Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Monday, August 09, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Shliam critique: Second Bone of Contention: the Arab Israeli Military Balance Part 3
As already explained the British used the Jordanian government and its armed wing the Jordanian Legion as a proxy to exercise its interests in the coming regional shift of power in 1948. The case with the British in Egypt was even more damning. When the British left Egypt they left intact a supply of heavy and light weaponry along with training advisors to teach the Egyptian army how to use them. This tilted the balance of power severely in the direction of the Arab states during the war of 1948. [1] Egypt alone, if properly trained and with a well disciplined army could have defeated the Jews without the help of any other Arab army. The problem for the Arab states was not Israeli military dominance as historically argued. In the remaining months of 1947 until July 1948, and the end of the first truce, the Jews were severely handicapped and in a serious weakened position militarily. It was Arab incompetence that won the war for Israel not, Israeli superiority. By all customary military standards Israel should have lost the war in those first few weeks, absolutely no later than June 1.
There is the incident of Israel shooting down five British fighters at the beginning of 1949. On January 1, 1949, Egyptian war ships appeared off the coast of Tel Aviv, and fired on the city. On January 2, 1949 an enemy plane, presumably Egyptian dropped three bombs over Jewish Jerusalem. As a result Jewish forces launched a retaliatory raid on El Arish which was the Egyptian staging point for all military operations inside Palestine. The British used the incursion into the Sinai as a pretext to invoke a 1936 agreement in which they were obligated to defend Egypt in case of invasion. Ben Gurion was warned by the British and promptly ordered all Jewish forces removed back behind Israeli lines. By January 3, 1949, all Israeli forces had been removed from Egyptian soil [2] On January 7, Israel shot down five British flown spitfires, killing at least one pilot and taking another prisoner because their aircraft crashed inside Israeli lines. [3]
I agree with Shlaim’s analysis of the Jewish side that he offers in this section.
It would be hard not to acknowledge the above truisms about the ’48 war since these are all established facts but, Shlaim sticks one sentence in this paragraph almost as if he were trying to sneak it in. Right after the ellipses of the above quote, Shlaim says “ Nevertheless, the Yishuv was not as hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned as the official history would have us believe.” I would argue this as hyperbole.
Military generals always think in terms of the other side’s strengths and weaknesses. It is not for them to speculate on how the enemy might utilize those strengths and weaknesses only that they possess the potential for using it. In assessing Arab strength the Hagana command had to consider that they might go up against everything the Arabs had to offer in their war of liberation. Nobody really knows how many Arab soldiers actually fought in the war of 1948. Estimates range from 20,000 to 65,000 depending on the time period we are talking about. “The Hagana… could draw on a large reserve of Western trained and homegrown officers with military experience” (p. 181). Shlaim is talking about the 4000 or so soldiers that the British trained to fight at the end of World War II, known popularly as the Jewish Brigade and did see some action in Sicily. [4]
[1] Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2002, p. 15. Pollack lists the Egyptian heavy armor as a battalion of British made Mark VI and Matilda tanks, sixteen 25 pounder guns, a battery of eight 6-pounder guns, a medium machine gun battalion, more than thirty British made Spitfire fighter planes, and four Hawker Hurricane fighters with twenty American C-47 transports which mechanics had made into crude bombers. The Israelis on the other hand had fewer than 900 light mortars, 85 antitank weapons, five “ancient” artillery pieces and four tanks. The Egyptians alone held a huge military advantage over the Jews in this area.
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),FRUS. Vol VI, p. 605
[3] FRUS Vol. VI p. 627.
[4] Refer to note 9
There is the incident of Israel shooting down five British fighters at the beginning of 1949. On January 1, 1949, Egyptian war ships appeared off the coast of Tel Aviv, and fired on the city. On January 2, 1949 an enemy plane, presumably Egyptian dropped three bombs over Jewish Jerusalem. As a result Jewish forces launched a retaliatory raid on El Arish which was the Egyptian staging point for all military operations inside Palestine. The British used the incursion into the Sinai as a pretext to invoke a 1936 agreement in which they were obligated to defend Egypt in case of invasion. Ben Gurion was warned by the British and promptly ordered all Jewish forces removed back behind Israeli lines. By January 3, 1949, all Israeli forces had been removed from Egyptian soil [2] On January 7, Israel shot down five British flown spitfires, killing at least one pilot and taking another prisoner because their aircraft crashed inside Israeli lines. [3]
I agree with Shlaim’s analysis of the Jewish side that he offers in this section.
The heroism of the Jewish fighters is not in question, nor is there any doubt about the heavy price that the Yishuv paid for its victory. Altogether there were 6,000 dead, 4,000 soldiers and 2,000 civilians, or about 1 percent of the entire population…It is true that the Yishuv numbered merely 650,000 souls, compared with 1.2 million Palestinian Arabs and nearly 40 million Arabs in the surrounding states. It is true that the senior military advisors told the Political leadership on 12 May 1948 that the Hagana had only a “fifty-fifty” chance of withstanding the imminent Arab attack. It is true that the sense of weakness and vulnerability in the Jewish population was as acute as it was pervasive and that some segments of this population were gripped by a feeling of gloom and doom. And, it is true that during the three critical weeks, from the invasion of Palestine by the regular armies of the Arab states on 15 May until the start of the first truce on 11 June, this community had to struggle for its very survival.
It would be hard not to acknowledge the above truisms about the ’48 war since these are all established facts but, Shlaim sticks one sentence in this paragraph almost as if he were trying to sneak it in. Right after the ellipses of the above quote, Shlaim says “ Nevertheless, the Yishuv was not as hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned as the official history would have us believe.” I would argue this as hyperbole.
Military generals always think in terms of the other side’s strengths and weaknesses. It is not for them to speculate on how the enemy might utilize those strengths and weaknesses only that they possess the potential for using it. In assessing Arab strength the Hagana command had to consider that they might go up against everything the Arabs had to offer in their war of liberation. Nobody really knows how many Arab soldiers actually fought in the war of 1948. Estimates range from 20,000 to 65,000 depending on the time period we are talking about. “The Hagana… could draw on a large reserve of Western trained and homegrown officers with military experience” (p. 181). Shlaim is talking about the 4000 or so soldiers that the British trained to fight at the end of World War II, known popularly as the Jewish Brigade and did see some action in Sicily. [4]
[1] Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2002, p. 15. Pollack lists the Egyptian heavy armor as a battalion of British made Mark VI and Matilda tanks, sixteen 25 pounder guns, a battery of eight 6-pounder guns, a medium machine gun battalion, more than thirty British made Spitfire fighter planes, and four Hawker Hurricane fighters with twenty American C-47 transports which mechanics had made into crude bombers. The Israelis on the other hand had fewer than 900 light mortars, 85 antitank weapons, five “ancient” artillery pieces and four tanks. The Egyptians alone held a huge military advantage over the Jews in this area.
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),FRUS. Vol VI, p. 605
[3] FRUS Vol. VI p. 627.
[4] Refer to note 9
Schlaim critique: first bone of contention: British policy at the end of the mandate, Pt 2
Between November 29, 1947 and May 14, 1948 Shlaim contends that traditional Zionist historiography’s “central charge is that Britain armed and secretly encouraged her Arab allies” p.179. Shlaim credits others like Ilan Pappe with “Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” along with his own “Collusion across the Jordan” to smash this particular myth.
Actually the official records of State in both Great Britain and the United States show an England having a very hard time cutting loose the apron strings that held British imperial territory in the Middle East together for the previous half century. The record clearly shows that while there might have been some well founded trepidation on the part of the Yishuv of British motives, the fears of Jewish expansionism seems to have dominated British thinking during this time almost as much as the possibility of Soviet involvement which both England and the U.S. were loathe to accept. Shlaim’s thesis, minus the Marxist inspired psycho-babble, in “Collusion” was probably well founded. The Jews were not fools. If they could increase their chances of survival by eliminating a major military player like Abdullah, then they would do it. This is what drove Ernest Bevin, Britain’s foreign secretary, and the architect of British involvement, especially with Abdullah during that time, to push for a greater Transjordan. This in turn probably pushed the Yishuv into this victim mentality and led to a mistrust of Transjordan’s motives for an agreement. However, Shlaim rejects any notion that England supported the Arab side even though early British apologies allude to that fact. For example, Glubb discusses a meeting with Bevin where the secretary states categorically that he “did everything he could to help (the Arabs) them. [1]
Although Shlaim does not like to admit it, British interests in 1948 were in fact very much with the Arabs and not with the Jews. While there is no evidence to show that the British tried to stop the Jewish state from coming into existence after the UN partition vote on November 29th , one can build a very strong case that the British did financially, militarily, and politically helped the Arabs, and although unsuccessful, this was designed to protect British interests which were perceived to be in direct conflict with nascent Israeli interests.
Bevin insisted that Abdullah’s legion not take their war into Jewish territory, as Shlaim asserts. But British soldiers fought with and commanded the legion during their entire campaign of 1948. For all intents and purposes the Jordanian legion commanded by John Bagot Glubb was a proxy British force in the Middle East and for that reason the evidence shows that Bevin was extremely concerned for its existence and the only thing preventing the Jews from infringing onto British interests in the area according to Bevin’s thinking. The rank and file of the Legion were mostly Arabs, but the officers were British. Some were actually seconded from the British army into the legion. These men were not withdrawn from Legion duties until after May 14, 1948. [2] Weapons were still being delivered to Transjordan as late as May 28th of that year. [3] The English subverted U.N. restrictions which drew consternation against Israel for violating, by insisting that they were only fulfilling commitments made prior to the United Nations embargo to arm the Middle East. [4]
Shlaim relates the Februray 7, 1948 meeting between Abdul Huda, Transjordan’s prime minister, and Secretary Bevin which gave the green light to the legion to move into the Palestinian allotted areas and secure the land for the Kingdom. This in effect wiped out any chance for an Arab state in Palestine and created what Bevin had labeled a “Greater Transjordan.”
“Bevin also warned Jordan not to invade the area allocated by the U.N. to the Jews” p. 179. This shows according to Shlaim that Britain supported the idea of a Jewish State while not supporting the idea of an Arab state. What Shlaim does not tell us is that it would have been tantamount to diplomatic suicide for the British to circumvent the U.N. decision to create a Jewish state in Palestine given its tense relations over the issue with the U.S. position in respect to U.S. public opinion. England certainly did not see the creation of a Jewish State as satisfying British interests in the area and might very well have prevented a Jewish state from coming into existence had the U.S. not been so adamant to allow international law to take its course.
The British also used their forces in a failed attempt to take back Jaffa after Arab forces had been defeated by Menachem Begin’s IZL. Like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv was suffering casualties on a daily basis because of the sniping coming from Arab Jaffa. The IZL claimed that the British had colluded with the Arabs to create a corridor from Jaffa to Jerusalem to cut the proposed Jewish State in two and thereby seal its fate. Therefore, the Haganna agreed to allow the Urgun to take the city. [5] In the ceasefire agreement, between the British and Jewish forces, they both backed off to neutral areas with a no man’s land in between and faced each other down until the British left Palestine on May 14th.. The British involvement in Jaffa was a direct order coming from HMG.
[1] John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957, p. 180
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts), (FRUS) Volume V, Part 2 (1948), p. 1066.
[3] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2 page 1071. In this report from Lovett he mentions that Britain is supplying weapons to Egypt, Iraq as well as British proxy military force in the Middle East, the Jordanian Legion.
[4] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2, Note 4 page 563
[5] H.Boyer Bell, Terror out of Zion, London: New Brunswick Publishers, 1996, p. 302. I should point out that Boyer Bell’s sources for these accounts rely heavily on personal memoirs and interviews with participants from all sides. There is an index in the back of personal interviews and notes on the memoirs. This is what Shlaim is arguing in this piece which he claims is not valid history writing. For more on this and a Jewish view on Jaffa see, Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, New York: Vintage Books, 1982, p.36.
Actually the official records of State in both Great Britain and the United States show an England having a very hard time cutting loose the apron strings that held British imperial territory in the Middle East together for the previous half century. The record clearly shows that while there might have been some well founded trepidation on the part of the Yishuv of British motives, the fears of Jewish expansionism seems to have dominated British thinking during this time almost as much as the possibility of Soviet involvement which both England and the U.S. were loathe to accept. Shlaim’s thesis, minus the Marxist inspired psycho-babble, in “Collusion” was probably well founded. The Jews were not fools. If they could increase their chances of survival by eliminating a major military player like Abdullah, then they would do it. This is what drove Ernest Bevin, Britain’s foreign secretary, and the architect of British involvement, especially with Abdullah during that time, to push for a greater Transjordan. This in turn probably pushed the Yishuv into this victim mentality and led to a mistrust of Transjordan’s motives for an agreement. However, Shlaim rejects any notion that England supported the Arab side even though early British apologies allude to that fact. For example, Glubb discusses a meeting with Bevin where the secretary states categorically that he “did everything he could to help (the Arabs) them. [1]
Although Shlaim does not like to admit it, British interests in 1948 were in fact very much with the Arabs and not with the Jews. While there is no evidence to show that the British tried to stop the Jewish state from coming into existence after the UN partition vote on November 29th , one can build a very strong case that the British did financially, militarily, and politically helped the Arabs, and although unsuccessful, this was designed to protect British interests which were perceived to be in direct conflict with nascent Israeli interests.
Bevin insisted that Abdullah’s legion not take their war into Jewish territory, as Shlaim asserts. But British soldiers fought with and commanded the legion during their entire campaign of 1948. For all intents and purposes the Jordanian legion commanded by John Bagot Glubb was a proxy British force in the Middle East and for that reason the evidence shows that Bevin was extremely concerned for its existence and the only thing preventing the Jews from infringing onto British interests in the area according to Bevin’s thinking. The rank and file of the Legion were mostly Arabs, but the officers were British. Some were actually seconded from the British army into the legion. These men were not withdrawn from Legion duties until after May 14, 1948. [2] Weapons were still being delivered to Transjordan as late as May 28th of that year. [3] The English subverted U.N. restrictions which drew consternation against Israel for violating, by insisting that they were only fulfilling commitments made prior to the United Nations embargo to arm the Middle East. [4]
Shlaim relates the Februray 7, 1948 meeting between Abdul Huda, Transjordan’s prime minister, and Secretary Bevin which gave the green light to the legion to move into the Palestinian allotted areas and secure the land for the Kingdom. This in effect wiped out any chance for an Arab state in Palestine and created what Bevin had labeled a “Greater Transjordan.”
“Bevin also warned Jordan not to invade the area allocated by the U.N. to the Jews” p. 179. This shows according to Shlaim that Britain supported the idea of a Jewish State while not supporting the idea of an Arab state. What Shlaim does not tell us is that it would have been tantamount to diplomatic suicide for the British to circumvent the U.N. decision to create a Jewish state in Palestine given its tense relations over the issue with the U.S. position in respect to U.S. public opinion. England certainly did not see the creation of a Jewish State as satisfying British interests in the area and might very well have prevented a Jewish state from coming into existence had the U.S. not been so adamant to allow international law to take its course.
The British also used their forces in a failed attempt to take back Jaffa after Arab forces had been defeated by Menachem Begin’s IZL. Like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv was suffering casualties on a daily basis because of the sniping coming from Arab Jaffa. The IZL claimed that the British had colluded with the Arabs to create a corridor from Jaffa to Jerusalem to cut the proposed Jewish State in two and thereby seal its fate. Therefore, the Haganna agreed to allow the Urgun to take the city. [5] In the ceasefire agreement, between the British and Jewish forces, they both backed off to neutral areas with a no man’s land in between and faced each other down until the British left Palestine on May 14th.. The British involvement in Jaffa was a direct order coming from HMG.
[1] John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957, p. 180
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts), (FRUS) Volume V, Part 2 (1948), p. 1066.
[3] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2 page 1071. In this report from Lovett he mentions that Britain is supplying weapons to Egypt, Iraq as well as British proxy military force in the Middle East, the Jordanian Legion.
[4] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2, Note 4 page 563
[5] H.Boyer Bell, Terror out of Zion, London: New Brunswick Publishers, 1996, p. 302. I should point out that Boyer Bell’s sources for these accounts rely heavily on personal memoirs and interviews with participants from all sides. There is an index in the back of personal interviews and notes on the memoirs. This is what Shlaim is arguing in this piece which he claims is not valid history writing. For more on this and a Jewish view on Jaffa see, Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, New York: Vintage Books, 1982, p.36.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
A critique on Avi shlaim's "the debate about 1948" Part 1
The following is a critique of Avi Shlaim’s Historiography of the 1948 war, “The Debate About 1948” first published in The International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 27, No.3, (August 1995) p. 287-304 and more recently in “The Israel/Palestine Question: Rewriting histories, edited by Ilan Pappe, Routledge, 1999, which this article uses as its reference.
After spending some time outlining what he calls the “old” history and briefly summarizing the litany of 80s publications exposing Israeli myths and counter myths about the country’s hallowed beginnings, he cites six “bones of contention” that traditional and “New Historian” researchers fundamentally disagree on. They are (1)“Britain’s policy at the end of the mandate, (2) The Arab-Israeli military balance in 1948, (3) the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, (4) the nature of the Israeli-Jordanian relations during the war, (5) Arab war aims, and(6) the reasons for the continuing political deadlock after the guns fell silent.
It is these bones of contention Shlaim concludes that divide the world of Zionist historiography into those that know and those that think they know. Why Shlaim chose those particular six is curious. As “bones of contention” many more issues can be debated than what is listed here. How about Israel’s settlement policy, it’s claim to water in the Levant’s tributaries, racist policies against Palestinian Israeli citizens, the claim to Jerusalem and all the conflict that has caused over the decades, and Jewish interests in general colliding with Palestinian interests. In a conflict this old, brewing with hatreds and long time scores not settled there are too many “bones of contention” to settle on only six. One has only to take his pick, and that is what it seems that Avi Shlaim has done in “The Debate.”
While admitting indirectly to such playful managing of the historical evidence (p. 174*) he concludes that earlier historians were not qualified to write the history of the 1948 war because “Most of the voluminous literature on the war was written not by professional historians but by participants, by politicians, soldiers, official historians, and a large host of sympathetic chroniclers, journalists, biographers, and hagiographers” and should therefore be rejected. (P. 173). There is good reason for Dr. Shlaim to reject this kind of evidence which will be argued throughout this piece because most of it is diametrically opposed to what Dr. Shlaim is promoting here.
It is interesting that Shlaim’s quote above about the Israeli favored histories on the war of 1948 is not too different from Avraham Sela’s description of the literature coming from the Arab side of that war in those first few years after the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab history of 1948 according to Sela who revels in it, is almost exclusively the kind of history that Shlaim wants to reject. Sela describes it as a “large number of first-person accounts, textbooks, memoirs, diaries and polemics.” This can only suggest that most primary source material on both sides during that time came from these kinds of sources. Without it we would have almost no history at all. Does Shlaim suggest that we should disregard Walid Khalidi’s work on “The Fall of Haifa” or his “Documents of the ’48 Conflict” published in The Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 27, No.3,(Spring, 1998) p. 60-105? I doubt that even Shlaim’s admitted Marxist leanings (p. 189-190) would allow him to disregard such important historical information on the Arab perspective of 1948. It is precisely the Arab history of this time that Schlaim and others draw on to indict Israel’s founders of fabricating Israel’s early history. Could there be a double standard here?
Historical accounts after the war are “not history in the proper sense of the word.” P.172-173. I would argue against professor Shlaim’s assertion here. They are most certainly proper historical accounts, if for no other reason than they are the only sources of that war coming from that time period. That in itself makes them primary and vital to the historical record. Because they were decidedly Israeli or Arab centric, depending on the source you are reading, does not preclude that they are not valid. To reject any written material on any historical event even if it happened yesterday, simply because there are no official documents on which to draw the history, is absurd. The opening of Israeli political and military documents in the 1980s does not invalidate these sources, they only add another important dimension to the debate. Personal histories, eyewitness accounts or even partisan evaluations which lead to “sacred texts” of nations’ beginnings are every bit as important as released military documents in the 1980s.. Ben Gurion’s memoirs for example, offer a partisan view of the leader of Israel’s arguments and justifications for Israeli actions during the war. As the author, he has the inherent right to exclude or include any material that he wished. Is Ben Gurion’s point of view of no importance to the history? Under Shlaim’s present argument it would appear that it is.
Another avenue of history that often seems to be forgotten about this war is the British contribution. Shlaim is not the only historian guilty of this. This seems to follow the New Historian pattern of rewriting Israel’s beginning history. There were many British anti-Zionist apologies for the Arab disaster of 1948. However, they are rarely if ever referred to in modern historiographies on the war. And, that methodological tactic is present in this Shlaim piece. I can only assume that he does not because as an admitted leftist he is not comfortable with the motive of the British and its underlying imperialistic desires over the Middle East during that time, more than he is desiring to show sympathy with the underdog oppressed, persecuted Palestinians. E. O’Balance, Erskine Childers, John Baggot Glubb and others published a British view as to why the Arabs lost are all rejected by Shlaim as bonafied histories. Shlaim does see fit however, to quote A.J.P. Taylor a British Marxist who, unencumbered by Western capitalist influences, wrote a revisionism on the causes of World War II, and is remarkably similar to Shlaim’s thesis on “the Debate”.
No matter how much Avi Shlaim remains true to his Marxist ideology it does not give him license to rewrite history. It is the job of every historian to be as honest as they can otherwise the history they write will be meaningless. With that in mind Shlaim’s bones of contention might be valid but his perspective is suspect here. To me, a more accurate statement about these bones of contention are not so much between “old” and “new” historians, but between Marxist and the more traditional western style democratic influenced historians.
After spending some time outlining what he calls the “old” history and briefly summarizing the litany of 80s publications exposing Israeli myths and counter myths about the country’s hallowed beginnings, he cites six “bones of contention” that traditional and “New Historian” researchers fundamentally disagree on. They are (1)“Britain’s policy at the end of the mandate, (2) The Arab-Israeli military balance in 1948, (3) the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, (4) the nature of the Israeli-Jordanian relations during the war, (5) Arab war aims, and(6) the reasons for the continuing political deadlock after the guns fell silent.
It is these bones of contention Shlaim concludes that divide the world of Zionist historiography into those that know and those that think they know. Why Shlaim chose those particular six is curious. As “bones of contention” many more issues can be debated than what is listed here. How about Israel’s settlement policy, it’s claim to water in the Levant’s tributaries, racist policies against Palestinian Israeli citizens, the claim to Jerusalem and all the conflict that has caused over the decades, and Jewish interests in general colliding with Palestinian interests. In a conflict this old, brewing with hatreds and long time scores not settled there are too many “bones of contention” to settle on only six. One has only to take his pick, and that is what it seems that Avi Shlaim has done in “The Debate.”
While admitting indirectly to such playful managing of the historical evidence (p. 174*) he concludes that earlier historians were not qualified to write the history of the 1948 war because “Most of the voluminous literature on the war was written not by professional historians but by participants, by politicians, soldiers, official historians, and a large host of sympathetic chroniclers, journalists, biographers, and hagiographers” and should therefore be rejected. (P. 173). There is good reason for Dr. Shlaim to reject this kind of evidence which will be argued throughout this piece because most of it is diametrically opposed to what Dr. Shlaim is promoting here.
It is interesting that Shlaim’s quote above about the Israeli favored histories on the war of 1948 is not too different from Avraham Sela’s description of the literature coming from the Arab side of that war in those first few years after the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab history of 1948 according to Sela who revels in it, is almost exclusively the kind of history that Shlaim wants to reject. Sela describes it as a “large number of first-person accounts, textbooks, memoirs, diaries and polemics.” This can only suggest that most primary source material on both sides during that time came from these kinds of sources. Without it we would have almost no history at all. Does Shlaim suggest that we should disregard Walid Khalidi’s work on “The Fall of Haifa” or his “Documents of the ’48 Conflict” published in The Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 27, No.3,(Spring, 1998) p. 60-105? I doubt that even Shlaim’s admitted Marxist leanings (p. 189-190) would allow him to disregard such important historical information on the Arab perspective of 1948. It is precisely the Arab history of this time that Schlaim and others draw on to indict Israel’s founders of fabricating Israel’s early history. Could there be a double standard here?
Historical accounts after the war are “not history in the proper sense of the word.” P.172-173. I would argue against professor Shlaim’s assertion here. They are most certainly proper historical accounts, if for no other reason than they are the only sources of that war coming from that time period. That in itself makes them primary and vital to the historical record. Because they were decidedly Israeli or Arab centric, depending on the source you are reading, does not preclude that they are not valid. To reject any written material on any historical event even if it happened yesterday, simply because there are no official documents on which to draw the history, is absurd. The opening of Israeli political and military documents in the 1980s does not invalidate these sources, they only add another important dimension to the debate. Personal histories, eyewitness accounts or even partisan evaluations which lead to “sacred texts” of nations’ beginnings are every bit as important as released military documents in the 1980s.. Ben Gurion’s memoirs for example, offer a partisan view of the leader of Israel’s arguments and justifications for Israeli actions during the war. As the author, he has the inherent right to exclude or include any material that he wished. Is Ben Gurion’s point of view of no importance to the history? Under Shlaim’s present argument it would appear that it is.
Another avenue of history that often seems to be forgotten about this war is the British contribution. Shlaim is not the only historian guilty of this. This seems to follow the New Historian pattern of rewriting Israel’s beginning history. There were many British anti-Zionist apologies for the Arab disaster of 1948. However, they are rarely if ever referred to in modern historiographies on the war. And, that methodological tactic is present in this Shlaim piece. I can only assume that he does not because as an admitted leftist he is not comfortable with the motive of the British and its underlying imperialistic desires over the Middle East during that time, more than he is desiring to show sympathy with the underdog oppressed, persecuted Palestinians. E. O’Balance, Erskine Childers, John Baggot Glubb and others published a British view as to why the Arabs lost are all rejected by Shlaim as bonafied histories. Shlaim does see fit however, to quote A.J.P. Taylor a British Marxist who, unencumbered by Western capitalist influences, wrote a revisionism on the causes of World War II, and is remarkably similar to Shlaim’s thesis on “the Debate”.
No matter how much Avi Shlaim remains true to his Marxist ideology it does not give him license to rewrite history. It is the job of every historian to be as honest as they can otherwise the history they write will be meaningless. With that in mind Shlaim’s bones of contention might be valid but his perspective is suspect here. To me, a more accurate statement about these bones of contention are not so much between “old” and “new” historians, but between Marxist and the more traditional western style democratic influenced historians.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
My Life inside the Muslim Students Association
I went back to school after many years of being out to get my degree. I majored in history with a focus on the Middle East and with a particular interest in studying Islamic history. So I took a lot of those kinds of classes where I came in contact with many of the Muslim students at my institution.
I was usually the one dissenting voice in the classroom when it came to things like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war on terror, and the clash of civilizations. Being right after 9-11 we were all so very sensitive on both sides about what the course of the future should bring.
Since I was older it was easier for them to just right me off. After all what do older people know, right? When you’re in early twenties you think you know everything, and political radicals of all kinds well, that’s even worse.
What was that saying attributed to Churchill about liberal thinking? If you’re not a left winger at twenty you’ve got no heart, if you’re still a left winger at forty, you’ve got no brains. Or something like that.
So, I gained a bit of a reputation among leftists and Muslims as being a combination O’reilly devotee and idiot. Ok, fine.
While taking an Islamic history class on the Ottoman Empire 15th-20th century, I saw a poster on the wall of the classroom asking for membership in the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
I am reasonably sure that the MSA has a national directive to collect for Islamic charities during their meetings. And, as we have seen through several well researched, published accounts that many times this money ends up in the hands of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other al-Queda like organizations, for the express purpose of killing Jews and Christians.
As despicable as that is, they are still allowed to operate under the freedoms granted to them in this country,
I already knew of their activities from the displays and activism they utilized on campus, but still, I would fantasize how cool it would be to be a fly on the drapes during their meetings listening to them wax eloquent about everything from how they are being persecuted as Muslims to what kind of degrading spectacle they can come up with to offend Jews in the community.
As much as I would have liked to have been part of those discussions, I knew that could never be, because my face, if not my name, was too well known to be able to move around an organization like that without being spotted, and then ousted.
However, after giving it some more thought my name was a bit more obscure. Professors would sometimes call on students without saying anything and sometimes it was “Larry,” or “Mr. Hart.” With my name on one of their rolls it still would be difficult to put together who I was unless you were actually looking for it.
After all I didn’t know every Muslim student as the Muslim population in L.A. is quite large and the local campuses sport a sizable population of Muslim students. In order for my name to be spotted it would probably have to be one of the students, or professors who were also sympathetic to Muslim causes, I actually had interaction with. While that was not impossible under the right circumstances it wouldn’t be likely either.
I would be more invisible if I could just get by with my name, even for a little while.
I decided to sign up for the email list just to see what might happen. Email was beginning to get very popular around the turn of the century and universities were using it extensively. I couldn’t attend meetings or functions but with the advance of email at the time I might be able to get a few tidbits of information that way.
I took a fatalistic attitude toward the whole situation, if they busted me, they busted me. Being on an email list is not all that big a thing. Let’s be honest, receiving an email newsletter once a week or so, would not constitute a breech in their security or anything. I thought it would be fun and I would deal with any repercussions if it came to that.
Because I was still an arms distance away from what might have been even more revealing, the kinds of information I received I was not ground breaking. I couldn’t go to the FBI with it or anything like that.
It wasn’t as good as actually getting next to these people up close and personal but so what, I really didn’t want to get any closer to them then they would allow me to anyway.
During my tenure as a name on their email list I received messages on a weekly or semi weekly basis. Most were about upcoming social events, movies they acquired with an Islamic theme, and discussions that would go on at the university from time to time, some political and some technical concerning living arrangements, food preparation, especially Halal, and alerts about cars parked illegally etc.
But, in between all of this mundane twenty-something nonsense I also remember the following items that may be of interest. The quotes are in quotes because that is how I remember them, but it was several years ago so I might not have the actual wording correct.
Once they sent out an email memo reminding all MSA members to bring their favorite anti Zionist picture, story, or video so they could incorporate it into the national MSA anti-Zionist/free Palestine week. They added as a qualifier “remember, showing Zionism as evil is paramount. It is the only way to convince Americans to support the Palestinian struggle.”
Another time they repeated a memo from National MSA headquarters or some other national overseeing agency, (I can’t remember which) asking members to promote the idea of Islam being a “religion of peace” on their perspective campuses. Playing off a president Bush comment and using it to further the idea that 9-11 was not committed by Arab Muslims.
By the way the anti-Zionist week I mentioned showed evidence that it was Jews who brought down the twin towers, not Mohammad Ata and his gang.
Another time they urged MSA members to enroll into Jewish study courses for the express purpose of monitoring those classes for both sympathetic and non sympathetic Jews, so they could line up who is their enemy and who isn’t.
I’m pretty sure I was labeled an enemy.
All toll I was on the mailing list for about eight months before I was discovered. I don’t know who recognized my name or how it happened. No one ever said anything to me, but I was quietly removed from the list. I wrote to inquire why I was not receiving their messages anymore and they never answered. I guess “the jig was up.”
Groups like the MSA, CAIR, The American Muslim Council, The Muslim Public Affairs Council, and others give the outward appearance that they are community based organizations working toward the betterment of the Muslim community.
Well, if you consider the completion of Jihad, the establishment of Sharia law through Dar el-Harb (the world war) as betterment of the community then that would be an accurate statement.
In reality these are mostly front groups who advocate sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely to further the cause of Jihad in the United States. Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers. But, many, more than you would think an acceptable number are sympathetic toward the suicide bomber’s goals.
They all really need to be watched more closely than they are currently.
The Muslim Students Association in particular might be the most subversive and influential politicized group on campus since the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) almost succeeded in radically changing a generation of young people in the 1960s.
It is extremely important that those of us in the west who want to protect our freedoms that we be aware of these groups, their intentions and believe what they are saying and then act accordingly.
And, especially impress this on your children who are attending university.
I was usually the one dissenting voice in the classroom when it came to things like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war on terror, and the clash of civilizations. Being right after 9-11 we were all so very sensitive on both sides about what the course of the future should bring.
Since I was older it was easier for them to just right me off. After all what do older people know, right? When you’re in early twenties you think you know everything, and political radicals of all kinds well, that’s even worse.
What was that saying attributed to Churchill about liberal thinking? If you’re not a left winger at twenty you’ve got no heart, if you’re still a left winger at forty, you’ve got no brains. Or something like that.
So, I gained a bit of a reputation among leftists and Muslims as being a combination O’reilly devotee and idiot. Ok, fine.
While taking an Islamic history class on the Ottoman Empire 15th-20th century, I saw a poster on the wall of the classroom asking for membership in the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
I am reasonably sure that the MSA has a national directive to collect for Islamic charities during their meetings. And, as we have seen through several well researched, published accounts that many times this money ends up in the hands of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other al-Queda like organizations, for the express purpose of killing Jews and Christians.
As despicable as that is, they are still allowed to operate under the freedoms granted to them in this country,
I already knew of their activities from the displays and activism they utilized on campus, but still, I would fantasize how cool it would be to be a fly on the drapes during their meetings listening to them wax eloquent about everything from how they are being persecuted as Muslims to what kind of degrading spectacle they can come up with to offend Jews in the community.
As much as I would have liked to have been part of those discussions, I knew that could never be, because my face, if not my name, was too well known to be able to move around an organization like that without being spotted, and then ousted.
However, after giving it some more thought my name was a bit more obscure. Professors would sometimes call on students without saying anything and sometimes it was “Larry,” or “Mr. Hart.” With my name on one of their rolls it still would be difficult to put together who I was unless you were actually looking for it.
After all I didn’t know every Muslim student as the Muslim population in L.A. is quite large and the local campuses sport a sizable population of Muslim students. In order for my name to be spotted it would probably have to be one of the students, or professors who were also sympathetic to Muslim causes, I actually had interaction with. While that was not impossible under the right circumstances it wouldn’t be likely either.
I would be more invisible if I could just get by with my name, even for a little while.
I decided to sign up for the email list just to see what might happen. Email was beginning to get very popular around the turn of the century and universities were using it extensively. I couldn’t attend meetings or functions but with the advance of email at the time I might be able to get a few tidbits of information that way.
I took a fatalistic attitude toward the whole situation, if they busted me, they busted me. Being on an email list is not all that big a thing. Let’s be honest, receiving an email newsletter once a week or so, would not constitute a breech in their security or anything. I thought it would be fun and I would deal with any repercussions if it came to that.
Because I was still an arms distance away from what might have been even more revealing, the kinds of information I received I was not ground breaking. I couldn’t go to the FBI with it or anything like that.
It wasn’t as good as actually getting next to these people up close and personal but so what, I really didn’t want to get any closer to them then they would allow me to anyway.
During my tenure as a name on their email list I received messages on a weekly or semi weekly basis. Most were about upcoming social events, movies they acquired with an Islamic theme, and discussions that would go on at the university from time to time, some political and some technical concerning living arrangements, food preparation, especially Halal, and alerts about cars parked illegally etc.
But, in between all of this mundane twenty-something nonsense I also remember the following items that may be of interest. The quotes are in quotes because that is how I remember them, but it was several years ago so I might not have the actual wording correct.
Once they sent out an email memo reminding all MSA members to bring their favorite anti Zionist picture, story, or video so they could incorporate it into the national MSA anti-Zionist/free Palestine week. They added as a qualifier “remember, showing Zionism as evil is paramount. It is the only way to convince Americans to support the Palestinian struggle.”
Another time they repeated a memo from National MSA headquarters or some other national overseeing agency, (I can’t remember which) asking members to promote the idea of Islam being a “religion of peace” on their perspective campuses. Playing off a president Bush comment and using it to further the idea that 9-11 was not committed by Arab Muslims.
By the way the anti-Zionist week I mentioned showed evidence that it was Jews who brought down the twin towers, not Mohammad Ata and his gang.
Another time they urged MSA members to enroll into Jewish study courses for the express purpose of monitoring those classes for both sympathetic and non sympathetic Jews, so they could line up who is their enemy and who isn’t.
I’m pretty sure I was labeled an enemy.
All toll I was on the mailing list for about eight months before I was discovered. I don’t know who recognized my name or how it happened. No one ever said anything to me, but I was quietly removed from the list. I wrote to inquire why I was not receiving their messages anymore and they never answered. I guess “the jig was up.”
Groups like the MSA, CAIR, The American Muslim Council, The Muslim Public Affairs Council, and others give the outward appearance that they are community based organizations working toward the betterment of the Muslim community.
Well, if you consider the completion of Jihad, the establishment of Sharia law through Dar el-Harb (the world war) as betterment of the community then that would be an accurate statement.
In reality these are mostly front groups who advocate sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely to further the cause of Jihad in the United States. Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers. But, many, more than you would think an acceptable number are sympathetic toward the suicide bomber’s goals.
They all really need to be watched more closely than they are currently.
The Muslim Students Association in particular might be the most subversive and influential politicized group on campus since the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) almost succeeded in radically changing a generation of young people in the 1960s.
It is extremely important that those of us in the west who want to protect our freedoms that we be aware of these groups, their intentions and believe what they are saying and then act accordingly.
And, especially impress this on your children who are attending university.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Los Angeles water shortage: is it necessary
I'm angry and this article shows it.
Los Angeles is currently under some very strict water rationing controls because of severe drought conditions resulting from low rain fall totals over the last several years. At least that is what City Hall is telling us.
Uh-huh…
In addition several months ago Los Angeles experienced a series of water main breaks at such an alarming rate that it raised enough concern to look into possible causes. At the time the question was raised on whether the current DWP water restrictions could have anything to do with so many serious breaks and subsequent water damage to the community. The head of the Department of Water and Power at the time David Nahai stated that such a notion was “absolute nonsense.” A report released today April 14, 2010, shows that is exactly what happened. Mercury.com http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14880218?nclick_check=1
reported “pressure fluctuated in the city's 7,200-mile water system, straining aging and corroded cast iron pipes until they burst,” commented “University of Southern California civil engineering professor Jean-Pierre Bardet, who led the team of scientists and private-sector analysts.” We’ve lost billions of gallons of water in the process and have spent millions of dollars fixing the problem.
Who’s fault is that? Did we even need water rationing?
Although rain fall totals were slightly under normal over the 2008-2009 season there was no reason to impose water restrictions. Charles Fisk, a meteorologist at Point Magu Naval airbase in Ventura County shows on his website http://home.att.net/~station_climo/ that most of our rainfall during the 2008-2009 season occurred by the middle of February and was by that time less than an inch under normal. Over the previous three rainy seasons we had one the previous season that was like this past year, one poor enough that it did warrant drought conditions, and one that recorded the second highest rainfall in the history of the city since they began recording those kinds of statistics back in 1877. http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm
If we take the previous several years of rainfall and compare that with the last time we had real drought conditions during the 1990s it is clear that much higher rainfall totals currently than the last time have led to the same institutionalized rationing. In the 1980s Los Angeles experienced six out of seven years of drought. The one year that rainfall was above normal was only two inches above. Finally in May of 1990 Mayor Tom Bradley called for water rationing in an attempt to conserve what was by then precious water sources. This was after six years of lower rainfall totals. Water reservoir totals were way down. It was justified then, it isn’t justified now.
The fact that we are experiencing so many breaks has to make some people wonder. I am not an expert on these matters, but you don’t need to be to understand a possible correlation with a review of some of the standard data available on the Internet. Confirming that we really didn’t have rainfall totals over the previous several years to call for drought conditions and therefore install mandatory water rationing a year ago , is definitely suspicious. A desperate set of politicians from the Mayor in collusion with the Department of Water and Power and the City Council have secretly and nefariously imposed water restrictions on a major metropolitan community that did not need it.
As of November 2, 2009 44 serious pipe bursts had occurred in the Los Angeles water system. The result of the Mayor and the City Council decisions has cost the city billions in resources and dollars—dollars the city of Los Angles cannot afford to lose.
Why would they do this?
The level of deceit and dishonesty in this matter is beyond comprehension. In my opinion the city leaders instituted this program of rationing to be able to set up a revenue base from violations that would help in their current budget problems. That is inexcusable. And, if that is not the reason, then they should be made to tell us the reason. The Mayor, his council and all those connected with this sham should be investigated. Elected politicians should be recalled, appointed bureaucrats should be fired without their severance or pensions for their civil service.
By the way, David Nahai is no longer the head of the LADWP, probably seeing the writing on the wall he resigned last fall, to take some other international water running job. That should not save him. He should be penalized through his pension the same as every one else, no matter where he is now.
We don’t have to take this from these guys. They work for us. They answer to us. And, our answer to this incident should be, Your fired, get out!
Los Angeles is currently under some very strict water rationing controls because of severe drought conditions resulting from low rain fall totals over the last several years. At least that is what City Hall is telling us.
Uh-huh…
In addition several months ago Los Angeles experienced a series of water main breaks at such an alarming rate that it raised enough concern to look into possible causes. At the time the question was raised on whether the current DWP water restrictions could have anything to do with so many serious breaks and subsequent water damage to the community. The head of the Department of Water and Power at the time David Nahai stated that such a notion was “absolute nonsense.” A report released today April 14, 2010, shows that is exactly what happened. Mercury.com http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14880218?nclick_check=1
reported “pressure fluctuated in the city's 7,200-mile water system, straining aging and corroded cast iron pipes until they burst,” commented “University of Southern California civil engineering professor Jean-Pierre Bardet, who led the team of scientists and private-sector analysts.” We’ve lost billions of gallons of water in the process and have spent millions of dollars fixing the problem.
Who’s fault is that? Did we even need water rationing?
Although rain fall totals were slightly under normal over the 2008-2009 season there was no reason to impose water restrictions. Charles Fisk, a meteorologist at Point Magu Naval airbase in Ventura County shows on his website http://home.att.net/~station_climo/ that most of our rainfall during the 2008-2009 season occurred by the middle of February and was by that time less than an inch under normal. Over the previous three rainy seasons we had one the previous season that was like this past year, one poor enough that it did warrant drought conditions, and one that recorded the second highest rainfall in the history of the city since they began recording those kinds of statistics back in 1877. http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm
If we take the previous several years of rainfall and compare that with the last time we had real drought conditions during the 1990s it is clear that much higher rainfall totals currently than the last time have led to the same institutionalized rationing. In the 1980s Los Angeles experienced six out of seven years of drought. The one year that rainfall was above normal was only two inches above. Finally in May of 1990 Mayor Tom Bradley called for water rationing in an attempt to conserve what was by then precious water sources. This was after six years of lower rainfall totals. Water reservoir totals were way down. It was justified then, it isn’t justified now.
The fact that we are experiencing so many breaks has to make some people wonder. I am not an expert on these matters, but you don’t need to be to understand a possible correlation with a review of some of the standard data available on the Internet. Confirming that we really didn’t have rainfall totals over the previous several years to call for drought conditions and therefore install mandatory water rationing a year ago , is definitely suspicious. A desperate set of politicians from the Mayor in collusion with the Department of Water and Power and the City Council have secretly and nefariously imposed water restrictions on a major metropolitan community that did not need it.
As of November 2, 2009 44 serious pipe bursts had occurred in the Los Angeles water system. The result of the Mayor and the City Council decisions has cost the city billions in resources and dollars—dollars the city of Los Angles cannot afford to lose.
Why would they do this?
The level of deceit and dishonesty in this matter is beyond comprehension. In my opinion the city leaders instituted this program of rationing to be able to set up a revenue base from violations that would help in their current budget problems. That is inexcusable. And, if that is not the reason, then they should be made to tell us the reason. The Mayor, his council and all those connected with this sham should be investigated. Elected politicians should be recalled, appointed bureaucrats should be fired without their severance or pensions for their civil service.
By the way, David Nahai is no longer the head of the LADWP, probably seeing the writing on the wall he resigned last fall, to take some other international water running job. That should not save him. He should be penalized through his pension the same as every one else, no matter where he is now.
We don’t have to take this from these guys. They work for us. They answer to us. And, our answer to this incident should be, Your fired, get out!
Friday, April 09, 2010
Confessions of a Conservative Jew
Written in response to the onslaught of articles from the Left claiming that the Tea Party is anti-Semitic in nature and for that reason needs to be stopped
There it is, right in the middle of the picture, in pure bright colors, flanked by American flags and contrasted by a deep blue sky in the background. A protest, a democratic ritual, a grass roots staple, nothing more American than that, right? Wrong. The sign states a common canard that develops understandable stomach lumps in one small but very significant group of Americans. It would be absurd if it didn’t have such dangerous historical implications. But, there it is, right in the center of the picture and it reads as clear as day, “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds (sic).”
Jews have to be a little uneasy with this kind of statement. As a conservative Jew I am ashamed that this and other photos of certain anti-Semitic slogans are taking any part in a movement that I am highly proud of as an American. Smacking of the 100 year old “protocols of the Elders of Zion” it has no place in American political discourse. Yet, the companion article to this photo makes T-Partiers appear everyone out there is anti-Semitic. But, that is not the case. Of course, liberals, like Glenn thrush of Politico.com who is responsible for the above, would have you believe that because of a handful bigoted slogans, anti-Semitism is running rampant through T-Party thinking. Why?
There is a rash of liberal journalists running interference for the administration because the T-party is beginning to have an impact on American thinking. Their numbers are huge. The demonstrations across the country are very impressive. With the hundreds of thousands of Americans taking part and the millions more supporting them from their homes, businesses and schools, represents the most frightening reality to liberals, that America is waking up from their dream state of November 2008 and they want their country back. So, liberal media, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party is working hard to show that the T-party is not as American as apple pie, but rather something dark, sinister, and hateful, among other things—anti-Semitic.
According to Rob Eshman, the editor in chief of the largest Jewish newspaper in the second largest Jewish population in the world, Los Angeles, devoted his entire column the week of the health care vote trying to discredit the Tea Party influence by insisting that anti-Semitism is the pillar of the movement. He pointed out that Rahm Emanuel had received some hate mail signed with a swastika. He used Eric Hoffer’s “true believer” axiom to show that Americans are going along with this without question. He seemed a little disappointed that after the meteoric rise of the movement to such gargantuan proportions that no single charismatic leader has risen to take charge reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis. He quoted James Bessor from another widely read Jewish periodical “almost all the political scientists I talked to said, the insurgent movement also includes elements that are likely to scare the heck out of Jewish voters. “
What elements? Where?
Conservative and Independent Jews are indeed worried about anti-Semitism but not at Eshman’s and Bessor’s assertions. Understanding that there are a few crazies in the movement which need to be exorcised and put down is not worrisome. Anti-Semitism in the tea party is an anomaly which is being dealt with the way anti-Semitism should be dealt with in a free human rights respected society. For Liberal Jewish voters, the kind that Eshman, Bessor, Thrush and others are speaking for in their hysteria need to be more worried than we conservatives. Anti-Semitism in the Democratic party which is broad and extensive unfortunately has never been checked and now in the beginning of the 21st century has an un-relinquishing grip on the party. It is the ugly little secret that liberal Jews never want to talk about much less do anything constructive to combat it.
This animus toward Jews is propelled mainly by three sources very much entrenched in party workings, the extreme Left wing, the African American community and certain Muslim and Arab groups.
Historically, the pull away from Jewish interests in the Democratic Party can be traced directly to the 1972 platform where they endorsed recognition of Palestinian rights at a time when terror was the Palestinians only negotiating tool. Unchallenged, that cancer has continued to grow over the last four decades turning the Democrats from a party of American inclusion to a prioritize cluster of elite groups underpinned with anti-Semitism.
Aside from its sheer dishonesty and a refusal to face facts and understand history, Jewish liberal hypocrisy on the matter is unforgivable. Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post describes an isolated disgusting poster at a T-Party rally which has nothing to do with T-party politics. The text reads “Uncle Sam Reminds You: KEEP PAYING TAXES. The ongoing extermination of Palestinian Children Can't be Done Without Your Help.” Insinuating through Holocaust imagery that American tax dollars going to the State of Israel are used to murder children is an outright lie that is never challenged by the liberal Jewish left, when leftist demonstrations use the same imagery. Leftists have forever tried to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, claiming that political statements concerning Israel and its survival struggle with the Palestinians are legitimate and should be separated from the Nazi like real anti-Semitism of the right wing. Yet, here Linkins uses it to show anti-Semitism running rampant through T-party motivations.
Can Liberal Jews do anything to reverse this trend? Getting rid of this ugliness is highly unlikely at this point. The time for that is long since past. The only way to purge this viciousness would be to challenge these groups for party supremacy and then remove their constituents from any positions of power they hold. That is not possible at this time. That would destroy the foundations of what the party is, I don’t think even Liberal Jews want that.
What they have done instead with these articles is to draw a moral equivalency between the two major American ideologies thereby diffusing any complicity in the crime. After all, if anti-Semitism exists equally on the right and the left then the issue seems to cancel each other out as criteria for supporting Jewish causes.
Taking the low road and not standing up to this threat when it was possible to do so will cost the Jews as it has at other times in history. European Jewry followed somewhat the same course in Western Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries. We all know how that ended up.
Well, there is one thing they could do, and I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention it here. Here is my constant message to my Jewish brothers and sisters. Leave the Democratic Party now. It is the conservative thought in this country which now holds the key to our salvation and our freedom. You need to realize and embrace it. It is the only way to continue to flourish and take advantage of the freedoms we are given here.
For some reason I cannot see journalists like Eshman and Linkins or politicians like Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel making those kinds of courageous changes. I just don’t think they have it in them.
It is right that these isolated placards that show an anti-Semitic bent in T-party demonstrations be exposed and put down as quickly as possible. There is no room for that in this country. We do not need to redefine freedom; we just need to extend it to all who are willing to fight for it. It appears that the T-party is just such a group, and this is definitely within Jewish interests. As Jews we need to stay on course, keep freedom alive, and keep America strong.
There it is, right in the middle of the picture, in pure bright colors, flanked by American flags and contrasted by a deep blue sky in the background. A protest, a democratic ritual, a grass roots staple, nothing more American than that, right? Wrong. The sign states a common canard that develops understandable stomach lumps in one small but very significant group of Americans. It would be absurd if it didn’t have such dangerous historical implications. But, there it is, right in the center of the picture and it reads as clear as day, “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds (sic).”
Jews have to be a little uneasy with this kind of statement. As a conservative Jew I am ashamed that this and other photos of certain anti-Semitic slogans are taking any part in a movement that I am highly proud of as an American. Smacking of the 100 year old “protocols of the Elders of Zion” it has no place in American political discourse. Yet, the companion article to this photo makes T-Partiers appear everyone out there is anti-Semitic. But, that is not the case. Of course, liberals, like Glenn thrush of Politico.com who is responsible for the above, would have you believe that because of a handful bigoted slogans, anti-Semitism is running rampant through T-Party thinking. Why?
There is a rash of liberal journalists running interference for the administration because the T-party is beginning to have an impact on American thinking. Their numbers are huge. The demonstrations across the country are very impressive. With the hundreds of thousands of Americans taking part and the millions more supporting them from their homes, businesses and schools, represents the most frightening reality to liberals, that America is waking up from their dream state of November 2008 and they want their country back. So, liberal media, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party is working hard to show that the T-party is not as American as apple pie, but rather something dark, sinister, and hateful, among other things—anti-Semitic.
According to Rob Eshman, the editor in chief of the largest Jewish newspaper in the second largest Jewish population in the world, Los Angeles, devoted his entire column the week of the health care vote trying to discredit the Tea Party influence by insisting that anti-Semitism is the pillar of the movement. He pointed out that Rahm Emanuel had received some hate mail signed with a swastika. He used Eric Hoffer’s “true believer” axiom to show that Americans are going along with this without question. He seemed a little disappointed that after the meteoric rise of the movement to such gargantuan proportions that no single charismatic leader has risen to take charge reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis. He quoted James Bessor from another widely read Jewish periodical “almost all the political scientists I talked to said, the insurgent movement also includes elements that are likely to scare the heck out of Jewish voters. “
What elements? Where?
Conservative and Independent Jews are indeed worried about anti-Semitism but not at Eshman’s and Bessor’s assertions. Understanding that there are a few crazies in the movement which need to be exorcised and put down is not worrisome. Anti-Semitism in the tea party is an anomaly which is being dealt with the way anti-Semitism should be dealt with in a free human rights respected society. For Liberal Jewish voters, the kind that Eshman, Bessor, Thrush and others are speaking for in their hysteria need to be more worried than we conservatives. Anti-Semitism in the Democratic party which is broad and extensive unfortunately has never been checked and now in the beginning of the 21st century has an un-relinquishing grip on the party. It is the ugly little secret that liberal Jews never want to talk about much less do anything constructive to combat it.
This animus toward Jews is propelled mainly by three sources very much entrenched in party workings, the extreme Left wing, the African American community and certain Muslim and Arab groups.
Historically, the pull away from Jewish interests in the Democratic Party can be traced directly to the 1972 platform where they endorsed recognition of Palestinian rights at a time when terror was the Palestinians only negotiating tool. Unchallenged, that cancer has continued to grow over the last four decades turning the Democrats from a party of American inclusion to a prioritize cluster of elite groups underpinned with anti-Semitism.
Aside from its sheer dishonesty and a refusal to face facts and understand history, Jewish liberal hypocrisy on the matter is unforgivable. Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post describes an isolated disgusting poster at a T-Party rally which has nothing to do with T-party politics. The text reads “Uncle Sam Reminds You: KEEP PAYING TAXES. The ongoing extermination of Palestinian Children Can't be Done Without Your Help.” Insinuating through Holocaust imagery that American tax dollars going to the State of Israel are used to murder children is an outright lie that is never challenged by the liberal Jewish left, when leftist demonstrations use the same imagery. Leftists have forever tried to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, claiming that political statements concerning Israel and its survival struggle with the Palestinians are legitimate and should be separated from the Nazi like real anti-Semitism of the right wing. Yet, here Linkins uses it to show anti-Semitism running rampant through T-party motivations.
Can Liberal Jews do anything to reverse this trend? Getting rid of this ugliness is highly unlikely at this point. The time for that is long since past. The only way to purge this viciousness would be to challenge these groups for party supremacy and then remove their constituents from any positions of power they hold. That is not possible at this time. That would destroy the foundations of what the party is, I don’t think even Liberal Jews want that.
What they have done instead with these articles is to draw a moral equivalency between the two major American ideologies thereby diffusing any complicity in the crime. After all, if anti-Semitism exists equally on the right and the left then the issue seems to cancel each other out as criteria for supporting Jewish causes.
Taking the low road and not standing up to this threat when it was possible to do so will cost the Jews as it has at other times in history. European Jewry followed somewhat the same course in Western Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries. We all know how that ended up.
Well, there is one thing they could do, and I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention it here. Here is my constant message to my Jewish brothers and sisters. Leave the Democratic Party now. It is the conservative thought in this country which now holds the key to our salvation and our freedom. You need to realize and embrace it. It is the only way to continue to flourish and take advantage of the freedoms we are given here.
For some reason I cannot see journalists like Eshman and Linkins or politicians like Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel making those kinds of courageous changes. I just don’t think they have it in them.
It is right that these isolated placards that show an anti-Semitic bent in T-party demonstrations be exposed and put down as quickly as possible. There is no room for that in this country. We do not need to redefine freedom; we just need to extend it to all who are willing to fight for it. It appears that the T-party is just such a group, and this is definitely within Jewish interests. As Jews we need to stay on course, keep freedom alive, and keep America strong.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Day the Jews Control the Town
Did you ever see “Christmas Time for the Jews,” that Saturday Night Live short by Robert Smigel? It’s a three minute claymation skit of Jews who seem to have their way on Christmas because all the gentiles are home drinking eggnog with their families. It’s very funny, complete with references to Seinfeld, the Daily show and Fiddler on the Roof played by non Jews. Catch it on Hulu.com and you’ll appreciate this piece all the more.
Like most Jews I view Christmas as a day off, and I look forward to it. Like the song says it’s a time I can do just about anything I want. I can go to the movies, eat at restaurants and walk the malls relatively free of people. Or, if I want, I can choose to stay home, watch videos, order pizza and vegetate on the couch for the day.
In the past few years I have been hearing about a program that sponsors Jews who want to work for Christians in vital jobs that cannot be abandoned even on Christmas day. Each year as the attack on Christmas from the left grows larger I continue to look at this option as a possible means for me to satisfy two desires. One, to show my support for Christians celebrating Christmas as a Jew who is appalled at the Left’s attack and the Jewish role in that campaign, and two, it appears to me that such a selfless mitzvah probably will not go unnoticed in this world or the next.
I googled “Jews who work for Christians on Christmas.” I got all kinds of hits, from white supremacists accusing Jews of killing Christ, to Jews being warned not to celebrate Christmas. In the middle of all this was an article from last year in Boulder Colorado that caught my eye, a group of Jews working for Christians on Christmas. Perfect! I wrote the author and asked him to give me more information. Maybe he could help me find the same group here in L.A., where I live. Not thirty seconds after I sent the query, it came back undeliverable.
Dead end.
I wrote to the Jewish Journal here in Los Angeles. Rob Eshman, their editor wrote me back and put me in touch with a guy who then put me in touch with Temple Israel in Hollywood.
Temple Israel sends Jews, like me who want to do something constructive on Christmas, to the United Methodist Church on Hollywood and Highland. They sponsor a Christmas dinner for the homeless. It’s a noble and worthwhile way to spend Christmas as a Jew.
And, that’s ok, but I was looking for something different. I wanted to work for someone, so I could physically feel myself doing a mitzvah for a complete stranger—a one on one exchange of goodness for happiness. I work for him or her and they go home to have Christmas with their family. The thought of that was very appealing.
So, I kept looking.
I called the Jewish federation, the Valley Alliance, and the Jewish Community Center thinking maybe they might know something.
Nothing.
I was running out of options here.
I had to accept the possibility that there was no group, at least not any more. Luckily, I had an ace in the hole. I work as an onsite home owners association manager at a local condominium project in Marina Del Rey. We have guards at our gates 24/7, and, Christmas is no exception.
Bingo! A vital job that cannot be abandoned, not even on Christmas. The only difference, it wasn’t anonymous. Going somewhere to relieve someone who is a total stranger was more in line with my thinking. But, they were no where to be found and this was a pretty cool second best.
Since Christmas falls on Friday this year, our post commander Michele would be faithfully sitting at her post on Christmas morning and would not be excused until 3:00 in the afternoon.
When I asked if she had to work that day, in complete resignation she said, “yes, I do.”
I thought about it awhile. I didn’t want it to appear self serving since everyone knows me there and would undoubtedly ask why I was running the gates that morning, (which I never do) and deliver the praise of such an act.
Decision making time.
This is it, I do it here, or I don’t do it.
I approached Michele with the idea, and of course, as a new grandmother she was ecstatic. I told her to clear it with her company and since I spoke for the homeowners association on such matters everything else would be in place for me to work for her.
While sitting in the guard shack that day, I kept thinking I could be home right now, watching some old Seinfeld, and have “the daily show reruns, running through my head” (straight from the Saturday night Live skit), But then there was Michele, spending the day with her family and that beautiful grand daughter of hers.
It never hurts to practice a little plain goodness in your life. “The day we control the town” was for me this year, a day of real thanksgiving and brotherhood. Because of me, one Christian woman enjoyed a memorable day with her family, was eternally grateful for that opportunity and gave me a sense of self worth that I don’t often enough get to experience in my life. I’m not sure why, but somehow, by the end of Christmas day I felt a little more connected to my own Jewishness. It was good to give something back. It was a good day.
Like most Jews I view Christmas as a day off, and I look forward to it. Like the song says it’s a time I can do just about anything I want. I can go to the movies, eat at restaurants and walk the malls relatively free of people. Or, if I want, I can choose to stay home, watch videos, order pizza and vegetate on the couch for the day.
In the past few years I have been hearing about a program that sponsors Jews who want to work for Christians in vital jobs that cannot be abandoned even on Christmas day. Each year as the attack on Christmas from the left grows larger I continue to look at this option as a possible means for me to satisfy two desires. One, to show my support for Christians celebrating Christmas as a Jew who is appalled at the Left’s attack and the Jewish role in that campaign, and two, it appears to me that such a selfless mitzvah probably will not go unnoticed in this world or the next.
I googled “Jews who work for Christians on Christmas.” I got all kinds of hits, from white supremacists accusing Jews of killing Christ, to Jews being warned not to celebrate Christmas. In the middle of all this was an article from last year in Boulder Colorado that caught my eye, a group of Jews working for Christians on Christmas. Perfect! I wrote the author and asked him to give me more information. Maybe he could help me find the same group here in L.A., where I live. Not thirty seconds after I sent the query, it came back undeliverable.
Dead end.
I wrote to the Jewish Journal here in Los Angeles. Rob Eshman, their editor wrote me back and put me in touch with a guy who then put me in touch with Temple Israel in Hollywood.
Temple Israel sends Jews, like me who want to do something constructive on Christmas, to the United Methodist Church on Hollywood and Highland. They sponsor a Christmas dinner for the homeless. It’s a noble and worthwhile way to spend Christmas as a Jew.
And, that’s ok, but I was looking for something different. I wanted to work for someone, so I could physically feel myself doing a mitzvah for a complete stranger—a one on one exchange of goodness for happiness. I work for him or her and they go home to have Christmas with their family. The thought of that was very appealing.
So, I kept looking.
I called the Jewish federation, the Valley Alliance, and the Jewish Community Center thinking maybe they might know something.
Nothing.
I was running out of options here.
I had to accept the possibility that there was no group, at least not any more. Luckily, I had an ace in the hole. I work as an onsite home owners association manager at a local condominium project in Marina Del Rey. We have guards at our gates 24/7, and, Christmas is no exception.
Bingo! A vital job that cannot be abandoned, not even on Christmas. The only difference, it wasn’t anonymous. Going somewhere to relieve someone who is a total stranger was more in line with my thinking. But, they were no where to be found and this was a pretty cool second best.
Since Christmas falls on Friday this year, our post commander Michele would be faithfully sitting at her post on Christmas morning and would not be excused until 3:00 in the afternoon.
When I asked if she had to work that day, in complete resignation she said, “yes, I do.”
I thought about it awhile. I didn’t want it to appear self serving since everyone knows me there and would undoubtedly ask why I was running the gates that morning, (which I never do) and deliver the praise of such an act.
Decision making time.
This is it, I do it here, or I don’t do it.
I approached Michele with the idea, and of course, as a new grandmother she was ecstatic. I told her to clear it with her company and since I spoke for the homeowners association on such matters everything else would be in place for me to work for her.
While sitting in the guard shack that day, I kept thinking I could be home right now, watching some old Seinfeld, and have “the daily show reruns, running through my head” (straight from the Saturday night Live skit), But then there was Michele, spending the day with her family and that beautiful grand daughter of hers.
It never hurts to practice a little plain goodness in your life. “The day we control the town” was for me this year, a day of real thanksgiving and brotherhood. Because of me, one Christian woman enjoyed a memorable day with her family, was eternally grateful for that opportunity and gave me a sense of self worth that I don’t often enough get to experience in my life. I’m not sure why, but somehow, by the end of Christmas day I felt a little more connected to my own Jewishness. It was good to give something back. It was a good day.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Are We Too Late?
The United States continues to stall for time in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Consequently, Iran appears to be exploiting American weakness to have the resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the region. President Obama, coming off a disastrous policy decision on the Afghanistan problem, is following up with the same hesitant, restrained, indecisive pattern of ineffectiveness which has now put the west on the defensive against a growing Jihadi tide. And, this situation has our allies in the region, especially Israel, very worried because Obama at present is not risking the existence of the United States. He is using Tel Aviv as its minor’s canary to see how far he can stretch out the Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons.
On December 19th Debka File reported that the Obama administration forced Israel to abandon any plans of direct action against Iran until the president has the opportunity to play out his hand at a diplomatic and peaceful solution. After all of Obama’s earlier tough talk at the United Nations last October in reality he is taking a much softer approach.
Our enemies are laughing at us
I would like to blame this on Obama’s Left wing agenda but the previous administration did the same thing. Like the Bush administration before him, he sends the wrong messages hoping the madman of Tehran will take them in the spirit in which they are given, as friends and colleagues on the world stage.
Wasn’t that what Chamberlain was hoping for at Munich in 1938?
Achmadinijad sensing American restraint on the issue demanded in Copenhagen last week “everything is possible, but not in a climate where they threaten us…those days are over.” Consequently, Obama is trying to appease Achmadinijad, telling him that America wants to make nice, even at the expense of the Israelis.
The president is hoping for another year to resolve the issue. But, Debka’s military sources say that it will be too late by then, Iran will have the bomb sometime in 2010. Israel will lose its strategic edge, and who knows what will happen after that. Does anyone really think that the Obama administration does not realize this is doomsday for Israel if they continue on this present course?
Like pulling an unloaded gun on a bad guy Obama made tough statements that America’s patience is running thin and that “tougher sanctions are imminent.” But, then, the administration acquiesced further this week with three measures all designed to appease. The first was a temporary shelving of a prior congressional approval to penalize American companies doing business with Iran. But last week John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, announced that he “needs more time to consider the bill.” The second, the government announced a six month delay in deployment of the bunker buster bomb specifically designed for the Iranian strike, even though it is ready now. And third, Israeli journalists briefed by Obama administration officials have produced articles from those briefings that implore the Israeli electorate to get used to the idea of living with a nuclearized Iran.
Iran’s answer to the Obama acquiescence: the test firing of a new missile which can penetrate both Israeli and American defenses.
The time for talk is long over.
This kind of dialogue might have been constructive back in 2003 when Iran announced its re-initiation of its nuclear program. Once Iran had threatened Israel, and other American allies in the region, a plan for slowing them down should have been envisioned. Now, they have missiles which can hit Tel Aviv, advanced weaponry that nobody is really sure if it can be defended against, and an extra six years to build its defenses and strike capabilities in the event of an attack.
If Obama had the beitzim, he would have counted the last administration’s talks with the Iranian government as a failed negotiation and made direct plans either with or without Israel’s help to stop Iran from turning the world in a dangerous direction. But, sadly, he doesn’t, and therefore cannot do what is right. The West better get real serious about the Iranian situation soon. Time is running out fast.
The question for the Netanyahu government is simple but essential. Does it continue to rely on a weakened United States, led by an untested administration, one that cannot seem to recognize real evil in the world, and holds to the firm belief that it is possible to negotiate with it? Can it allow this kind of diplomatic brinkmanship to decide whether Israel lives or dies? Can Israel realistically put its survival in the hands of anyone else other than itself?
For Israel there is no choice, it would have been easier earlier but it has to remove the threat now at whatever cost. Not to will increase the possibility of a diminished Israel, in a region with enemies already bent on its destruction and the constant fear that at anytime, the worst enemy of the Jews since Adolph Hitler has got his finger on the button and is just waiting for an excuse. And, as we have seen previously, to Achmadinijad and his supporters, that excuse is the very existence of the Jewish state.
On December 19th Debka File reported that the Obama administration forced Israel to abandon any plans of direct action against Iran until the president has the opportunity to play out his hand at a diplomatic and peaceful solution. After all of Obama’s earlier tough talk at the United Nations last October in reality he is taking a much softer approach.
Our enemies are laughing at us
I would like to blame this on Obama’s Left wing agenda but the previous administration did the same thing. Like the Bush administration before him, he sends the wrong messages hoping the madman of Tehran will take them in the spirit in which they are given, as friends and colleagues on the world stage.
Wasn’t that what Chamberlain was hoping for at Munich in 1938?
Achmadinijad sensing American restraint on the issue demanded in Copenhagen last week “everything is possible, but not in a climate where they threaten us…those days are over.” Consequently, Obama is trying to appease Achmadinijad, telling him that America wants to make nice, even at the expense of the Israelis.
The president is hoping for another year to resolve the issue. But, Debka’s military sources say that it will be too late by then, Iran will have the bomb sometime in 2010. Israel will lose its strategic edge, and who knows what will happen after that. Does anyone really think that the Obama administration does not realize this is doomsday for Israel if they continue on this present course?
Like pulling an unloaded gun on a bad guy Obama made tough statements that America’s patience is running thin and that “tougher sanctions are imminent.” But, then, the administration acquiesced further this week with three measures all designed to appease. The first was a temporary shelving of a prior congressional approval to penalize American companies doing business with Iran. But last week John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, announced that he “needs more time to consider the bill.” The second, the government announced a six month delay in deployment of the bunker buster bomb specifically designed for the Iranian strike, even though it is ready now. And third, Israeli journalists briefed by Obama administration officials have produced articles from those briefings that implore the Israeli electorate to get used to the idea of living with a nuclearized Iran.
Iran’s answer to the Obama acquiescence: the test firing of a new missile which can penetrate both Israeli and American defenses.
The time for talk is long over.
This kind of dialogue might have been constructive back in 2003 when Iran announced its re-initiation of its nuclear program. Once Iran had threatened Israel, and other American allies in the region, a plan for slowing them down should have been envisioned. Now, they have missiles which can hit Tel Aviv, advanced weaponry that nobody is really sure if it can be defended against, and an extra six years to build its defenses and strike capabilities in the event of an attack.
If Obama had the beitzim, he would have counted the last administration’s talks with the Iranian government as a failed negotiation and made direct plans either with or without Israel’s help to stop Iran from turning the world in a dangerous direction. But, sadly, he doesn’t, and therefore cannot do what is right. The West better get real serious about the Iranian situation soon. Time is running out fast.
The question for the Netanyahu government is simple but essential. Does it continue to rely on a weakened United States, led by an untested administration, one that cannot seem to recognize real evil in the world, and holds to the firm belief that it is possible to negotiate with it? Can it allow this kind of diplomatic brinkmanship to decide whether Israel lives or dies? Can Israel realistically put its survival in the hands of anyone else other than itself?
For Israel there is no choice, it would have been easier earlier but it has to remove the threat now at whatever cost. Not to will increase the possibility of a diminished Israel, in a region with enemies already bent on its destruction and the constant fear that at anytime, the worst enemy of the Jews since Adolph Hitler has got his finger on the button and is just waiting for an excuse. And, as we have seen previously, to Achmadinijad and his supporters, that excuse is the very existence of the Jewish state.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
A Call to Educate: Confronting Anti-Israel Bias on College Campuses
On November 14th I attended a talk by Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University in Boston, at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. The subject was on the disturbing growth of Anti-Zionism on campuses and the relentless pursuit of defining the State of Israel as “evil” while recognizing that the Palestinian people deserve to have a home where Israel now stands. As someone who has experienced this phenomenon first hand as an older student returning to the university after many years, I jumped at the chance to hear what he had to say. I was not disappointed.
Because the university is where the best, the brightest, and the most influential reside, Dr. Reinharz pointed out that certain “Arab governments have figured out that the university is a good place to propagate their views.” These can cover a wide range of interests not the least of which is the demonization of Israel and advocating its demise. Convince a clip talking, bow tied, Ivy league prof, to condemn Israel and people will listen. A perusal through published theses, dissertations and journal articles show a preponderance of anti-Israel bias. Some of these papers are so malicious that it is hard to find the scholarly points that the writers are supposed to argue. Still, they are passed on by thesis committees and are published as books; end up in newspaper articles, in historical documentaries and of course, text books that grade school students learn from.
“Often to be progressively liberal today means to be anti-Zionist.” One of the great contributors to Israel’s demonization on campuses is the growth of the Left. The political Left wing, unbelievably potent in most history, English and political science departments, views the State of Israel as a tool of American imperialism, a colonial outpost of European Jews which have no right to be there. They basically hold that 1948 was a great mistake. Allowing the Jews to create a homeland in Palestine never should have happened. They defend a moral equivalency between terrorism against innocent Jews and what Israel does to defend against it. They support a two state solution, not as an end to the conflict, but as a punishment for Israel because of perceived crimes as an occupying power. This perception of Israel runs very deep in the academic community. Speakers on campuses supporting terror against Jews are allowed under the guise of free speech, and actions against Jewish students and offensive anti-Semitic slogans during anti Israel demonstrations are not discouraged.
The advocacy of the Left has no place on the university campus. Dr. Reinharz was clear on this point, “universities should not be in a position of supporting advocacy groups.” As Jews we are particularly sensitive to this matter because the “advocacy” promoted here is the destruction of Israel, and the Jewish return to a non sovereign status in world affairs.
So, what do we do about it? Professor Reinharz had several good suggestions.
The careful administration of endowments is very important. Funding in small amounts and getting to know the faculty Dr. Reinharz insists is key in understanding how your money is spent. “You cannot demand what to teach with the money you are giving them, but you can minimize the risk of it going to anti-Israel causes.” Talk to department heads, ask them how they will they teach classes associated with your endowment. Read the catalogue to get a feel for the classes and what is taught in them. While sitting there listening to him I thought of a couple more on my own. Before you endow read the schedule of classes for that particular semester. Research the department heads and the professors teaching the classes. Reading their curriculum vitae is an excellent way of determining how a particular professor leans politically and whether that leaning affects what he or she teaches.
The professor also called for the establishment of Israel Study Centers. Study centers are interdisciplinary programs run by the university to further study on a wide range of subjects. Study centers dedicated to Israeli culture, sociology, history, politics etc., can be great educating bases for compiling scholarly arguments among the world’s academics about the problems in the Middle East.
Birthright, a program that completely subsidizes young Jews to Israel, provides an excellent source of education by providing first person looks into what is happening on the ground. Of the many programs that are available to send young Jews to Israe, Birthright ranks at the top of the list in popularity. For a two week trip, air fare, and accommodations including meals are all paid for in full. Spending cash is up to the individual. While those two weeks don’t provide a lifetime of education on the Arab Israeli conflict they at least give young people some time on the land itself. They become connected, and form lifelong attachments with the State of Israel. Even the most erudite professor would have a hard time disseminating misinformation to someone with this experience. Birthright Israel is an important step in turning this problem around. It would be wise to expand on this program to be able to send more young people to Israel than is now possible.
The problem of anti-Zionism on college campuses is one that is not going away, it’s getting worse. Even with Jewish involvement, it provides a springboard for an anti-Semitism that has not been seen in the world since the Nazism of the 1930s. One has only to experience an on campus demonstration against Israel’s existence to understand its virulent nature. Dr. Reinharz provided some excellent ways to begin to reverse the tide. It’s time the Jewish community concerned with Israel’s survival get involved and channel their power to produce some balance in the university. Anti-Zionism nurtured by the Left and Palestinians bent on destroying Israel have had a head start but they haven’t won. Let’s get to work.
Because the university is where the best, the brightest, and the most influential reside, Dr. Reinharz pointed out that certain “Arab governments have figured out that the university is a good place to propagate their views.” These can cover a wide range of interests not the least of which is the demonization of Israel and advocating its demise. Convince a clip talking, bow tied, Ivy league prof, to condemn Israel and people will listen. A perusal through published theses, dissertations and journal articles show a preponderance of anti-Israel bias. Some of these papers are so malicious that it is hard to find the scholarly points that the writers are supposed to argue. Still, they are passed on by thesis committees and are published as books; end up in newspaper articles, in historical documentaries and of course, text books that grade school students learn from.
“Often to be progressively liberal today means to be anti-Zionist.” One of the great contributors to Israel’s demonization on campuses is the growth of the Left. The political Left wing, unbelievably potent in most history, English and political science departments, views the State of Israel as a tool of American imperialism, a colonial outpost of European Jews which have no right to be there. They basically hold that 1948 was a great mistake. Allowing the Jews to create a homeland in Palestine never should have happened. They defend a moral equivalency between terrorism against innocent Jews and what Israel does to defend against it. They support a two state solution, not as an end to the conflict, but as a punishment for Israel because of perceived crimes as an occupying power. This perception of Israel runs very deep in the academic community. Speakers on campuses supporting terror against Jews are allowed under the guise of free speech, and actions against Jewish students and offensive anti-Semitic slogans during anti Israel demonstrations are not discouraged.
The advocacy of the Left has no place on the university campus. Dr. Reinharz was clear on this point, “universities should not be in a position of supporting advocacy groups.” As Jews we are particularly sensitive to this matter because the “advocacy” promoted here is the destruction of Israel, and the Jewish return to a non sovereign status in world affairs.
So, what do we do about it? Professor Reinharz had several good suggestions.
The careful administration of endowments is very important. Funding in small amounts and getting to know the faculty Dr. Reinharz insists is key in understanding how your money is spent. “You cannot demand what to teach with the money you are giving them, but you can minimize the risk of it going to anti-Israel causes.” Talk to department heads, ask them how they will they teach classes associated with your endowment. Read the catalogue to get a feel for the classes and what is taught in them. While sitting there listening to him I thought of a couple more on my own. Before you endow read the schedule of classes for that particular semester. Research the department heads and the professors teaching the classes. Reading their curriculum vitae is an excellent way of determining how a particular professor leans politically and whether that leaning affects what he or she teaches.
The professor also called for the establishment of Israel Study Centers. Study centers are interdisciplinary programs run by the university to further study on a wide range of subjects. Study centers dedicated to Israeli culture, sociology, history, politics etc., can be great educating bases for compiling scholarly arguments among the world’s academics about the problems in the Middle East.
Birthright, a program that completely subsidizes young Jews to Israel, provides an excellent source of education by providing first person looks into what is happening on the ground. Of the many programs that are available to send young Jews to Israe, Birthright ranks at the top of the list in popularity. For a two week trip, air fare, and accommodations including meals are all paid for in full. Spending cash is up to the individual. While those two weeks don’t provide a lifetime of education on the Arab Israeli conflict they at least give young people some time on the land itself. They become connected, and form lifelong attachments with the State of Israel. Even the most erudite professor would have a hard time disseminating misinformation to someone with this experience. Birthright Israel is an important step in turning this problem around. It would be wise to expand on this program to be able to send more young people to Israel than is now possible.
The problem of anti-Zionism on college campuses is one that is not going away, it’s getting worse. Even with Jewish involvement, it provides a springboard for an anti-Semitism that has not been seen in the world since the Nazism of the 1930s. One has only to experience an on campus demonstration against Israel’s existence to understand its virulent nature. Dr. Reinharz provided some excellent ways to begin to reverse the tide. It’s time the Jewish community concerned with Israel’s survival get involved and channel their power to produce some balance in the university. Anti-Zionism nurtured by the Left and Palestinians bent on destroying Israel have had a head start but they haven’t won. Let’s get to work.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The option no one wants to think about
Published in the Jerusalem Post, December 2, 2009. you can find it at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243055252&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Israel at one time was the world leader in combating terrorism. Military colleges studied how it performed the Entebbe raid of 1976. People marveled everywhere at their courage at storming a children’s house on Kibbutz Misgav Am in 1980 and killed all five terrorists before they could kill the remaining children. They launched a successful commando raid against a particular terrorist in Lebanon where they stole into the night, killed him and then went back out again, without losing a man, a perfect surgical strike. Israel is responsible for mandating that terror can never be negotiated with, knowing that once you go down that path it is slippery slope to surrender and defeat.
But, Israel has been languishing in recent years, consumed with the same political correctness that is politically drowning the rest of the Western world facing a terrorist threat. They just don’t seem to have what it takes to deal the proper blow to the terror in its midst. The debacle in Lebanon in 2006 and again missing the golden opportunity to cut the head off of one of these snakes in Gaza last year, Israel appears like the rest of us, doomed to live with terror until it either destroys us or burns itself out in a hundred years or so. Of course, waiting it out means that a lacerated nation will be scarred for who knows how long after that.
Enter the Sri Lankans. I think they have an answer. And, I think Israel should listen to what they have to say. Sri Lanka used to be just like Israel. They had a perennial terrorist problem with their Tamil minority. For almost thirty years, organized bands in that community terrorized the Sri Lankan nation to the point where the country could not evolve. Navin Dissanayake, Sri Lankan Minister of investment Promotion claims that they “could have been another Singapore if it had not been for that war.” Terrorism, in Sri Lanka, as it did in Israel, held that country from progressing forward which would have been good for Sri Lanka and good for the world.
The Tamil Tigers , sometimes referred to by its long name, The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) resemble Middle East terror groups. Actually, it is more correct to say that Middle East terror groups resemble the Tamil Tigers as they are the innovators of many of the terrorist techniques that have been utilize by Israel’s enemies. They invented the suicide belt and perfected the suicide bombing attack, turning it into a tactical device. They were the first to use women and children in these attacks. And, they have been accused of using their own innocent civilians, as human shields in their confrontation with Sri Lankan government forces. They are a vicious crowd and were implicated in the assassination of Ragiv Ghandi of India in 1991. As we all know, Palestinians have imitated these tactics with a devastating brutality against innocent Jews.
The Sri Lankans more or less lived with this horror since 1983. Then 9-11 happened and a new dynamic promoted by President Bush and the United States gave the Sri Lankans a new outlook. With a new administration elected on the promise of stopping the LTTE permanently, they embarked on a full scale military assault on Tamil positions which by 2007 held almost one fourth of the country, mostly in the north. They sent their army, a much stronger army than the Tamil tigers, into Tamil occupied territory and began to take back town by town, going street to street in some cases from their enemies. While doing this they killed anyone who resisted against them.
Jehan Perera of the Sri Lankan Peace Council said that “This government has taken the position that virtually any price is worth paying to rid the country of terrorism.” The price paid was indeed a heavy one. Many innocent people died. The Sri Lankan government regrets in the strongest terms the killing of innocent civilians but most government officials believe that they made a conscious choice of that “price” and that the alternative status quo was just not acceptable any more.
It was bloody and dirty, and they took a lot of criticism for it, “The U.N. Estimates that during the final months of fighting in Sri Lanka at least 7,000 Tamil civilians were killed and at least 13,000 were injured.” But, they also wiped out the scourge of terror that was choking the life out of their country. They did not stop until total victory was declared last May. Today, Sri Lankans can once again walk the streets of their cities, visit the marketplace, and conduct business without the threat of being murdered in such a way that not even their loved ones can identify their bodies. It is a new dawn and a new day for Sri Lanka.
Israel can take a real lesson from this experience. The threat facing the Jewish State from the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon is no different than the north of Sri Lanka and coastline into the south that the Tamils occupied before the Sri Lankan army began their elimination war against them.
The time has come to admit there might not be a solution to the Palestinian problem. But, there is a way to end it. The next time that terror forces Israel to take a military stand this option should be considered. Israel must realize that there will be no peace with an intransigent enemy that refuses to act in good faith. Palestinian rejectionist actions, and Iranian backed Hezbollah threats to their existence will never be placated, and they will never stop until Israel is destroyed. Once the population of Israel realizes this unfortunate reality, there is only one way to end it. Israel must take the Sri Lankan initiative and move into these areas one by one, corner, and envelop all armed resistance, and then kill it off.
Bending over backwards to make peace with the Palestinians has proved fruitless without Israel submitting to national weakening measures. It’s time to make the choice of a better life for all. More than sixty years of living with this is enough. When they have completely wiped out the enemy, a new dynamic will rise. Without the Muslim thuggery of holding their own people back, there will be nothing to stop them from negotiating a genuine peace with Israel. There might be a Palestinian, a Lebanese, a Syrian, maybe even an Iranian partner to draw up a peace which will transform the Middle East from a place of hatred and bloodshed to a prosperous community of nations which will work together making the daily lives of their individual citizens better.
No more Gilad Shalit's
Israel at one time was the world leader in combating terrorism. Military colleges studied how it performed the Entebbe raid of 1976. People marveled everywhere at their courage at storming a children’s house on Kibbutz Misgav Am in 1980 and killed all five terrorists before they could kill the remaining children. They launched a successful commando raid against a particular terrorist in Lebanon where they stole into the night, killed him and then went back out again, without losing a man, a perfect surgical strike. Israel is responsible for mandating that terror can never be negotiated with, knowing that once you go down that path it is slippery slope to surrender and defeat.
But, Israel has been languishing in recent years, consumed with the same political correctness that is politically drowning the rest of the Western world facing a terrorist threat. They just don’t seem to have what it takes to deal the proper blow to the terror in its midst. The debacle in Lebanon in 2006 and again missing the golden opportunity to cut the head off of one of these snakes in Gaza last year, Israel appears like the rest of us, doomed to live with terror until it either destroys us or burns itself out in a hundred years or so. Of course, waiting it out means that a lacerated nation will be scarred for who knows how long after that.
Enter the Sri Lankans. I think they have an answer. And, I think Israel should listen to what they have to say. Sri Lanka used to be just like Israel. They had a perennial terrorist problem with their Tamil minority. For almost thirty years, organized bands in that community terrorized the Sri Lankan nation to the point where the country could not evolve. Navin Dissanayake, Sri Lankan Minister of investment Promotion claims that they “could have been another Singapore if it had not been for that war.” Terrorism, in Sri Lanka, as it did in Israel, held that country from progressing forward which would have been good for Sri Lanka and good for the world.
The Tamil Tigers , sometimes referred to by its long name, The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) resemble Middle East terror groups. Actually, it is more correct to say that Middle East terror groups resemble the Tamil Tigers as they are the innovators of many of the terrorist techniques that have been utilize by Israel’s enemies. They invented the suicide belt and perfected the suicide bombing attack, turning it into a tactical device. They were the first to use women and children in these attacks. And, they have been accused of using their own innocent civilians, as human shields in their confrontation with Sri Lankan government forces. They are a vicious crowd and were implicated in the assassination of Ragiv Ghandi of India in 1991. As we all know, Palestinians have imitated these tactics with a devastating brutality against innocent Jews.
The Sri Lankans more or less lived with this horror since 1983. Then 9-11 happened and a new dynamic promoted by President Bush and the United States gave the Sri Lankans a new outlook. With a new administration elected on the promise of stopping the LTTE permanently, they embarked on a full scale military assault on Tamil positions which by 2007 held almost one fourth of the country, mostly in the north. They sent their army, a much stronger army than the Tamil tigers, into Tamil occupied territory and began to take back town by town, going street to street in some cases from their enemies. While doing this they killed anyone who resisted against them.
Jehan Perera of the Sri Lankan Peace Council said that “This government has taken the position that virtually any price is worth paying to rid the country of terrorism.” The price paid was indeed a heavy one. Many innocent people died. The Sri Lankan government regrets in the strongest terms the killing of innocent civilians but most government officials believe that they made a conscious choice of that “price” and that the alternative status quo was just not acceptable any more.
It was bloody and dirty, and they took a lot of criticism for it, “The U.N. Estimates that during the final months of fighting in Sri Lanka at least 7,000 Tamil civilians were killed and at least 13,000 were injured.” But, they also wiped out the scourge of terror that was choking the life out of their country. They did not stop until total victory was declared last May. Today, Sri Lankans can once again walk the streets of their cities, visit the marketplace, and conduct business without the threat of being murdered in such a way that not even their loved ones can identify their bodies. It is a new dawn and a new day for Sri Lanka.
Israel can take a real lesson from this experience. The threat facing the Jewish State from the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon is no different than the north of Sri Lanka and coastline into the south that the Tamils occupied before the Sri Lankan army began their elimination war against them.
The time has come to admit there might not be a solution to the Palestinian problem. But, there is a way to end it. The next time that terror forces Israel to take a military stand this option should be considered. Israel must realize that there will be no peace with an intransigent enemy that refuses to act in good faith. Palestinian rejectionist actions, and Iranian backed Hezbollah threats to their existence will never be placated, and they will never stop until Israel is destroyed. Once the population of Israel realizes this unfortunate reality, there is only one way to end it. Israel must take the Sri Lankan initiative and move into these areas one by one, corner, and envelop all armed resistance, and then kill it off.
Bending over backwards to make peace with the Palestinians has proved fruitless without Israel submitting to national weakening measures. It’s time to make the choice of a better life for all. More than sixty years of living with this is enough. When they have completely wiped out the enemy, a new dynamic will rise. Without the Muslim thuggery of holding their own people back, there will be nothing to stop them from negotiating a genuine peace with Israel. There might be a Palestinian, a Lebanese, a Syrian, maybe even an Iranian partner to draw up a peace which will transform the Middle East from a place of hatred and bloodshed to a prosperous community of nations which will work together making the daily lives of their individual citizens better.
No more Gilad Shalit's
Friday, November 06, 2009
The Parting of the Red Sea
Thanks to a very passionate letter by Jon Voight urging liberal Jews to stand up for themselves I was inspired to write the following piece. Now that it is written I don't know why I waited so long to do it.
As a conservative Jew I have been trying to figure out for a long time why the Jewish Left continues to serve in great numbers in the Democratic Party. I use to think that it was foolish for these Jews to place such high value on liberal causes since they long ago stopped having any advantage to our people. I left the Democratic Party myself in the 80s, disgusted by the reluctance of liberal Jews to speak out on their own behalf while the rest of the Democratic Party honed its Palestinian platform and condemned Israel for defending itself.
Until recently Jewish participation in the party was more or less irresponsible. Now, in a post 9-11 world that stubbornness to see only a moral equivalence in the Middle East conflict and not condone the right of Jews to defend themselves against a murderous enemy, has become more dangerous than foolhardy. Politics has changed and our interests in the 21st century reside on a different political plane than it did for our fathers and grandfathers. Old enemies have become friends and long standing political allies have become our enemies. Left wing Jews need to calculate the difference, swallow hard and make the move to insure our own survival.
As the Democratic Party moves further away from protecting Jewish rights whether here or in Israel, the Jews in that movement do little to counter the growing hostility. Left unchecked at the beginning of the 21st century, it’s as though the Left has finally uncovered its European anti-Semitic roots and is reveling in it. With Israel as a focus, Left wing Jews have largely ignored these signs. it is disturbing that they think as long as they leave their Jewish concerns at the door they will continue to be accepted as part of the perceived great liberal democracy experiment of 20th century America.
Jews who are troubled by what they see in their own camp on the Left remain silent. One of the professions where this problem is so prevalent and so influential is in the University. Scholars are respected, esteemed, almost anointed with the task of giving us the proper view of looking at the world around us. We count on them to get it right. For decades that institution has been overwhelmed with Left wing thinking and published positions. Liberal Jewish professors are afraid to say anything to their colleagues who talk of a weakened Israel as the first step to forcing that country into oblivion as the only means for peace. They eat lunch, socialize and have to work with these people every day. It is easier to remain silent than to defend Jews whenever or where ever they are being maligned. The fear of being ostracized as a scholar is so strong that they will allow their own people to be characterized as evil no different than the blood libels in Europe centuries ago. Their silence is despicable.
At present too many Jews are repulsed and slightly confused by right wing thinking, the Republican Party, conservative support for Israel, and the non Jewish right’s standing with the Jewish people’s struggle against Islamic terror, juxtaposed by their own political allies on the left who seem exactly the opposite. Consider this: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, former President Bush and Sara Palin are four of the most despised people on the democratic heavily Jewish left. All four of these individuals are conservative, ideologues for the Republican platform, and are also staunch supporters of the state of Israel and condemn without question Hamas terror. I defy you to name even one American non Jewish leftist who will categorically support Israel and unequivocally condemn terrorism against innocent Jews. You can’t. You can’t because I don’t think there is one leftist thinker or politician in this country today who will do that. Some pay lip service to it but none will unequivocally state it.
What must be so confusing to Jews on the left is that while their own non Jewish allies are moving increasingly to accept and advocate terror as a means of resistance against Israel and re-establishing old anti-Semitic canards reflecting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the two most hated institutions on the left, the political Right, and the Christian Church are moving in the opposite direction with an intolerance toward anti-Semitism and recognition of the Jewish struggle to survive in Israel.
There is no ambiguity on the right of center in American politics. Its purpose concerning the Middle East is clear. Israel has a right to expect to remain free and is obligated to defend itself against any entity that seeks to undermine that freedom. Israel might just be our most important ally in the war on terror. Most right wing thinkers hold that opinion and realize that Israel is on the front line of this fight and we need to support its actions in protecting itself and its citizens.
The other most feared icon of the Jewish Left, the Church, has moved continually and directly to an acceptance of Jewish life as equals. Both the Catholic Church and non Catholic Christians have over the last 50-60 years changed their attitude 180 degrees concerning Jews and their relationship to Christians. The Jewish State and other Jewish causes are at the forefront of their political demands. It is in fact, the 70 million strong Christian evangelical movement in this country which has single handedly backed American support for Israel. The Christian community, the very backbone of America , has taken it upon itself to make sure that Israel remains safe with American power.
The Left insists that it is the “right wing” Jewish lobby which creates America’s seemingly unbreakable ties with the Jewish State. But logic dictates that cannot be true. Jews are not numerous enough to influence anything concerning Israel. The Left argues that Jewish money behind AIPAC, twists the arms of congress people to vote in favor of Israel on any number of issues. In fact, money used for that purpose plays a much smaller role than the religious Christian constituency that stands behind their representatives and insists that Israel receives our help. Left wing Jews must find it in their hearts to accept what is true. Christianity might have been our enemy in the past but that is not the case anymore. We have a powerful ally in those groups. We all should accept their apologies for passed transgressions and join them in their campaign to insure Israel stays strong. They deserve our loyalty and our thanks.
It is not the Left that holds the secret to our success anymore, it is the Right. We can no longer count on the strategy and political legacy of our fathers and grandfathers. The time has come to leave that part of our heritage behind. As hard it is may seem liberal Jews need to take a deep breadth, open their eyes wide and recognize who our enemies and friends really are. We need to join with those who will stand with us in our hour of need, who will be there to back us up as we move further into an uncertain future.
We Jews need to reassess our own political history. Ask yourself this question. Do we want to continue to snuggle up to those who will destroy us? The Left in the 21st century is no different than the right in the 20th. Left unchecked it will continue to move toward more vicious attacks on Israel, on Jews, on the Jewish religion and on all of us. We need to put our faith in those who have proven that they are our friends and allies in all matters political. Not to do this will continue to choke our culture, intimidate us to see Israel at fault, and tempt us with universal acceptance if we just leave that Jewish/Zionist world behind. No longer can Jews protect themselves as our fathers did by siding with the left of center philosophy. Our future and our safety has shifted to the right and we need to recognize and embrace it.
The Red Sea has been parted; all we have to do is cross it.
As a conservative Jew I have been trying to figure out for a long time why the Jewish Left continues to serve in great numbers in the Democratic Party. I use to think that it was foolish for these Jews to place such high value on liberal causes since they long ago stopped having any advantage to our people. I left the Democratic Party myself in the 80s, disgusted by the reluctance of liberal Jews to speak out on their own behalf while the rest of the Democratic Party honed its Palestinian platform and condemned Israel for defending itself.
Until recently Jewish participation in the party was more or less irresponsible. Now, in a post 9-11 world that stubbornness to see only a moral equivalence in the Middle East conflict and not condone the right of Jews to defend themselves against a murderous enemy, has become more dangerous than foolhardy. Politics has changed and our interests in the 21st century reside on a different political plane than it did for our fathers and grandfathers. Old enemies have become friends and long standing political allies have become our enemies. Left wing Jews need to calculate the difference, swallow hard and make the move to insure our own survival.
As the Democratic Party moves further away from protecting Jewish rights whether here or in Israel, the Jews in that movement do little to counter the growing hostility. Left unchecked at the beginning of the 21st century, it’s as though the Left has finally uncovered its European anti-Semitic roots and is reveling in it. With Israel as a focus, Left wing Jews have largely ignored these signs. it is disturbing that they think as long as they leave their Jewish concerns at the door they will continue to be accepted as part of the perceived great liberal democracy experiment of 20th century America.
Jews who are troubled by what they see in their own camp on the Left remain silent. One of the professions where this problem is so prevalent and so influential is in the University. Scholars are respected, esteemed, almost anointed with the task of giving us the proper view of looking at the world around us. We count on them to get it right. For decades that institution has been overwhelmed with Left wing thinking and published positions. Liberal Jewish professors are afraid to say anything to their colleagues who talk of a weakened Israel as the first step to forcing that country into oblivion as the only means for peace. They eat lunch, socialize and have to work with these people every day. It is easier to remain silent than to defend Jews whenever or where ever they are being maligned. The fear of being ostracized as a scholar is so strong that they will allow their own people to be characterized as evil no different than the blood libels in Europe centuries ago. Their silence is despicable.
At present too many Jews are repulsed and slightly confused by right wing thinking, the Republican Party, conservative support for Israel, and the non Jewish right’s standing with the Jewish people’s struggle against Islamic terror, juxtaposed by their own political allies on the left who seem exactly the opposite. Consider this: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, former President Bush and Sara Palin are four of the most despised people on the democratic heavily Jewish left. All four of these individuals are conservative, ideologues for the Republican platform, and are also staunch supporters of the state of Israel and condemn without question Hamas terror. I defy you to name even one American non Jewish leftist who will categorically support Israel and unequivocally condemn terrorism against innocent Jews. You can’t. You can’t because I don’t think there is one leftist thinker or politician in this country today who will do that. Some pay lip service to it but none will unequivocally state it.
What must be so confusing to Jews on the left is that while their own non Jewish allies are moving increasingly to accept and advocate terror as a means of resistance against Israel and re-establishing old anti-Semitic canards reflecting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the two most hated institutions on the left, the political Right, and the Christian Church are moving in the opposite direction with an intolerance toward anti-Semitism and recognition of the Jewish struggle to survive in Israel.
There is no ambiguity on the right of center in American politics. Its purpose concerning the Middle East is clear. Israel has a right to expect to remain free and is obligated to defend itself against any entity that seeks to undermine that freedom. Israel might just be our most important ally in the war on terror. Most right wing thinkers hold that opinion and realize that Israel is on the front line of this fight and we need to support its actions in protecting itself and its citizens.
The other most feared icon of the Jewish Left, the Church, has moved continually and directly to an acceptance of Jewish life as equals. Both the Catholic Church and non Catholic Christians have over the last 50-60 years changed their attitude 180 degrees concerning Jews and their relationship to Christians. The Jewish State and other Jewish causes are at the forefront of their political demands. It is in fact, the 70 million strong Christian evangelical movement in this country which has single handedly backed American support for Israel. The Christian community, the very backbone of America , has taken it upon itself to make sure that Israel remains safe with American power.
The Left insists that it is the “right wing” Jewish lobby which creates America’s seemingly unbreakable ties with the Jewish State. But logic dictates that cannot be true. Jews are not numerous enough to influence anything concerning Israel. The Left argues that Jewish money behind AIPAC, twists the arms of congress people to vote in favor of Israel on any number of issues. In fact, money used for that purpose plays a much smaller role than the religious Christian constituency that stands behind their representatives and insists that Israel receives our help. Left wing Jews must find it in their hearts to accept what is true. Christianity might have been our enemy in the past but that is not the case anymore. We have a powerful ally in those groups. We all should accept their apologies for passed transgressions and join them in their campaign to insure Israel stays strong. They deserve our loyalty and our thanks.
It is not the Left that holds the secret to our success anymore, it is the Right. We can no longer count on the strategy and political legacy of our fathers and grandfathers. The time has come to leave that part of our heritage behind. As hard it is may seem liberal Jews need to take a deep breadth, open their eyes wide and recognize who our enemies and friends really are. We need to join with those who will stand with us in our hour of need, who will be there to back us up as we move further into an uncertain future.
We Jews need to reassess our own political history. Ask yourself this question. Do we want to continue to snuggle up to those who will destroy us? The Left in the 21st century is no different than the right in the 20th. Left unchecked it will continue to move toward more vicious attacks on Israel, on Jews, on the Jewish religion and on all of us. We need to put our faith in those who have proven that they are our friends and allies in all matters political. Not to do this will continue to choke our culture, intimidate us to see Israel at fault, and tempt us with universal acceptance if we just leave that Jewish/Zionist world behind. No longer can Jews protect themselves as our fathers did by siding with the left of center philosophy. Our future and our safety has shifted to the right and we need to recognize and embrace it.
The Red Sea has been parted; all we have to do is cross it.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Problem with Hybrid Cars
The love affair with hybrid cars because they are so economical and use so much less gas is not a cure all for our energy problems. In fact, if we become lulled into believing that it is we could be spelling our own doom. I wrote this after the "New" General Motors announced they have broken through with an engine that will get literally hundreds of miles to a gallon of gas. Written August 2009.
General motors leaked recently that the Chevrolet Volt will spearhead their new line of cars in 2010. Rising up from the ashes like a Phoenix, the leaner, meaner General Motors has taken a cue from the Obama administration putting its hopes of success in green technology. The Chevy Volt, an experimental model for many years has been dusted off, reengineered and is now ready for mass production. Bragging that it will leave Toyota’s Prius behind and will produce an unbelievable 230 miles to a gallon of gas, it will cost around $40,000. Well, even with that price tag getting 230 miles to a gallon, the car will pay for itself in no time. This has to be good news.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Deir Yassin remembered
When discussing the Israeli Palestinian dispute, some Palestinian supporters who like to point to a history of Jewish abuses against innocent Arabs over the last six decades sometimes refer to a particularly infamous battle during the War of 1948 that took place in a small town on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Hwy called Deir Yassin. For many reasons, not the least of which concerns political infighting between the major factions of the Israeli body politic, Deir Yassin has taken on a life of its own over the last 61 years.
Deir Yassin has been called a “massacre” by Palestinian and Arab groups as well as Leftist commentators in the West. It might be considered a “massacre” but no more than the Haifa Refinery massacre on December 30, 1947, and the doctors and nurses massacre on the road to Hadassa hospital on Mount Scopus, on April 13, 1948, or any of the other massacres that became part of the fighting history of Israel’s War of Independence. These other “massacres” have long been forgotten by most people accept for the few historians that deal with the course of this eighteen month war. This is not the case with Deir Yassin.
Deir Yassin was one of many towns and villages that had to be cleared during Operation Nachshon, the overall operation to open the road to besieged Jerusalem in April, 1948. Not to take action on this road would mean giving up on Jewish Jerusalem, which was as unthinkable then as it is now. The Jews of Jerusalem had been besieged since January, with no electricity, food, water, or any of the other vital necessities of life. People in the Jewish quarter of the city were literally starving to death. Without the opening of the road to allow convoys of supplies to enter the city, it was almost a certainty that Jewish Jerusalem would fall to the enemy. For this reason, Ben Gurion ordered 1500 Haganna troops to take part in the operation, the largest of its kind up to that time in the battle for Palestine in 1947 and 1948.
The Israeli military has long been the dominant force in the Middle East. No Arab army has been able to defeat it. A foregone conclusion for so long, that it’s hard to believe that the history was ever anything but total Israeli domination over its neighbors. But, this was not always the case. Before the start of the 1948 war it was very tenable on whether the Jews could defeat the Arab enemy and established their state by the time the British would leave in May. The belief that the Jews were in a dire strait and faced the very sobering possibility of defeat began to take shape almost immediately after the partition vote on November 29, 1947 and did not abate itself until June of 1948 when it became clear that by the end of the war a Jewish State of some kind would emerge intact. Operation Nachshon was part of the push to change this dynamic and many towns, including Deir Yassin along that stretch of road were fought over and won by Jewish forces. In discussing the beginning of this realization in March of 1948 Benny Morris, a prominent historian on the expulsion of the Arabs during Israel’s war of Independence wrote:
“The toll on Jewish life and security in the battle of the roads and dire prospect of pan-Arab invasion had left the Yishuv (community) with very narrow margins of safety. It could not afford to leave pockets of actively or potentially hostile Arabs behind its line. This was certainly true regarding vital roads and areas such as the Jerusalem Corridor…when the Yishuv faced, and it knew it faced, a life and death struggle. “ (p.236, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge, 2004.)
Depending on the source any where between 300 to 600 Arab towns and villages were destroyed during the eighteen months of war in 1947-1948. Why does Deir Yassin stand out among all of the others? Why is this remembered and the other villages are not, at least from the Israeli Left? The answer to this is simple. Although massacres were common during that war the Left in Israel, politically signified at that time as the Mapam party had a stake in making an issue out of the Deir Yassin battle. As independence approached, their influence over the Yishuv began to wane. Their reactions were to lash out at the now growing middle of the road leadership, led by David Ben Gurion, and attempted to subvert it by making accusations of improper and immoral acts against the enemy. Deir Yassin was the perfect model to make this stand for several reasons. First, this town was singled out to be fought with primarily LEHI (Sternists) and ETZEL (Begin’s Urgun) forces in a Haganna sanctioned attack. LEHI and ETZEL were the ideological enemies of the Mapam. Second, by indicting the Haganna as sanctioning the operation and allowing these “barbarian” groups to “murder, rape, pillage and steal,” they believed that they could make criminal any political belief to the right of the extreme Left in Israel. Third, they saw this whole incident as an opportunity to oppose the Yishuv’s shift toward American and British democracy and away from Stalinist Russia.
The Palmach, the armed wing of the Mapam, was, like ETZEL and LEHI not opposed to establishing a state by force, and indeed took part in many militant operations before May 14,1948. But, Mapam never indicted Palmach, only those groups that were their ideological opposites and only because they lost favor and support from the people as a political force. Although Mapam has long been disbanded and the Palmach like ETZEL, LEHI and Haganna have all been melded into the IDF, the extreme political Left still uses this tactic today. Deir Yassin, according to the Left, is one of a long line of accused abuses by the Zionist movement.
Today, it is mostly forgotten that Deir Yassin was an ugly battle among many ugly battles of that war which were fought hard by both sides and perpetuated the deaths of many innocent people both Jewish and Arab. But, as this story lingers now into the 21st century, it is apparent that Deir Yassin is a cause celeb against Israel’s motives during the War of Independence, and that the Arabs for whatever reasons needed to be defeated, did not deserve to be tortured and massacred in such a manner. Through propaganda and emphasizing Israeli brutality it is mostly lost on history that the Jews with their proverbial backs up against the wall fought hard to survive and won their state motivated by liberty rather than motivated by domination over a lesser equipped Arab minority.
After the War of Independence Deir Yassin was so touted by the Left it was of course picked up by the Arab propaganda machine sometime in the late 1950s and the two groups joined in an unholy alliance against a common enemy that exists until this very day. It is one of the rallying cries to show the “barbarous” nature of the Israeli occupation forces. It is still taught in universities across the English and Arab speaking world as the proof that Israel needs to be punished for its actions. The calls for this punishment range from a much weaker diminished Israel to its complete annihilation and in its place an Arab Muslim state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
If we are going to be fair, when considering the place of the Deir Yassin battle it must be looked at in the context of the time, the desperation of one people to quite literally survive the conflict and the total incompetence of the other side in trying to explain why they lost that war so badly. The fact is that Israel’s war of Independence was a war not unlike most wars in that the human tragedy factor was very high on both sides. Probably more on the Jewish side simply because the Arabs had the opportunity to flee to the safety of bordering Arab governments and the Jews didn’t. The Jews, unlike their Arab counterparts, had to make their stand in Palestine and no where else. Consequently, many innocent Jews, without guns in their hands died in this endeavor. However, this is never indicated by the Left or for the obvious reasons by the Arab side. As Morris explained in the above quote in April of 1948, with the survival of the coming Jewish State, the very lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish men, women and children hung in the balance. And, it did not become clear that the Jews would survive at all until the first truce went into effect on June 9th, 1948.
Deir Yassin was awful. But, so were many of the battles fought during that time. We should be cognizant of that and urge our leaders, professors, journalists and historians to reflect that fairness in their reports on this history. It is time we set the record straight.
Deir Yassin has been called a “massacre” by Palestinian and Arab groups as well as Leftist commentators in the West. It might be considered a “massacre” but no more than the Haifa Refinery massacre on December 30, 1947, and the doctors and nurses massacre on the road to Hadassa hospital on Mount Scopus, on April 13, 1948, or any of the other massacres that became part of the fighting history of Israel’s War of Independence. These other “massacres” have long been forgotten by most people accept for the few historians that deal with the course of this eighteen month war. This is not the case with Deir Yassin.
Deir Yassin was one of many towns and villages that had to be cleared during Operation Nachshon, the overall operation to open the road to besieged Jerusalem in April, 1948. Not to take action on this road would mean giving up on Jewish Jerusalem, which was as unthinkable then as it is now. The Jews of Jerusalem had been besieged since January, with no electricity, food, water, or any of the other vital necessities of life. People in the Jewish quarter of the city were literally starving to death. Without the opening of the road to allow convoys of supplies to enter the city, it was almost a certainty that Jewish Jerusalem would fall to the enemy. For this reason, Ben Gurion ordered 1500 Haganna troops to take part in the operation, the largest of its kind up to that time in the battle for Palestine in 1947 and 1948.
The Israeli military has long been the dominant force in the Middle East. No Arab army has been able to defeat it. A foregone conclusion for so long, that it’s hard to believe that the history was ever anything but total Israeli domination over its neighbors. But, this was not always the case. Before the start of the 1948 war it was very tenable on whether the Jews could defeat the Arab enemy and established their state by the time the British would leave in May. The belief that the Jews were in a dire strait and faced the very sobering possibility of defeat began to take shape almost immediately after the partition vote on November 29, 1947 and did not abate itself until June of 1948 when it became clear that by the end of the war a Jewish State of some kind would emerge intact. Operation Nachshon was part of the push to change this dynamic and many towns, including Deir Yassin along that stretch of road were fought over and won by Jewish forces. In discussing the beginning of this realization in March of 1948 Benny Morris, a prominent historian on the expulsion of the Arabs during Israel’s war of Independence wrote:
“The toll on Jewish life and security in the battle of the roads and dire prospect of pan-Arab invasion had left the Yishuv (community) with very narrow margins of safety. It could not afford to leave pockets of actively or potentially hostile Arabs behind its line. This was certainly true regarding vital roads and areas such as the Jerusalem Corridor…when the Yishuv faced, and it knew it faced, a life and death struggle. “ (p.236, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge, 2004.)
Depending on the source any where between 300 to 600 Arab towns and villages were destroyed during the eighteen months of war in 1947-1948. Why does Deir Yassin stand out among all of the others? Why is this remembered and the other villages are not, at least from the Israeli Left? The answer to this is simple. Although massacres were common during that war the Left in Israel, politically signified at that time as the Mapam party had a stake in making an issue out of the Deir Yassin battle. As independence approached, their influence over the Yishuv began to wane. Their reactions were to lash out at the now growing middle of the road leadership, led by David Ben Gurion, and attempted to subvert it by making accusations of improper and immoral acts against the enemy. Deir Yassin was the perfect model to make this stand for several reasons. First, this town was singled out to be fought with primarily LEHI (Sternists) and ETZEL (Begin’s Urgun) forces in a Haganna sanctioned attack. LEHI and ETZEL were the ideological enemies of the Mapam. Second, by indicting the Haganna as sanctioning the operation and allowing these “barbarian” groups to “murder, rape, pillage and steal,” they believed that they could make criminal any political belief to the right of the extreme Left in Israel. Third, they saw this whole incident as an opportunity to oppose the Yishuv’s shift toward American and British democracy and away from Stalinist Russia.
The Palmach, the armed wing of the Mapam, was, like ETZEL and LEHI not opposed to establishing a state by force, and indeed took part in many militant operations before May 14,1948. But, Mapam never indicted Palmach, only those groups that were their ideological opposites and only because they lost favor and support from the people as a political force. Although Mapam has long been disbanded and the Palmach like ETZEL, LEHI and Haganna have all been melded into the IDF, the extreme political Left still uses this tactic today. Deir Yassin, according to the Left, is one of a long line of accused abuses by the Zionist movement.
Today, it is mostly forgotten that Deir Yassin was an ugly battle among many ugly battles of that war which were fought hard by both sides and perpetuated the deaths of many innocent people both Jewish and Arab. But, as this story lingers now into the 21st century, it is apparent that Deir Yassin is a cause celeb against Israel’s motives during the War of Independence, and that the Arabs for whatever reasons needed to be defeated, did not deserve to be tortured and massacred in such a manner. Through propaganda and emphasizing Israeli brutality it is mostly lost on history that the Jews with their proverbial backs up against the wall fought hard to survive and won their state motivated by liberty rather than motivated by domination over a lesser equipped Arab minority.
After the War of Independence Deir Yassin was so touted by the Left it was of course picked up by the Arab propaganda machine sometime in the late 1950s and the two groups joined in an unholy alliance against a common enemy that exists until this very day. It is one of the rallying cries to show the “barbarous” nature of the Israeli occupation forces. It is still taught in universities across the English and Arab speaking world as the proof that Israel needs to be punished for its actions. The calls for this punishment range from a much weaker diminished Israel to its complete annihilation and in its place an Arab Muslim state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
If we are going to be fair, when considering the place of the Deir Yassin battle it must be looked at in the context of the time, the desperation of one people to quite literally survive the conflict and the total incompetence of the other side in trying to explain why they lost that war so badly. The fact is that Israel’s war of Independence was a war not unlike most wars in that the human tragedy factor was very high on both sides. Probably more on the Jewish side simply because the Arabs had the opportunity to flee to the safety of bordering Arab governments and the Jews didn’t. The Jews, unlike their Arab counterparts, had to make their stand in Palestine and no where else. Consequently, many innocent Jews, without guns in their hands died in this endeavor. However, this is never indicated by the Left or for the obvious reasons by the Arab side. As Morris explained in the above quote in April of 1948, with the survival of the coming Jewish State, the very lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish men, women and children hung in the balance. And, it did not become clear that the Jews would survive at all until the first truce went into effect on June 9th, 1948.
Deir Yassin was awful. But, so were many of the battles fought during that time. We should be cognizant of that and urge our leaders, professors, journalists and historians to reflect that fairness in their reports on this history. It is time we set the record straight.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Democracy in the Crosshairs
Since the passage of prop 8 a number of prominent California politicians have called for the California supreme court to overturn the voters at the ballot box and rule Prop 8 unconstitutional and re install gay marriage as legal in the State of California. The issue here is no longer about whether you support the right of gay people to marry or not. This has gone way beyond that. The issue now is the protection of our democracy.
Governor Arnold Swarzenegger, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Attorney General Jerry Brown, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, Los Angeles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa among others have supported this call. These politicians argue that how can we accept the will of the people if the will of the people is wrong. The only problem is who is deciding who’s right and who’s wrong. That is why we have elections to make these decisions. But, apparently some of our most prominent and powerful politicians think otherwise. This subverts the whole meaning of democracy, and dangerously puts us on a road toward totalitarianism. Have California’s leaders lost their minds? I would argue that a democracy only works if the will of the people can be supported.
It should be remembered that this has already happened once. In 2000 the voters voted by a huge margin the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. The California State Supreme Court then overturned the will of the people and ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional. Now the voters have once again spoken and these activist judges want to do the same thing again. And, the same court, back by a minority constituency and these influential sympathetic politicians are planning to stretch our liberty beyond acceptable limits. Yaroslovsky, Newsome and the rest are saying that the voters of California are not entitled to decide their own fate.
It is not as if they don’t know what they are doing either. They bring historical perspectives to the argument trying to convinced constituents that there is nothing to fear from subverting a democratic majority vote. If they truly believe gay marriage is a civil right and not and not necessarily a social acceptance, then they should support an initiative to put the issue on the next ballot. That would support the democratic process, and once again support the will of the people, at the proper place, the ballot box. If democratic forces do not stand up to this insidious aversion to our freedom, we will lose little by little that which makes us the greatest experiment in individual liberty the world has ever known.
What will be next, the right to be able to practice only “some” religions? The Mormon people might have a thing or two to say about that one. The right to express yourself as long as it doesn’t oppose the prevailing left wing view, like taking your life in your hands because you are an outspoken religious Jew or Christian in West Hollywood? How about speaking against acts of lewdness during the annual gay pride parades in the various cities across the United States? Is this the world that you want to create? Where will all this lead us?
In 1933, a minority government subverted the will of the people in Germany and this led the world into one of the darkest moments in the history of Western civilization. I doubt that our venerable California politicians would support what the Nazis did during the 1930s and 1940s however, there are some striking similarities between the actions of both groups. The manhandling, vandalism and violent acts perpetrated by those who can’t accept defeat, the gay agenda and their supporters, smacks of brown shirts rampaging down the streets of Berlin busting windows and rousting innocent defenseless Jews. The Nazis started off as a small splinter group of the German Freecorp after World War I and it took many years of agitation before they gained national prominence. The rise of Hitler, and National Socialism eventually catapulted them into the position of removing all opposition and taking their revolution beyond their borders.
Mayor Villaraigosa and the rest of the California political left wing cabal would serve the people much better if they would use their position to quell some of this growing tidal wave of hatred.
In 1917 with the overthrow of the Kaiser the Russian people opted for a democratic form of government to lead them out of the war with Germany and to a brighter future. However, plagued by constant agitating violent and committed Marxist minority, with tactics not that much different than we have seen in the days and weeks since the passage of Prop 8, the provisional government of Alexander Kerensky failed within six months time. What replaced it were 75 years of totalitarianism and the murder of millions of innocent people and the enslavement of millions and millions of others. The Communists did not start out with that kind of power in Russia. They began many years before as a handful of idealists who pictured a “workers paradise” by overthrowing the Russian czarist system.
Granted these are extreme measures that come at the end of the fight rather than at the beginning as the Prop 8 anger has shown us. But, that is what we have to look forward to if we allow this crowd to continue this fascist attack on the democratic process. The writing is on the wall people. No matter how they sugar coat it, we now have elected officials calling for the end of democracy and the beginning of elitist rule, by insisting that the will of the people sometimes needs to be subverted in order to get what “they” think is right.
If politicians think that the people are not smart enough to make informed decisions at the ballot box then those politicians need to be removed from power. What they should be doing, they are not. They should be educating the people better on these issues. They should be doing a better job at legislating laws that protect us in the first place. And, they should be taking stock in themselves because they are failing on these first two counts so miserably. I repeat. Remove them because our democracy is at stake if we don’t. All who love liberty and want to stand up for the ideals that this country and all other democratic countries need to petition their leaders not to take the road of aberrant politicians.
To the gay agenda that supports these politicians I can only say the following. This is not the way to freedom. This will only bring disaster upon our lives and the lives of our children. Stop vandalizing Morman Temples. As long as freedom of religion is still a right in this country, allow those religions to practice without harassment. Stop manhandling little old ladies who cannot poke you in the nose when you push them around because…well…because they are little old ladies. That is so cowardly. And you need to halt this ugly dirty business of taking us back to the time of Macarthyism, blackballing pro prop 8 people out of Hollywood. These actions put a really ugly tinge on your organizations.
Will the opposition to the passage of Prop 8 drop this fascist identity and begin to use the system as the system is designed, or will we just have anarchy in the streets? I don’t know maybe Thomas Hobbs was right. Maybe life is meant to be “nasty, brutish and short.” That is, if these politicians and their supporters have anything to say about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)