Sunday, April 12, 2009

Haaretz does it again

Once again, Haaretz, in this article
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1077908.html
gives a voice to the sarcastic, whiny and self-loathing essays by Mr. Gideon Levy. One wonders why he chooses to live in a country which he considers to be so brutual, corrupt, and dark. Its hard to imagine what justification he sees in a Jewish State. Jewish self-loathing is unfortunately not rare, and Mr. Levy can compete easily in this realm with the likes of Karl Marx, H. Heine, and Avraham Burg. Its roots are usually in low self-esteem and a desire for acceptance, Every country has its self-respecting traditions that reinforce its identity, history, and culture, but Levy seems to want some generic rootless state, perhaps in Scandanavia. The Palestinians who Mr. Levy adores certainly would not have a more secular state than Israel. So what does he want with us?

If such an essay were to appear in an American paper from a non-Jewish author, it would be considered anti-semitic. I fail to understand why Haaretz includes Mr. Levy's essays in their paper. In the name of freedom of the press? Haaretz would serve themselves (and Israel) better by finding columnists who can write essays that contribute constructively to the debates in Israeli society. Mr. Levy writes more like a resentful and bitter "talkbackist" than a trained and principled editorialist. Including his writings in this newspaper speaks mountains about Haaretz's anti-zionism and anti-semitism.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

A HAPPY PESACH TO ALL MY READERS

Arab "Resistance" (Moqawama)

I believe that the Palestinian conflict will eventually be resolved by a 2 state solution. There are no other logical or practical possibilities. The Palestinians, Arabs or Iranians will not "destroy" Israel (modern countries can't been "destroyed" by another state). Israel will not make the Palestinians go someplace else, nor will they kill them all. I think that Bibi knows this and has chosen not to speak of it due to present political circumstances. But the "road map", which Israel adopted and even Lieberman acknowledged, envisions a Palestinian state. There may be more wars on the way, with lots of suffering on both sides, but eventually the sides will adopt this solution.

The problem at the present is that the Palestinians do not actually appear to want a state. Think about it. When the Jews were offered a state, they accepted what they were offered in 1947. The Palestinians have had 5 opportunities for a state. 1. with the UN partition. 2. in the period of 1948-1967 when Arab countries occupied their areas. 3. With the culmination of Oslo, when Barak offered them a state in 2000 covering 90%+ of the territory they demanded. 4. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, they could have build a mini-state there. 5. When Olmert (evidently) offered Abba a state covering 97% of the territories.

What did they do with these opportunities? They did not build up national and cultural institutions or infrastructure. They did not sieze these opportunities, when they could have had a state on a silver platter, with the blessings of the entire Western world. Instead, they continue to fight for their "rights"-- the rights to all of Palestine, the rights to the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa, the right for a few million "refugees" to return to their original towns and homes in modern day Israel. Now, of course, Israel would not voluntarily agree to self-destruct. Nor can the Palestinians or other Arabs overrun Israel, kick all of the Jews out, and bring all of the Palestinians back. So, unable to compromise and unwilling to accept a partial fulfillment of their dreams, the opted to this day for "Moqawama"-- the arabic word for resistance.

Resistance, in the Muslim context, refers to any act against those who are engaged in the perceived violation of "rights" or against injustice. Any action is legitimate, no matter how violent. More importantly, the resistance doesn't have to be effective, either. It is resistance for the sake of resistance. Now, I'm sure the Muslim themselves view this idea as a moral and lofty goal. The problem is that as long as the Palestinians and their leadership are stuck in their wallowing over how they have been wronged, without being able to get past all of their resentment and anger, they cannot arrive at a practical compromise. So they hold out for all-out "victory", even if it never comes, even if it costs them their lives, their economy, their social fabric and well being. Resistance has become a standard part of the Muslim language, to justify all kinds of things. The Lebanon War was an act of resistance? For what goal? So the Gazans fire rockets at Sderot's civilians. For what goal? What has it brought them?

It is though they are perpetually and tragically stuck, in a state of mourning over their perceived losses and injustices, and they are unable to move on. In insisting on a "just" solution, they eliminate the possibility of realistic compromise. Most Palestinians will settle for nothing less than the dismantlement of Israel. Certain other Muslim groups, like the Iranians, use the Palestinians for their own regional aspirations, by keeping their false hopes alive, making compromise even more remote.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Why Avigdor Lieberman is a good foreign minister for Israel

The Israeli left and the Arabs are already screaming hysterically like hyenas about the new right wing government in Israel, and against its foriegn minister, Avigdor Lieberman. He is a racist, the say, and against peace.

Yes, he is against "peace" if it means creating a state that threatens Israel's security. Yes, he is against "peace", when it means only Israeli concessions in exchange for more Palestinian demands, incitement, and threats. Yes, he is against peace if it means handing over land encroaching Israel's heartland, to an impotent, violent and divided Palestinian society. When the Palestinians call for Israel to accept "peace", what they actually mean is surrender and self-destruction.

Is he is really a racist? When an Arab member of Knesset openly identifies with Israel's enemies and supports their armed struggle against Israel, is it racist to demand that he be kicked out of Knesset and stripped of his citizenship? What about when an MP, such as Azmi Bashara, spies on behalf of an enemy terrorist army? Should he be entitled to a pension from the State of Israel? Is that insane?

I think that its good that we finally have a FM that doesn't speak mealy mouthed about a peace that in reality is unattainable at this time. Israeli has shown that it is willing to compromise, but unilateral moves on its part are only recipricated with scorn, contempt, and demands for more concessions. I also think that the world, including the US, will get used to a different but clear message-- that we want peace, but will not compromise our security, period. Lieberman is correct in his assertion that the blind pursuit of an elusive peace only invites war; and that preparing for war by showing strength (politically and militarily) brings peace closer.

All other fake calls for "painful concessions" only make peace less likely.

Monday, February 2, 2009

Reframing the Israeli- Arab conflict

When I read the news of the events in our region, I note that it is very easy to get carried away in the existential meaning of every occurrence. Every battle, attack, or diplomatic episode is seen as fateful, a victory or a loss, and in some way tipping the balance in favor of a resolution in some direction. At a psychological level, we all experience a gap between reality and what we wish would be. So we look for signs of that gap narrowing or widening, which in turn affects our anxieties. Yet we know that this conflict has been going on for almost 100 years, and it may go on for 100 more. Although this may be a painful reality, it is reality nonetheless. So not every blip on the screen has that much meaning in the scheme of things.

It is interesting to think about how insignificant this conflict would seem to the rest of the world, had it not been involving Jew and Arab. Arab- because he has oil. Without oil, the west wouldn't give a shit about what goes on here, and the Arabs would have zero influence. The Jew- because he is a Jew. The story of the Jewish people, from the Bible through the holocaust and creation of Israel, fascinates the Christian gentile world. The Bible is their narrative, too. They are intertwined with it, for good and bad. Note that for the Far East, Israel carries much less interest. The Jews are not part of their story, so they don't really care one way or another.

So every little event here is seen in cataclysmic terms.

But really, the earth couldn't care less. And evidently neither does god, who is claimed by both sides as their guide and inspiration.

Friday, January 30, 2009

The Moral Cowardice of Spain and Hypocrisy of Turkey

Evidently, guilt feelings of the Spanish over their own past has caused them to join the chorus of Israel and Jew-bashing.

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Spanish had troops who were fighting alongside the Americans, as part of the international war on terror. Then there was a big terrorist attack in Spain, after Al Qaida demanded that Spain withdraw their troops from Iraq. The Spanish quickly complied. Since then, Spain has been towing an anti-American and anti-Israeli line. Recently, some provinces cancelled holocaust memorial services because of Israeli "Nazi" crimes. Yesterday they notified us that some of Israel's military and senior political officials will be tried for "crimes against humanity".

There is no doubt that endemic anti-semitism, along with Spain's Muslim population, is responsible for these outrageous allegations. Spain is being sucked into Europe's left wing "multiculturalism", a catch phrase for surrender to the Muslim's increasing demand for special privileges and "sensitivity" to their religion. Holland seems to have past the point of no return, as it recently announced the prosecution of the MP who produced the film "Fitna".

It is only a matter of time before many European countries wake up one morning and discover that they no longer have a liberal western Christian democracy, but a Muslim theocracy instead.

Turkey seems to be gradually going the way of Iran. Its not going radical in one revolutionary step like Iran did. Rather, through democratic means, it is slowly adopting the values and narrative of the angry bitter Muslim world who all share feelings of inferiority to the West. Erdogan's recent anti-Israel rhetoric showed great similarity to that of Ahmedinejad. He demonizes Israeli actions and deligitimizes Israel's self defence, and justifies his accusations by invoking Turkey's "honor". At the same time Turkey fights it own anti-terrorist war against the Kurds with an iron fist no less firm than Israel's. Yet the Europeans want Turkey in the EU, and have conditioned acceptance on "reforms" in Turkey which would weaken the army's secular hold on the country.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Why Debkafile is Stupid

As many people probably know, Debkafile is a news and commentary website with an emphasis on "scoops" on security and terrorism issues.

It bears a neo-conservative approach with a tendency towards conspiracy theories.

I occasionally read it for entertainment value, although unaware surfers might become alarmed at their frequent dire warnings of impending disasters.

Some of you may be familiar with the documentary hypothesis for higher Biblical criticism. This utilizes the idea that sources from multiple authors were weaved together to produce the final version of the Bible that we have today. This theory solves the problems of multiple inconsistencies, anachronisms and contradictions that appear throughout the text.

I believe that the same methodology can be applied to Debkafiles "news" items. Although sources are never quoted and the articles' writers are never revealed , it seems that there are at least 3 different writers who produce this nonsense.

1. E-- the "editorialist"-- periodically a "report" will appear that is essentially a far right wing conspiratorial opinion piece, weaving together mostly known facts with a small dose of conjecture, to produce a story that paints a picture of complete failure, doom and gloom, and impending disaster. Israel's leaders are consistently shown to be incompetent, ignorant, malevolent, or all of the above. Israel leaders are also generally assumed to be deceiving the Israeli public about the enemy's endless capabilities. The enemy's leaders are portrayed as cunning, all-knowing, frighteningly powerful and competent. All events are shown to neatly fall into the scheme that the enemy has designed. So every new item, even just a comment, however seemingly minor, are seen as cataclysmic and fateful, somehow having a lasting and dramatic effect on the turn of events. Any tactical setback on Israel's part is presented as proof of our incompetence and impending defeat. Any tactical "success" of the enemy is greatly exagerrated by E to prove that the enemy is ever closer to its inevitable goal of defeating Israel. For Debka, usually the "end game" that moves closer with each fateful turn of events is total warfare.

2. S-- the "scooper"-- S scours the internet and other anonymous sources for tidbits of information. Some of these "scoops" prove to be correct and appear in the mainstream press shortly after appearing on Debka. Some appear to be total fantasy, like the impending terrorist attack in NYC which put the authorities on high alert in 2007. S often interprets these scoops, like his colleague "E" with a conspiratorial slant, weaving together seemingly unrelated or routine news items into a big story. S's favorite item is movements of warships, which are frequently used to indicated impending war. Another favorite is ominously reporting on some event that occurred "the very first time", showing us that we are ever closer to the inevitable Armageddon.

I think S could be divided into S1 and S2. S1 gets these scoops from lesser known but legitimate news sources, such as military publications, foreign media, etc. S2 get his information from whacky internet blabber or from some unnamed blabbing "official" who may or may not know whats going on. An example of this would be a so called detailed account of a secret conversation between an Iranian and a Syrian official.

Generally, I agree with many bloggers' assessments that Debkafile makes us dumber, not smarter. You can't really learn anything new from them, its mostly conspiracy theory.

Let me know what you think.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Israel vs. Hamas: Who Won?

Much has been said and written about Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). This refers to asymmetric armed conflict between state and non state actors.

In earlier "conventional" wars between armies, the outcome of combat was determined by surrender, occupation of enemy territory, cease-fires and end of conflict treaties. There were also clear distinctions between civilians and combatants. The Geneva Conventions, which defined international laws of war, were written in the context of this form of warfare. The major Western powers and Russia are the undisputed rulers in the world of conventional wars.

From the Vietnam War and onwards, this type of warfare has evolved into something new, 4GW. This term was coined by William Lind in 1989. Battles and victory are no longer defined by casualties, territory, or sovereignty. There are no clear lines between war and peace, or between civilians and combatants. Rather, we have an ongoing "struggle" or "resistance", whose mere existence is seen by its supporters as victory. Winning is defined in terms of perception, psychology, and on "moral" or ideological grounds. Civilians on both sides are considered by the non-state actor to be "soldiers": On their own side, to be sacrificed for political gains, and on their enemy's side, as legitimate targets whose strategic value is to demoralize the enemy.

In 4GW, the non state actor's strategy and goal is to demoralize and sap the resolve of the state, so that it gives up on the struggle as being "unwinable" or too costly. It does not aim to actually defeat the army of the state in the conventional sense.

In the case of Israel, the Hamas-Iran-Hizbullah axis seeks to continually erode Israel's self confidence, support abroad, and unity of its own people. This presumably would lead to further weakening of Israel's resolve to pursue its national interests. In the end game, Hamas sees that Israel will dissolve from within, through emigration, and social and economic collapse, thus forcing it to evolve into a bi-national Palestinian State, with the Palestinians rapidly overwhelming the Jews. Their model for this "internal rot" is the USSR and Apartheid South Africa (although they did not disappear because of guerilla warfare).

It is clear that in 4GW, from the terrorist non-state actors point of view, short of total annihilation, they can never "lose". If they exist, they win. They live on to hope and continue to struggle.

Their problem is that not all Palestinians share Hamas' point of view in this regard. Hamas' political leaders can continue to celebrate "victory" from within their holes in the ground, but what is the average Israeli or Palestinian to think?

I think that a very simple test is to ask the following question: Of you were an alien landing on earth and had to choose whether to be a Palestinian or an Israeli, what would you choose? A Palestinian, whose land was just ravaged by a foreign army killing thousands of people, while the "fighters" hid underground, to occasionally surface to fire off an ineffective rocket and then go into hiding again? Whose economy is essentially non-existent while the rulers of the land are considers pariahs by most of the world? Whose "fighters" failed to defend its civilians? Or an Israeli, whose economy is modern and thriving, who suffers occasional light civilian casualties from terrorism, and whose army is among the best in the world?

To me the answer is pretty clear. I know that many Palestinians and Hamas supporters do not think like that, but there is nothing we can do about that. Furthermore I think that the difference in perception about this war, incomparison to the Lebanon War, is gaping.

Therefore, any claims of "victory" by Hamas leaders in hiding will sound hollow to most Palestinians. Israelis, on the other hand, love to debate and argue, and particularly like to blame themselves for things not being perfect. Nonetheless, Israel has gained the upper hand for the time being. What the future will bring, only God knows.

Monday, December 1, 2008

The Sound of Silence

It is deafening.



The silence in the Mumbai Chabad house in the aftermath of the slaughter there. Here, a young couple, on a mission of selfless service, two pure souls, are murdured together with their guests. An existential encounter between the most evil in Islam and the purist and noblest of Judaism.



The silence after the cries of the orphaned toddler calling for his mother, who cannot answer.



The breathtaking silence of the Muslim world. Where is the call among the "moderate" Arab and Muslim countries and leaders, to expunge this evil in their midst? Imagine if a Jew or Israeli was involved in such a massacre against Muslims. The Jewish leadership, the Israeli politicians, would be apologizing to the Muslim world. We would be calling for soul searching, for disavowing these people who don't represent us, who distort Judaism. How could we have let them take root among us? The Muslim world, especially Pakistan, owes the world, and particularly the Jewish people, an apology. But they are silent. They pretend to support the fight against the terrorists, and the need to address the root causes, the grievances of the terrorists, as though such grievances could explain the inhuman behavior of the attackers at the Chabad house.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Ask the lawyers

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has released another one of his old and used trial balloons in response to the renewed rocket fire from Gaza. "Let's fire back!", he says. Neither the resumption of fire nor Barak's response is a big surprise. The novelty this time is that he openly says that we need to check with AG Mazuz to assess the legality of our response. If this is the mentality in our government, it is not too out of the question to imagine the following news item:

Tel Aviv (AP). Israel's coastal cities continued to be pounded for the 15th straight day by Iranian Shihab 3 missiles, inflicting casualties and causing massive damage to the country's infrastructure and economy. Civilian life has come to a virtual standstill, as nearly two-thirds of the Israel's population is prevented from going to work or school, and instead cowering in bomb shelters. Israel's government has yet to order its vaunted military to respond, despite the protracted assualt on its civilian population. Currently, the defense minister, prime minister, and attorney general are engaged in protracted and inconclusive negotiations over the legality of firing missiles back at Iran or bombing infrastructure targets, since these are likely to lead to large civilian casualties. "I am looking into the issue, its not so simple as you people think", Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying. Attorney general Mani Mazuz has expressed concern that an Israeli decision to respond is likely to be criticized or stopped altogether by Israel High Court of Justice. This fear is not unfounded, as the high court is currently reviewing a request by a group, Concerned Citizens for Iran, to order the government not to fire missiles at Iran. Furthermore, the AG fears that any Israeli leader who orders such a response will be considered a war criminal under internation law, and would be subject to arrest upon landing in Britain or Belgium. Mazuz is not expected to issue an opinion for at least 2 months, pending an extensive legal review and consultation with Chief Justice Dorit Beinish. In the meantime, Barak is engaged in expedited negotiations with the treasury and contracting companies, in a bid the reinforce existing buildings in the Tel Aviv areas and thus help them withstand a sustained bombing attack. "We advise the citizens to have patience, we're working on the problem, and I promise you, there will definitely be a solution by next spring", said Barak.

This story is not too far from reality. It appears that Mr. Barak's statement is intended more for political purposes, in a transparent bid to appear tough and improve his Labor party's dismal standing in the public. Rest assured, nothing will come from his latest threats. The supposed power outages in Gaza are all very carefully choreographed by the Palestinians, and will surely pressure Israel into opening the passages to Gaza. Therefore, even the modest Israeli response of closing borders will be neutered of all effectiveness.