Heretics' almanac

A hymnal of cowardice

Two entirely different sources draw my attention to two entirely different articles today.

Imshin writes an article on hatred of Israel, coupling it with an article that appeared both in the UK Guardian and Front Page Magazine, titled An American Scapegoat in London. It's pretty scary reading.

Then there is an article in the Duke University newspaper titled The Jews , where a Benjamin N. Duke scholar thinks that "the Jews" took their "privilege" too far by seeking to prevent the Palestine Solidarity Movement from holding a conference there.

So, before you read more of my rantings, read all the stuff I've linked to above and think about it all.

Should Israelis vote for Bush or Kerry?

It's the old cliché: "but is it good for the Jews?" Jews in the diaspora are used to seeing their situation - as Jews - change when regimes change. Katarina "the Great" was bad for Jews. Maria Theresa was much better.

Since nobody's expecting either Kerry or Bush to institute pogroms or a Pale of Settlement in the next four years, a lot of Jews are instead asking the question "which administration would be better for Israel?"

The reflexive response is "Bush." As the US president of recent memory who has been the most principled in opposing terrorism and least concerned about appearing "even-handed," he has largely left Sharon alone to deal (quite effectively) with terrorism directed at Israel. And it actually helps Bush gain the Jewish vote when so many left-wing anti-Zionists argue that Bush perpetuates terrorism by supporting Israel.

But for the traditionally liberal Jewish community, it's difficult to vote for Bush on this single issue when so much of Bush's other policies - ranging from the war in Iraq to the environment to economic policy, etc., run counter to their convictions. Jews, the saying goes, "live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans."

So, what to do?

Update on Der Norwegian Broadcasting Stürmer

Now that Bjørn Stærk has gone through the trouble of translating the NRK report I previously, well, condemned in this blog, I'd like to dwell on one particular point the reporter made:

Eirik Veum: "50 years later much has changed. It is now Palestinians who receive support and sympathy. This is what the network wants to change."

By the way, the "network" is a fabrication - it's a result of the reporter putting words in the mouth of some of the people he interviewed and imagining a conspiracy with the Israeli embassy in the middle.

But my main point is this: What makes these people think that being pro-Israel is incompatible with having sympathy for the Palestinians?

I can't speak for all the various (and notably disorganized) pro-Israeli groups in Norway, but I think it's safe to assume that they are trying to change the anti-Israeli attitudes. I don't think even Kach's goal is to increase Palestinian suffering - yes, they want to forcibly transfer Arabs out of the West Bank and Gaza, and yes, they advocate lots of "armed resistance;" but only to the extent that they believe it will make Israel more secure.

Where peace ends and war begins

Future historians will undoubtedly trace the origins of the current intifadah/war to the collapse of the peace process in Camp David and Taba. Charles Enderlin has written a book on this subject, and Fontenelles-Palestine Archives has reproduced a crucial passage.

It's not necessarily easy to understand the dialogue. For example, what do terms like "outer districts," "residual sovereignty," "compound," "custodianship," etc., mean in negotiations about square feet of space? And who could ever think that a Jerusalem governed by a patchwork of "sovereignty" could form the basis for a durable peace?

Still, there are some interesting quotes:

EU ambassadors are shocked and depressed

EU ambassadors to the UN recently met with Arab counterparts recently (toh to Allison Kaplan Sommer) to discuss a pending UN resolution condemning antisemitism and other forms of intolerance and bigotry. According to Ha'aretz, the meeting went so poorly the EU folks were "shocked" at what they heard and "depressed" by the outcome.

The Arab regimes would not support any resolution along those lines, and they also made it clear that they didn't appreciate the recent UN conference on antisemitism. Their stated reason: these things lend credibility to the charge that much of the hostility to Israel is rooted in antisemitism.

According to Ha'aretz, the "ambassador" from "Palestine" (I wonder whether the Chechen and Basque ambassadors were in attendance?), set the tone for the meeting. I can only imagine that the European diplomats, who usually enjoy far more amicable relations with their many Arab counterparts than the single Israeli one, were truly shocked to experience this sort of cold, inflexible attitude. But I can't imagine that a single Jew or Israeli was the least bit surprised. Depressed, maybe, but not surprised.

Perhaps it would be too much to expect the Europeans to deal with this in a principled way, but one could hope they'd start realizing what they're dealing with: nearly two dozen regimes who'd rather see israel disappear. And maybe appreciate why I and others use the term "the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Sent from my Blackberry

The original 9/11

This is the 9th day of the 11th month in the Hebrew calendar, and is commemorated every year by Jews around the world as the anniversary of the destruction of both temples. In both cases, the destruction was a portend to exile for all Jews and obscurity for a great many of them.

But tradition has it that hope is born on Tisha B'Av.

In Israel, a human chain stretched from Gush Katif to haKotel yesterday. Shofars across the line sounded, and all sang Hatikvah - The Hope - Israel's national anthem.

Today, no Jews - in fact no non-Muslims - are allowed on the Temple Mount, and the Jerusalem police are enforcing the prohibition. I see the necessity of this but am struck by the symbolism. From Gush Katif to the Western Wall, but no further. By choice, by force of constraint, Israel holds back.

Not that anyone would give her credit.

EU's fading credibility

Debka reports that European ambassadors to Israel have been asked to shlepp up to Jerusalem to receive a "dressing down" at the foreign ministry for voting in favor the GA resolution against the security barrier. Israel is particularly pissed at France (for being the ringleader) and the Netherlands (for bowing to EU pressure against its better judgment).

The point Israel is driving home: EU lost its standing as an "honest broker" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, having deliberately "fall[en] in with the Palestinian position." The European ambassadors are likely to defend themselves by pointing out that a) the resolution was softened to include a reference to terrorism; b) it didn't call for sanctions; and c) this is as far as they're going to take this issue.

I've often thought that diplomacy is childs' play in adult clothing. There is no limit to the petulance, pride, and foolish posturing you see among diplomats.

Prognosticating "Palestine"

On Monday, NPR invited a Palestinian and an Israeli expert to discuss recent developments in Gaza. And they mostly agreed - Arafat's regime was corrupt but likely to survive, the Egyptian role was a critical fact, uncertainties about the disengagement plan provides much of the context.

I often read blogs written in Israel, and I'm struck by the fact that Israelis living in Tel Aviv, Rishon leZion, and Ashkelon read and watch the news knowing that events are only a few miles away, under the same clouds. I can only imagine that this perspective puts things in a practical light. Terje Rød-Larsen seems to be catching on, and so does Kofi Annan. Arafat is at least part of the problem.

Contrast that with the UN General Assembly vote on the separation barrier, which will have no practical consequences that benefit the Palestinians and only reinforce the Israeli view that the UN either doesn't get it or is overtly hostile to anything Israeli.

Chirac's sense of history

France, home of Napoleon, countless pointless wars, savage colonialism, and the grateful homeland of Alfred Dreyfus has declared Ariel Sharon unwelcome, eh, there.

This because Sharon suggested that maybe French Jews might be safer in Israel. And that they should move to the safer place as soon as possible.

This clearly is an inexcusable affront to France's foreign policy, which long has tried to create parity between conditions for Jews in France and in Israel. In fact, Israel owes its very existence to French benevolence toward Jews.

So it's only reasonable that Chirac demands an explanation.

Gideon Levy's misplaced moral outrage

Gideon Levy is Israel's answer to Michael Moore: a native who speaks up against his own country without much regard to whether it's reasonable or not. And so it goes in today's Ha'aretz.

The examples he cites - Ibrahim Halfalla, the 75-year old man who was accidentally killed during a house demolition by the IDF; Noha Maqadam, a pregnant woman killed under similar circumstances; Salem Khaled, shot because he didn't open his door fast enough; racist remarks from Shlomo Benizri of Shas; laws preventing Palestinian spouses of Israelis from becoming Israeli citizens; etc., certainly provide evidence that Israelis aren't perfect and Israel isn't utopia..

But Levy's main point is that "if things were reversed" - a 75-year old man or a pregnant woman was buried alive as a result of a terrorist bomb, a man shot in his home, racist remarks, discriminatory practices were institutionalized in the Palestinian areas - well, then Israel would be outraged.