hadn't a clue as to what was really happening. That's why Olmert is happy. The media is protecting him. The worst thing is that even though, according to the official government statements, Israel went to war to free Ehud, Eldad and Gilad, they are still being held captive by the terrorists.
Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il |
|
NO CHANGE
Posted by Jonathan Spyer, January 31, 2008. |
|
The response of Israeli officials to the latest events in Gaza may in essence be divided into two halves. The initial response was one of frustration at Egyptian unwillingness to restore order on the international border. The subsequent sense is that the latest Gaza events have served to clarify, rather than significantly alter, an already existing reality. As the news began to come in of the destruction of the southern border wall separating Gaza from Egypt, Israeli and western officials demanded that Egypt take steps to re-assert its control. And as the exodus of Gazans began, there was widespread anger at Egypt for its failure to speedily impose its authority. This failure was seen as of a piece with the generality of Egyptian behaviour since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in September, 2005. In November 2005, Israel, under US pressure, handed over control of the Philadelphi corridor to Egypt, which was to administer the area, in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority, and observed by an EU monitoring force. Events since this point are well known. Hamas won PA elections in January, 2006, and completed its seizure of power with a coup in June, 2007. This led to the departure of EU monitors from the border, and its sealing by Egypt. Throughout this period, it has been a constant complaint on Israel's part that the Egyptians have reacted half-heartedly and unwillingly to the ongoing Hamas project of smuggling large quantities of weaponry into Gaza. The initial response to the chaotic scenes on the border reflected this. The Israeli security forces were subsequently placed on increased alert along Israel's southern border. Israeli tourists were advised to return home from Sinai. There was fear that in the absence of any control, terrorist organisations would find it easy to exit Gaza, and prepare attacks on Israeli border communities. As the days progressed, however, a new type of Israeli response began to manifest itself. The growing sense was that the latest Hamas action changed little of substance, but confirmed an already existing –– if ultimately untenable –– situation: since June 2007, Hamas-run Gaza has constituted a de facto hostile entity, administered by an organisation committed to Israel's destruction. Ineffectual Egyptian administration of the southern border has led to a large scale influx of weaponry into the Strip. The Hamas-led entity has sought to engage Israel in a roiling, ongoing war of attrition through the use of rocket attacks and support for acts of terror launched from Gaza. For the moment, at least, it appears that the border is now to be administered through a joint effort by Hamas and the Egyptian security forces. Hamas will thus be engaged in partial control of an international frontier. But whatever the final arrangement, Israel will continue to demand that Egypt adequately police the crossings, and Egypt will continue to fail to do so. Hamas efforts to bring in weaponry will also continue, and its support for Qassam rocket attacks on western Negev communities will remain. This process makes a major Israeli operation into Gaza, at some point in the future, a near inevitability. Of course, the curious situation remains whereby Hamas-controlled Gaza still receives the greater part of its fuel and electricity supplies from the state to whose destruction it is committed. And the Israeli High Court today ruled that even the partial restrictions imposed on fuel supplies must now be lifted. But should Qassam rocket attacks begin again in earnest, Israel has made clear that the borders between itself and Hamas-run Gaza will be re-sealed, with only those provisions necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis allowed to enter. The situation between the state of Israel and the Islamist statelet of Gaza is by definition one of conflict. In the event of a major Hamas terror attack within Israel, it is likely to turn into open war, on the model of Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. Gaza is ruled by an organisation committed to destroying Israel, and replacing it with a state based on Sharia Law. This was the case before Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008. It is the case after it. The events of the last days, from the Israeli point of view, have served largely to illustrate and reinforce this reality. The final question is just how the continued existence of the Islamist statelet in Gaza can be reconciled with the hopes of the renewed peace process in which we were asked to believe following the Annapolis Conference. Peace processors of all nationalities –– Israeli, Palestinian and western –– have yet to offer a coherent answer. The anomalous situation in Gaza thus looks set to continue, until its contradictions play themselves out. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel. Contact him at info@gloriacenter.org This article appeared in The Guardian today. |
|
THE STATE OF THE UNION IS AGAINST THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Posted by Manhigut Yehudit, January 30, 2008. |
|
In his State of the Union address Sunday, US President George Bush announced that he would midwife an Arab state of Palestine into existence inside the Land of Israel and inside the State of Israel before the end of 2008. Bush waxed poetic –– we would more correctly say "delusional" –– about the "palestinian" leader Mahmoud Abbas, describing this unrepentant murdering terrorist as a "man of peace". Bush repeatedly referred not to the State of Israel, but to "the Holy Land". Against everything he professes to believe as an Evangelical Christian, he is now attempting to destroy the holiness of the Land of Israel. 
Both in Israel and America, Jews trusted Bush. In Israel, some
Rabbis and many "Land of Israel" activists threw the full weight of
their support behind him when he was a candidate. How times have
changed. It didn't faze Bush to sit in Ramallah with Abbas below a
picture of the murderer of the most Jews since Hitler, Yasser Arafat.
What happened to Bush? Wasn't he the "best friend" that
Israel ever had in the White House? As it turns out, George W. hasn't
flip-flopped at all with his views on Israel. In fact, in the Bush
family, when it comes to Israel the apple doesn't fall far from the
tree.
Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was involved with money laundering for the Nazis. Bush's father, George Sr., formed a coalition of "freedom-loving"
nations to defeat Iraq and restore the Kuwaiti royalty to their
thrones. Yet even to this day, Kuwait refuses to permit Jews to even
fly on their national airline. George Sr. pressured Israel not to
respond to 39 Iraqi scud missiles, and after the war he embraced
Jordan's Hussein (who supported Saddam Hussein), withheld loan
guarantees from Israel, and pushed Israel to go to the Madrid
conference which started this suicidal "peace" process, and propped
up Arafat (who also supported Saddam Hussein).
Bush Sr. makes money every day as a registered lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in Washington. Let's not forget his heavy investments in Middle Eastern oil companies. He had James "F--k the Jews, they don't vote for us" Baker as his key advisor and co-investor in oil. Bush Jr. now has Condi Rice as his key advisor. She's a perfect replacement for Baker, as she also has deep oil ties. Her ties are to Chevron. It is of great note that Chevron has significant trade interests with Iran. Of course, Bush Jr. also dusts off James Baker whenever he needs to add a little "gravitas" to his anti-Israel policies. Now, Bush Jr. is trying to finish what his grandfather began and his father continued, attempting to both get rich and serve up Israel for ultimate sacrifice to the direct descendants of the Nazis. We must remember here that Arafat and Abbas' mentor, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, was a close ally of Hitler. In addition to being responsible for instigating the murderous Arab riots against Jews in Israel during the 20s and 30s, Husseini found the time to set up Muslim SS Divisions and drew up plans with the Nazis to build another Auschwitz in Israel when the Germans arrived there. Today people call the Iranian leader Achmadinejad the new Hitler. This week Achmadinejad told the world that it should prepare for the day –– which he stated will come soon –– when Israel does not exist. Bush reacts to this madman by declaring that Israel is on its own against the soon-to-be nuclear Iran. Bush is counting on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to carry out his mission to destroy Israel. Bush so desires to fulfill this plan that he went so far as to interfere in Israeli politics by asking government officials to forget that Olmert is at best corrupt and inept in order to keep Olmert in office. Olmert and so many of his predecessors have no foundation in Jewish values. They see the United States as their new Golden Calf. Therefore, they bow to the Bush roadmap which offers Israel as a bargaining chip for its own interests. And Bush knows this well. Manhigut Yehudit only puts our faith in our Creator. The lesson for Jews everywhere is that we must put our faith only in The Jewish People, in our Holy Land of Israel in its entirety, and in G-d. Doing this will hasten our redemption. Anything else will hasten our destruction.
Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside
the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character.
Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a
theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The
Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org.
To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read
their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org.
Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922
(cell)
|
|
HAMAS CLAIMING SOME EGYPTIAN LAND
Posted by Koira, January 30, 2008. |
|
This is from yesterday's Elder of Ziyon blogsite,
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/01/ hamas-claiming-some-egyptian-land.html |
|
Palestine Press Agency reports of a TV interview with Hamas advisor Amhad Yousef. Yousef is saying that some 13,000 acres of Egyptian territory are really "Palestinian" and he wants an open border with Arab countries: (autotranslated) Ahmed Yousef, political adviser to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, called for the "demolition and removal of the border between Palestinian Rafah and the Egyptian territory and the seizure of thousands of acres built on the border" claiming that the ownership back to the Palestinians. This should go over well in Egypt. UPDATE: From Jerusalem Post: The Egyptians have also foiled an attempt by Hamas members to raise Palestinian and Hamas flags on top of several government institutions in Sinai's Rafah and el-Arish. Contact Koira by email at koira@dbmail.com |
|
THE ALIEN SPACE SHIPS HAVE FINALLY LANDED
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, January 30, 2008. |
|
The long-awaited alien space ships which have been such a mystery finally landed. They are presently in the desert of New Mexico, awaiting a delegation from the President of the United States and representatives of the world's nations. There is a nervous silence. A door is opening and a platform is being lowered. The delegation is anxiously now awaiting the emergence of these visitors from a distant world. Speculation is rife. Who are they? What do they want? What will they look like? Is this a friendly visit? The main ship is estimated to be a mile in length and a half mile in width. It landed silently and rests lightly on the ground. Several figures are emerging. There seems to be ten aliens who come out. They are quite small with thin spindly legs. They have some sort of cloaks with black and white stripes. They are wearing small black hats that look like beanies or what some call "skull caps". The delegations start to speak to each other. Something's wrong! They don't seem to understand each other's language. The aliens seem agitated as they are waving their arms about and shrugging their shoulders. Wait! The U.S. delegation is calling for a number of what we are told are language experts. They are trying to communicate with the visitors. More hand waving and shoulder shrugging. The spokesman for the linguists is telling the President that, as far as they can discern the visitors are speaking some sort of dialect that seems like ancient Aramaic not heard on Earth for thousands of years. The visitors have turned back to their ship, seemingly arguing with each other with much hand waving. It is very tense as the world's delegations wait in consternation, not knowing what to do. The aliens go back into their ship. In about 10 minutes the strangers re-emerge, holding some sort of box with speakers. I think it's some kind of translator. This time there is communication. The President, on behalf of the world's delegations offers Earth's welcome. The Visitors respond through the translator: "Danks vera much. Ve are from the Planet Gez-Undt and represent the Council of Galaxies. Ve are every thousand years in your time calculations to quietly visit Earth to see how tings are goink." The President has all this translated into the hundreds of languages for Earth's delegation. Then he asks: "What is your name and how can we assist your mission?" The head alien answers: "My nomen is Stein-Two. I would like to meet your Stein-One." The President is puzzled and consults with his advisors. "Who is Stein-One?" Stein-Two interrupts and apologizes. He says: "I should have translated this into Earth's language. You would call him Ein-Stein." "'Ein' is 'one' in your language, isn't it?" One of the President's advisors whispers into his ear and the President brightens up. "Oh, you mean Einstein. I am sad to inform you that Einstein is no longer with us. He died many years ago." Stein-two gathers the other nine visitors and there is much discussion and arm-waving. Stein-two returns to the President and asks: "So who have you appointed to the post of Ein-Stein?" The President is nonplused and answers: "No one special." Another conference by the aliens. Stein-two turns up the volume on his translator so all can hear. "We would like then to speak to the other Steins in your world. Our scanners and calculators estimate that there should be approximately 160 million." The President and his advisors gather in their own group to consult –– also with much hand-waving. The President returns to Stein-Two. "Honorable Visitor, Stein-Two, I am advised that a quick estimate of the people to whom we think you are referring would approximate only 12 to 15 million." Stein-Two: "So what happened to the other 145 million who should be here to meet us?" President: "I am sad to tell you that over the years and after many wars, they have died away." Stein-Two: "Ve have heard terrible sounds in the furthest reaches of the Cosmos, coming from the Earth Quadrant. The Council analyzed them as sounds of terrible violence and, what in Earth language is called, 'pain'." Stein-Two: "So tell me, Mr. President. Who inflicted this Pain upon your Steins? Didn't they do the work assigned to them by the One who rules all? Did they not advance Earth's civilization with advancement in all things that Earth people need?" The President: (Agitated and with a trembling voice) says: "I do not know how to tell you this but the message the Steins brought to mankind was 'misinterpreted' and, over the centuries, men wanted new messages and messengers. Regrettably, the Steins were killed." Stein-Two: "Oi Vey! You killed the Steins? It is against the universal law of the Cosmos. Only on emerging planets, inhabited by beasts who kill each other for food do we allow this to happen. Tell me, Mr. President, did you eat the Steins for food?" The President: "No, no! We just wanted another G-d of our own choosing. The Steins were an irritant with their law we really didn't want. Their laws were too hard." Stein-Two: "Mr. President. Those Law you didn't want are accepted universal Laws, recognized across the Cosmos by all intelligent life forms. The Steins were merely to convey the message and the Law." The President: "We can bring you some Steins but, they too are a declining minority in a small land presently under attack." Stein-Two: Mr. President and World Delegations: "The message I take back is that your civilization is too primitive to continue. Your people are a danger to yourselves and, with the weapons we see you have developed, you are a danger to others in our Universe. While the Steins are Earthlings like yourselves, we will soon have to move them to a place of safety. Our Council will have to decide whether to eliminate Earth from the Cosmos or merely to make life extinct for a predatory species –– as we did 160 million years past. The Steins will not, however, be made extinct –– whatever our decision." With that the ten little visitors started to trudge sadly back to their ship. They didn't look the same as they left. There was no excited waving of their hands. Their shoulders slumped and their black and white striped cloaks now draped around them somehow looked sad. The doors of their ship closed and the giant ship rose in silence. Then it was gone. The President and the World's Delegations returned in silence to consult with their governments. Some decided to visit the remaining Steins for consultation. We await the return of Stein-Two and the decision of the Council. Hopefully, they will allow us time to change and discuss the matter on their return before they deliver their verdict. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinston.interaccess.com |
|
FULL TEXT: WINOGRAD COMMITTEE JANUARY 30, 2008
Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, January 30, 2008. |
|
Take the time to at least read this and think about it for 60 seconds before opening your mouth and you are way ahead of the overwhelming majority of talking heads appearing on the various Israeli television channels tonight. There is one particularly bizarre phrase in the remarks of Judge Eliyahu Winograd: "We should also note that the war had significant diplomatic achievements. SC resolution 1701, and the fact it was adopted unanimously, were an achievement for Israel. This conclusion stands even if it turns out that only a part of the stipulations of the resolution were implemented or will be implemented, and even if it could have been foreseen that some of them would not be implemented." Does this mean that Winograd considers a piece of paper to be a " significant diplomatic achievement" even if it can be foreseen that the piece of paper won't be implemented? This is an extremely dangerous position to take, given that there is tremendous concern that the current "piece process" is exactly that: an attempt to reach a photo opportunity signing ceremony in which a piece of paper is signed with great fanfare even though it can be foreseen that the piece of paper won't be implemented.] |
|
Winograd Committee Press Release –– January 30, 2008
Good Evening. 1. About an hour ago we submitted the Final Report of the Commission to Investigate the Lebanon Campaign in 2006 to the Prime minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, and to the Minister of Defense, Mr. Ehud Barak. 2. The task given to us was difficult and complex. It involved the examination of events in 34 days of fighting, and the scrutiny of events before the war, since the IDF had left Lebanon in 2000. This covered extensive, charged and complex facts, unprecedented in any previous Commission of Inquiry. 3. The fact that the Government of Israel opted for such an examination, and that the army conducted a large number of inquires of a variety of military events, are a sign of strength, and an indication that the political and military leaders of Israel are willing to expose themselves to critical review and to painful but required mending. 4. We have included in the classified version of the Report all the relevant facts we have found concerning the 2nd Lebanon war, systematically and in a chronological order. This presentation of the factual basis was an important part of our work. It is reasonable to assume that no single decision maker had access to a similar factual basis. In this task we had a unique advantage over others who have written about this war, since we had access to a lot of primary and comprehensive material, and the opportunity to clarify the facts by questioning many witnesses, commanders and soldiers, including bereaved families. 5. For obvious reasons, the unclassified Report does not include the many facts that cannot be revealed for reasons of protecting the state's security and foreign affairs. We tried, nonetheless, to balance between the wish to present the public with a meaningful picture of the events and the needs of security. We should note that we did not take the mere fact that some data has already been published in the media as a reason for including it in our unclassified Report. 6. We, the members of the Commission, acted according to the main objectives for which the Commission was established –– to respond to the bad feelings of the Israeli public of a crisis and disappointment caused by the results of the 2nd Lebanon war, and from the way it was managed by the political and military echelons; and the wish to draw lessons from the failings of the war and its flaws, and to repair what is required, quickly and resolutely. We regarded as most important to investigate deeply what had happened, as a key to drawing lessons for the future, and their implementation. 7. This conception of our role was one of the main reasons for our decision not to include in the Final Report personal conclusions and recommendations. We believe that the primary need for improvements applies to the structural and systemic malfunctioning revealed in the war –– on all levels. Nonetheless, it should be stressed that the fact we refrained from imposing personal responsibility does not imply that no such responsibility exists. We also wish to repeat our statement from the Interim Report: We will not impose different standards of responsibility to the political and the military echelons, or to persons of different ranks within them. 8. Let us emphasize: when we imposed responsibility on a system, an echelon or a unit, we did not imply that the responsibility was only or mainly of those who headed it at the time of the war. Often, such responsibility stemmed from a variety of factors outside the control of those at the head. In addition, a significant part of the responsibility for the failures and flaws we have found lies with those who had been in charge of preparedness and readiness in the years before the war. 9. The purpose of this press release is not to sum up the Final Report. Rather, it is to present its highlights. The Report itself includes discussions of many important issues, which are an inseparable part of the Report, its conclusions and recommendations. 10. In the Final Report we dealt mainly with the events of the period after the initial decision to go to war, which we had discussed in the Interim Report. Yet the events of the period covered by the Final Report took place under the shadow of the constraints created by the decision to go to war, with all its failings and flaws. We want to stress that we stand behind everything we said in the Interim Report, and the two parts of the Report complement each other. 11. Overall, we regard the 2nd Lebanon war as a serious missed opportunity. Israel initiated a long war, which ended without its clear military victory. A semi-military organization of a few thousand men resisted, for a few weeks, the strongest army in the Middle East, which enjoyed full air superiority and size and technology advantages. The barrage of rockets aimed at Israel's civilian population lasted throughout the war, and the IDF did not provide an effective response to it. The fabric of life under fire was seriously disrupted, and many civilians either left their home temporarily or spent their time in shelters. After a long period of using only standoff fire power and limited ground activities, Israel initiated a large scale ground offensive, very close to the Security Council resolution imposing a cease fire. This offensive did not result in military gains and was not completed. These facts had far-reaching implications for us, as well as for our enemies, our neighbors, and our friends in the region and around the world. 12. In the period we examined in the Final Report –– from July 18, 2006, to August 14, 2006 –– again troubling findings were revealed, some of which had already been mentioned in the Interim Report:
13. The decision made in the night of July 12th –– to react (to the kidnapping) with immediate and substantive military action, and to set for it ambitious goals –– limited Israel's range of options. In fact, after the initial decision had been made, Israel had only two main options, each with its coherent internal logic, and its set of costs and disadvantages. The first was a short, painful, strong and unexpected blow on Hezbollah, primarily through standoff fire-power. The second option was to bring about a significant change of the reality in the South of Lebanon with a large ground operation, including a temporary occupation of the South of Lebanon and 'cleaning' it of Hezbollah military infrastructure. 14. The choice between these options was within the exclusive political discretion of the government; however, the way the original decision to go to war had been made; the fact Israel went to war before it decided which option to select, and without an exit strategy –– all these constituted serious failures, which affected the whole war. Responsibility for these failures lay, as we had stressed in the Interim Report, on both the political and the military echelons. 15. After the initial decision to use military force, and to the very end of the war, this period of 'equivocation' continued, with both the political and the military echelon not deciding between the two options: amplifying the military achievement by a broad military ground offensive, or abstaining from such a move and seeking to end the war quickly. This 'equivocation' did hurt Israel. Despite awareness of this fact, long weeks passed without a serious discussion of these options, and without a decision –– one way or the other –– between them. 16. In addition to avoiding a decision about the trajectory of the military action, there was a very long delay in the deployment necessary for an extensive ground offensive, which was another factor limiting Israel's freedom of action and political flexibility: Till the first week of August, Israel did not prepare the military capacity to start a massive ground operation. 17. As a result, Israel did not stop after its early military achievements, and was 'dragged' into a ground operation only after the political and diplomatic timetable prevented its effective completion. The responsibility for this basic failure in conducting the war lies at the doorstep of both the political and the military echelons. 18. The overall image of the war was a result of a mixture of flawed conduct of the political and the military echelons and the interface between them, of flawed performance by the IDF, and especially the ground forces, and of deficient Israeli preparedness. Israel did not use its military force well and effectively, despite the fact that it was a limited war initiated by Israel itself. At the end of the day, Israel did not gain a political achievement because of military successes; rather, it relied on a political agreement, which included positive elements for Israel, which permitted it to stop a war which it had failed to win. 19. This outcome was primarily caused by the fact that, from the very beginning, the war has not been conducted on the basis of deep understanding of the theatre of operations, of the IDF's readiness and preparedness, and of basic principles of using military power to achieve a political and diplomatic goal. 20. All in all, the IDF failed, especially because of the conduct of the high command and the ground forces, to provide an effective military response to the challenge posed to it by the war in Lebanon, and thus failed to provide the political echelon with a military achievement that could have served as the basis for political and diplomatic action. Responsibility for this outcomes lies mainly with the IDF, but the misfit between the mode of action and the goals determined by the political echelon share responsibility. 21. We should note that, alongside the failures in the IDF performance, there were also important military achievements. Special mention should go to the great willingness of the soldiers, especially reserve soldiers, to serve and fight in the war, as well as the many instances of heroism, courage, self-sacrifice and devotion of many commanders and soldiers. 22. The air force should be congratulated on very impressive achievements in this war. However, there were those in the IDF high command, joined by some in the political echelon, who entertained a baseless hope that the capabilities of the air force could prove decisive in the war. In fact, the impressive achievements of the air force were necessarily limited, and were eroded by the weaknesses in the overall performance of the IDF. 23. The "Hannit" episode colored to a large extent the whole performance of the Navy, despite the fact that it made a critical contribution to the naval blockade, and provided the Northern Command with varied effective support of its fighting. 24. We should also note that the war had significant diplomatic achievements. SC resolution 1701, and the fact it was adopted unanimously, were an achievement for Israel. This conclusion stands even if it turns out that only a part of the stipulations of the resolution were implemented or will be implemented, and even if it could have been foreseen that some of them would not be implemented. This conclusion also does not depend on the intentions or goals of the powers that supported the resolution. 25. We note, however, that we have seen no serious staff work on Israeli positions in the negotiations. This situation improved in part when the team headed by the prime minister's head of staff was established. The team worked efficiently and with dedication, professionalism and coordination. This could not compensate, however, for the absence of preparatory staff work and discussions in the senior political echelon. 26. This fact may have much significance to the way Israel conducts negotiations, and to the actual content of the arrangements reached. In such negotiations, decisions are often made that may have far-reaching implications on Israel's interests, including the setting of precedents. 27. The staff work done in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the adoption of a favorable resolution in the Security Council was, in the main, quick, systematic and efficient. At the same time, for a variety of reasons, it did not reflect clear awareness of the essential need to maintain an effective relationship between military achievements and diplomatic activities. 28. We now turn to the political and military activity concerning the ground operation at the end of the war. This is one of the central foci of public debate. 29. True, in hindsight, the large ground operation did not achieve its goals of limiting the rocket fire and changing the picture of the war. It is not clear what the ground operation contributed to speeding up the diplomatic achievement or improving it. It is also unclear to what extent starting the ground offensive affected the reactions of the government of Lebanon and Hezbollah to the ceasefire. 30. Nonetheless, it is important to stress that the evaluation of these decisions should not be made with hindsight. It cannot depend on the achievements or the costs these decisions in fact had. The evaluation must be based only on the reasons for the operation, and its risks and prospects as they were known –– or as they should have been known –– when it was decided upon. Moreover, it is impossible to evaluate the ground operation at the end of the war without recalling the developments that preceded it and the repeated delays in the adoption of the Security Council resolution; and as a part of the overall conduct of the war. 31. Against this background, we make the following findings on the main decisions:
32. We want to stress: The duty to make these difficult decisions was the political leaders'. The sole test of these decisions is public and political. At the same time, we also note that:
34. A description of failures in the conduct of war may be regarded as harming Israel. There will be those who may use our findings to hurt Israel and its army. We nonetheless point out these failures and shortcomings because we are certain that only in this way Israel may come out of this ordeal strengthened. We are pleased that processes of repair have already started. We recommend a deep and systematic continuation of such processes. It is exclusively in the hands of Israeli leaders and public to determine whether, when facing challenges in the future, we will come to them more prepared and ready, and whether we shall cope with them in a more serious and responsible way than the way the decision-makers had acted –– in the political and the military echelons –– in the 2nd Lebanon war. 35. Our recommendations contain suggestions for systemic and deep changes in the modalities of thinking and acting of the political and military echelons and their interface, in both routine and emergency, including war. These are deep and critical processes. Their significance should not be obscured by current affairs, local successes or initial repairs. A persistent and prolonged effort, on many levels, will be needed in order to bring about the essential improvements in the ways of thinking and acting of the political-military systems. 36. For these reasons we would like to caution against dangers which might upset plans and delay required change processes, and thus produce dangerous results:
37. The 2nd Lebanon War has brought again to the foreground for thought and discussion issues that some parts of Israeli society had preferred to suppress: Israel cannot survive in this region, and cannot live in it in peace or at least non-war, unless people in Israel itself and in its surroundings believe that Israel has the political and military leadership, military capabilities, and social robustness that will allow her to deter those of its neighbors who wish to harm her, and to prevent them –– if necessary through the use of military force –– from achieving their goal. 38. These truths do not depend on one's partisan or political views. Israel must –– politically and morally –– seek peace with its neighbors and make necessary compromises. At the same time, seeking peace or managing the conflict must come from a position of social, political and military strength, and through the ability and willingness to fight for the state, its values and the security of its population even in the absence of peace. 39. These truths have profound and far-reaching implications for many dimensions of life in Israel and the ways its challenges are managed. Beyond examining the way the Lebanon War was planned and conducted; beyond the examination of flaws in decision-making and performance that had been revealed in it –– important as they may be; these are the central questions that the Lebanon war has raised. These are issues that lie at the very essence of our existence here as a Jewish and democratic state. These are the questions we need to concentrate on. 40. We hope that our findings and conclusions in the Interim and the Final Reports will bring about not only a redress of failings and flaws, but help Israeli society, its leaders and thinkers, to advance the long-term goals of Israel, and develop the appropriate ways to address the challenges and respond to them. 41. We are grateful for the trust put in us when this difficult task was given to us. If we succeed in facilitating rectification of the failings we have identified –– this will be our best reward. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of Independent Media Review and Analsis (IMRA). Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il or write him at imra@netvision.net.il |