Time for new type of Left

Op-ed: Labor’s demise may signal that time has come for proud, Zionist leftist camp to emerge Yoaz Hendel Without being cynical, it is sad to see the party that once upon a time established this state falling apart. It doesn’t matter which political camp you hail from, seeing the descendents of Mapai turning into historical crumbs is unpleasant. Yet perhaps this expiry date signals that the time has come for a new type of Left: Israeli and Zionist. A proud Left, which first knows to declare what belongs to the Jewish people and only later thinks about compromise. A leftist camp that knows how to object, in a clear voice, to bodies that promote Israel’s de-legitimization without fearing some people who recite like parrots words such as fascism and McCarthyism. A Left that raises the banner of settling the land and that is not ashamed to speak up about construction ,renewal, salvaging land, Judaization if the Galilee, and pioneers (regardless of the borders this takes place within.) A leftist camp that one can agree with in respect to the gap between capitalism and socialism. A Left that continuously dreams of agreements and peace, but also knows how to wake up when necessary. And no, I’m not talking about the “National Left” campaign, with its cheap brochures, witty playwrights, and flashy PR agencies. I’m also not talking about Kadima (let’s see you prompting Tizpi Livni, Shaul Mofaz, or Tsachi Hanegabi to declare that they belong to a leftist party.) Rather, I’m talking about the original. A party with a scent of yesteryear; a rival worthy of ideological debates. There are many researchers in academia who are trying to figure out what happened to Israel’s Left. How could it be that a party that in the sixth Knesset controlled almost half the seats has turned into a triviality. When leftist voters are asked about this, one answer clearly emerges: Ehud Barak. In fact, with the exception of the occupation, these leftists see no greater culprit for all the bad things happening in the world. I know this is not the time for nostalgia, but rather, for seeking guilty parties. Yet nonetheless, with or without Barak, we better see the emergence of a good political alternative here. Otherwise, we shall be left with a radical leftist camp and only memories of election dilemmas and democracy. Reference : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4016918,00.html Read More..

Palestinian state looming

Op-ed: Eitan Haber says we are quickly approaching the establishment of Palestinian state Eitan Haber In recent weeks, the Israeli and global media have been publishing a series of boring, repetitive stories: Ecuador has recognized the Palestinians state. Argentina has recognized the Palestinian state. And Brazil as well. And Bolivia too. And, ouch, also Uruguay. What’s going on here? It’s the same boring story every time, with only the country’s name changing. Big deal. Who cares about Uruguay anyway? And Bolivia, come on! As to Brazil – well, we overcame Pharaoh; we shall overcome Brazil as well. And what about Argentina? Did they even solve their own Maradona problems? So here is a reminder: In 1947, the United Nations appointed a committee to look into what is going on in the area known as Palestine/Land of Israel. The committee decided to partition the land. That was the decision that prompted the State of Israel’s establishment, no less. And who were the members of this committee? Fabregat from Uruguay and Grandos from Guatemala (some streets in Israel were named after them.) Ladies and gentlemen: We are facing a diplomatic threat. This is the beginning, and it may end up sweeping the whole world, which will then recognize a Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders, without demilitarization and without territorial tradeoffs. To this very day, we proudly mark the night of November 29; that same night where the UN voted to partition the land, a decision that as noted led to the State of Israel’s establishment. At the time, we were dancing in the streets. Well, please make a note for yourselves: We are quickly approaching the Palestinian version of November 29. Reference : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4016258,00.html Read More..

Poker with Ahmadinejad

Op-ed: After delivering on pledge to stop Iran, Obama to press Israel, Arabs to make peace Orly Azoulay When Barack Obama was a college student, he made a reputation for himself mostly as a distinguished poker player. He gained his expertise while being a beach boy in Honolulu, playing cards and drinking at pubs instead of going to school. This experience, which he acquired in his distant past, assists Obama on occasion while managing US foreign policy from the White House. This week it turned out that his most meaningful poker game thus far was played against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Quietly, through a secret channel, the American president hurled numerous powerful bombs on Iran’s nuke site, with Israel’s help - according to the New York Times. The bombs dropped by Obama did not raze home and citizens, did not kill women and children, and were not photographed by foreign correspondents. Obama’s bombs came in the form of computer viruses that silently managed to destroy the core of the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, in an inspiring operation executed in the framework of an Israeli-American plan to sabotage Iran’s nuke program. Nuclear experts characterized this bombardment as the most sophisticated and imaginative computer weapon that had been invented and implemented to this day. When Obama ordered the computer attack on Iran, he continued at the same time to reach out to Ahmadinejad and urged him to sit at the negotiating table. Ahmadinejad replied elusively and equivocally, thinking that he is able to fool the whole world. He did not imagine that Obama is playing against him like a professional who learned his trade on the streets, while keeping his cards close to his chest. The world did not know that Obama was in the midst of a war against Iran which he managed through subterfuge. Obama naïve? Even before he was sworn-in, Obama received a classified briefing from top US intelligence officials. They told him about the secret plan to strike Iran’s atomic sites with computer viruses .President Bush, towards the end of his term, approved the plan, and Obama was captivated by it and ordered to accelerate it. According to the reports, America, just like Israel, kept the plan a closely guarded secret. Those who were not parties to the secret were sure that Obama is too naïve and inexperienced. When Obama declared that he will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons, few believed him. The skepticism towards him was said to be prevalent especially in Israel, among those who were not aware of what was going on in Dimona and the US national nuke labs in Idaho. Idaho brought the information to the project, and Israel used its atomic reactor in Dimona to test the virus. The New York Times, which looked into the story for almost three months and held interviews worldwide in order to elicit information, revealed that the mission had been completed: One fifth of the production power of the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz was destroyed. Even the smartest bombs, had they been hurled by the US or Israeli Air force, would not paralyze the site to such extent. Obama did not destroy Iran’s nuclear program, but he managed to significantly delay it. With this achievement he now plans to press both Israel and Arab states to secure a peace treaty. The White House always suspected that Israel is using Iran as an excuse not to make peace. Now this excuse had evaporated, at least partly, and Saudi Arabia which feared a nuclear Iran no less than Israel will also be called upon by the White House to roll up its sleeves and enlist for the cause of the peace process. Now that the story had been publicized, Obama would be able to address both sides and tell them that he promised to stop Iran and delivered. Now, he will demand that they do what is required of them. Reference : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4016623,00.html Read More..

Restoring historical memory

Op-ed: Palestinian enmity towards Jews not about borders but about Israel’s existence Martin Sherman Israel is continuously accused by its detractors of "occupying" Palestinian territory and "usurping" Palestinian land by means of an "expansionary settlement policy." "Occupation" and "Settlements" have thus become the buzzwords by which to denote and defame Israel's control of the territories across the 1967 armistices lines. This prevailing custom is wildly at odds with the realities that forced Israel to seize these territories in an unequivocal act of self-defense against threats of annihilation, in a classic preemptive exercise of the right of "anticipatory self defense." A 2003 article "Jus ad Bellum: Law Regulating Resort to Force", published by the American Bar Association, sets out the rather stringent conditions for the legitimate exercise of "anticipatory self defense." It stipulates that the necessity for action must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." It goes on to quote a "recent edition of a leading treatise (which) states that (anticipatory) self-defense may justify use of force under the following conditions: an attack is immediately threatened; there is an urgent necessity for defensive action; there is no practicable alternative, particularly when another state or authority that legally could stop or prevent the infringement does not or cannot do so..." There is clearly not doubt that these conditions were met in June 1967. On March 8th 1965, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser proclaimed: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood." On May 18, 1967 the Cairo-based radio station Voice of the Arabs blared stridently: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. .... The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence." Two days later, on May 20, 1967, Gen. Hafez al-Assad, Syria's Minister of Defense, and later President, boasted: "Our forces are now entirely ready.... the time has come to enter a battle of annihilation." Therefore, it was not Israeli aggression but unequivocal Arab aggression that led to the events which precipitated Israel's takeover of territories across the 1967 frontiers, an act of clearly legitimate anticipatory preemption of that aggression. Liberation or annihilation? On November 18, 1965, Nasser asserted:"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel." It should be recalled that at this time the entire "West Bank" and Gaza, the territories that are now claimed for the establishment of a Palestinian state, were under full Arab control. Nasser himself ruled over Gaza and King Hussein of Jordan over the "West Bank." Yet neither undertook any initiative to set up any kind of Palestinian entity in these territories. (At that time the Palestinians themselves eschewed any aspirations of sovereignty over the “West Bank” and Gaza, which seem to have been totally irrelevant for "full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people," both in the eyes of the Palestinians and in the eyes of the wider Arab world.) So, as the Arab armies massed against it, Israel began to brace itself for the coming war, preparing mass graves in Tel Aviv and other cities in anticipation of large civilian causalities. On May 27, 1967, the then-chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Ahmed Shukairy, gloated, "D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation." The use of the word "liberation" is both interesting and revealing. At the time, the notions of "occupation" and "settlements" had neither conceptual significance nor practical relevance and could not account for this ferocious hostility towards the Jewish nation-state by the Arabs who clearly were not seeking "liberation" in Arab-ruled Gaza and "West Bank." Impressed by this boastful bluster, and despite the bitter acrimony between Nasser and himself, King Hussein signed a military pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967, declaring: "All of the Arab armies now surround Israel. The UAR (the United Arab Republic, the name by which Egypt called itself from 1958 to 1971), Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait. .... There is no difference between one Arab people and another, no difference between one Arab army and another." In a premature flush of triumph, on June 1, 1967, PLO leader Shukairy crowed: "This is a fight for the homeland. It is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive....We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors - if there are any - the boats are ready to deport them." Here again Shukairy's terminology is of interest. For quite apart from the explicit articulation of his bloodcurdling intentions, the use of "homeland" is instructive and illuminating. For it clearly did not refer to "West Bank" or to Gaza which, as previously mentioned, were under Arab rule and were certainly in no way targeted for "liberation." Cleary then, "the liberation of the homeland" must be construed as "the elimination of the Jewish state." Indeed, how else could be construed. This view is strongly endorsed by the text of the original formulation of the Palestinian Covenant adopted in 1964, before any "occupation" or "settlements" were ever part of the discourse, much less facts on the ground. In Article 24, it specifically eschews claims to "any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (sic) and Gaza." What more authoritative source could be imagined for exposing the Palestinian claims to the West Bank and Gaza as bogus than the Palestinian themselves? The source being their own "National Covenant" no less. The Palestinians: Then and now So what, if anything, has changed since then in the motivations and objectives of the Palestinians? Very little, it would appear. For when one looks at the founding documents of the major Palestinian organizations today, the same abiding animosity persists. For example, the constitution of the allegedly moderate/pragmatic Fatah, adopted in 1964 and purposefully left un-amended in its 2009 Convention in Bethlehem, states as its "Goal" (in Article 12): "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." In the (still un-amended) Article 19, it details how this "eradication" is to be accomplished: “Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, … in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated. This parallels closely the sentiments expressed in the currently valid (and accessible via the UN website) Palestinian National Covenant adopted in 1968. This document, despite promises to US President Bill Clinton, still includes clauses calling for the destruction of Israel. In this regard, Article 22 is quite specific stating that the "... liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence ..." Article 19 of the 1968 version declares that: The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time..." This echoes, almost verbatim, the language of Article 17 of the previous 1964 version of the covenant, and irrefutably underscores the unbroken, obdurate persistence of the Palestinians enmity towards Israel, and whose origins clearly pre-date any "occupation" or "settlements." Furthermore, should anyone opine that the vigor of the Palestinians' genocidal - or rather "Judeocidal" - aspirations have receded, the Hamas Charter will quickly dispel such illusions. For the founding document of the largest Palestinian political faction, which sets outs its raison d'etre, proclaims: “Israel ... will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors ...Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam ... The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, ... there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” (From the Preamble, Article 28 and Article 7) Clearly then, Arab Palestinian enmity towards the Jews is not about borders but about being; not about Israel's "occupation" but about Israel's existence; not about what the Jewish people do but about what the Jewish people are; not about the Jewish state's policy but about the Jewish state per se. Indeed, should further evidence be required that "Occupation" and "Settlements" are merely an excuse and not a reason for Palestinian violence, the situation in Gaza provides the ultimate proof. For after Israel razed all of its settlements to the ground, evacuated all the settlers, removed any vestige of "occupation," violence against Israel surged rather than subsided. And any suggestion that the continuing Palestinian attacks are due to the "blockade" should be swiftly dismissed since the blockade post-dated these attacks and is thus demonstrably a result of them not a reason for them, it is a consequence - not a cause - of Palestinian violence. So, in the final analysis, in accounting for the enduring bloodshed in the Middle East, the claims that Israeli "occupation" and the Israeli settlements are to blame must be assertively repudiated. Reference : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4016156,00.html Read More..