Nachman Shai's open letter to Benjamin Netanyahu

Update: in the first version of the post the letter was wrongly assumed to be by Benny Begin. Apologies.
(With thanks to Vittaly).

Nachman Shai with an message for Bibi. Apologies for bugs in translation, if encountered.

***

Without flaming, out of appreciation and clear vision.
(Published by Ynet)

My acquaintance with Bibi, I call him Bibi, is long-standing. I first met him 43 years ago, after his brother Yoni's death in Entebbe. Yoni was my classmate at Rehavia Gymnasium in Jerusalem. A few years earlier, immediately after the Yom Kippur War, I interviewed him as commander of the Golan Heights Armored Battalion. It was the only journalistic interview Yoni had ever given.

In 1976, Bibi asked to speak to me and presented his vision for the war on terror. He was 27 years old and already brilliant at the time. He has developed an international counter-terrorism project and recruited people from all over the world to assist. The project exposed him both in Israel and in the US. Later, the late Moshe Arens chose him to serve as his deputy at the Washington Embassy. At the time, I served as the embassy spokesperson and couldn't help but admire his personal and policy capabilities.

Once again, we worked together in the First Gulf War - he in political PR and I in the military, and later in the Madrid Conference and beyond. Of course, I also followed him during my years in the Knesset, and occasionally we even talked and exchanged opinions.

I value and respect him even today, so I refuse to join the chorus that now rolled him in the tar in the outskirts of the city. But last Thursday I listened to the things he said on television - true, with great excitement, a stir of emotion and lack of sense - and realized that he could go no further.

It's over, Bibi.

The Israeli prime minister cannot burn the house on its residents. No, you can't. Only yesterday and maybe tomorrow you will send Air Force pilots or other IDF fighters to protect this home. A home is not just land, roads, buildings. The home is the set of values ​​and norms we all share.

You, the Prime Minister of Israel, have to respect our democracy, which has been serving you for 13 years. This democracy rests on the foundations of law and order and morality. Without them, it would not be democracy and will collapse. So many countries have already seen it. It might happen to us too. The distance is short.

No, this is not a "coup" and it is not an attempt to oust illegally a prime minister. The law keeping and enforcement system has come to a wise and measured conclusion that the Israeli prime minister should be prosecuted. Even now my hands are shaking at the sound of those words. This system may be faulty. But once a decision has been made, after many hesitations and varied considerations, including the timing, the way is now open to you to fight for your innocence. Not through the microphone and booth, which you so well use, but in court. There and only there.

I wish you got out of the indictments. It's hard for me to watch another convicted prime minister go to jail, but the decision is not mine or yours, and at this moment no longer public. Only the justice system, which you have complimented at the beginning of your speech, then roasted it on fire. The court will hear you, Bibi, with an open heart and soul. Go there, cope, and if there was nothing, there would be nothing.

***

To be on the safe side, follows the original in Hebrew.

Read more »

Returning by Yael Shahar

We know now where grief untold goes; it goes on to haunt future generations. It gets left behind on the grating; it passes unscathed through temperatures that can melt iron and reduce human bone to ash. And somewhere far removed in space and decades into the future, a stranger wakes out of a sound sleep with an inexplicable nightmare and a despair so deep as to negate life itself.

Somehow, and don't ask me how, I knew immediately that the quote above, taken from the middle of the book, will be the one for the post that I'll write. The book, Returning, appeared to have a special significance for me, and this is what is this post about. That and the need to tell you to read this book.

This is in no way a review, I am not a literary critic (an ugly combo of two words if there ever was one). It is also not a spoiler, I know y'all hate spoilers and I am not going there. So, unfortunately, it will have to be more about me and how I got to read the book than about the book itself.

Strangely, Soviet Union, an almost perfect implementation of a party dictatorship and the ideal of a Big Brother's bailiwick, was inexplicably generous where the literature about the Nazi concentration/mass murder camps and, by extension, about Holocaust, were concerned. There were several books in our home, and there was no problem whatsoever to get more from the local library. My parents, not being very much into censorship, allowed my reading material to be my own choice (and my own problem), and for some reason, the books about Holocaust took a significant part of my adolescent attention.

After a while, though, I just couldn't continue reading. Something bad was taking over me. The mix of pain, sorrow and, not the least, hate, became so intense that it impacted me on a physical level. Thankfully, there were no Germans in the vicinity, nor implements of revenge or knowledge necessary to operate these, but the mental scars left by the acquired knowledge remained forever. It took me a special effort to agree to visit Germany many years after that period (on business) and I have never been in Poland. The visit to Yad Vashem cost me more - on several levels - than I care to recall. And so it rolled with me. I wasn't able to read more about the Holocaust, or to see the movies, or to view interviews with survivors - all this was just too much for me.

But when I have seen the first notice about the book going to be published and about it subject matter, e.g. a member of sonderkommando*, my acquired resistance weakened. The subject was new to me. Not that I didn't know about sonderkommandos, but I have never seen one talking or writing about the experience, although I heard about survivors... So the ebook was duly purchased and downloaded.

Now about the book. Actually, it is again about me - reading the book this time.  I don't know whether many of you have undergone a musical ability test. Part of it is when the musician sits at the piano and plays a musical piece, where the melody passes from the lower octaves (left hand) to the higher octaves (right hand) and back. You are supposed to point to the correct hand when the melody jumps over, without delay if possible. When I started to read the book, for a short while I thought that I keep following the melody switching hands. But then - it very quickly appeared to be not a relatively simple fugue but a whole complex symphony that kept me on the edge of my chair for the whole time.

This book is a tough read.

This book is also a rewarding read.

This book is a mandatory read.

And many thanks to Yael.

P.S. And I had my own vision too, here in Israel - but it is another story.

(*) The only spoiler you are going to get from me.

Israel and disproportionate response

It was written by a person named Jonathan Howard in 2014. A good rebuke to idiots, unfortunately I don't have any access to Mr Howard to ask for permission or just to thank him for writing this. Enjoy.

***

For anyone who thinks Israel’s response in Gaza is disproportionate: I agree. It is absolutely disproportionate. So we must ask ourselves: what would a proportionate response look like, exactly?

Every Friday and Saturday, every rabbi in Israel would remind his congregation how important it is to kill all of the Moslems in the world, wherever they find them. Israeli schools would brainwash Israeli kids to die killing Moslems, for the glory of making Judaism dominate the Middle East.

Israeli TV would broadcast threats of genocide to the Palestinians, with the IDF entertainment unit singing specially-written songs in Arabic about how bloody and glorious the massacre will be. (At the same time, they'd go to the UN and accuse the Palestinians of genocide.)

Israeli girls would be killed by their own families if they liked boys. So would Israeli boys.

IDF artillery would shoot rockets into Arab towns without any military targets, with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible, several times a day, almost every day for the last 14 years.

The Mossad would send hundreds of young Jews to blow themselves up in shopping centres, hotels, cafes, nightclubs and bus stops around the world. Israeli municipalities would name streets after the suicide bombers, and the government would pay their families a pension for life. The proud Jewish mothers of the suicide bombers would appear on Israeli TV encouraging mothers everywhere to give up their children for the cause of killing Moslems.

The IDF would bully and threaten the UN to let them store their weapons and explosives in UN facilities. Israeli artillery soldiers would travel around in UN ambulances, kill their own women and children with misfired rockets, then invite the international press to see the dead women and children and blame it on the Palestinians.

They’d put IDF explosives in Israeli homes, and when they blow up in all too frequent accidents, they’d blame the Palestinians and invite the foreign press to come and see the dead women and children.

They’d ban the foreign press from taking any photos of IDF soldiers in uniform, and threaten reporters if they report anything except dead women and children.

The IDF Spokesman would claim that the majority of IDF casualties are actually women and children.

Bibi’s office, and all of the IDF general staff and senior officers, would be relocated to the basement of Hadassah Hospital (confident that the Palestinians generally try to avoid hitting things like hospitals).

Likud would execute members of the Israeli opposition parties if they criticised Bibi’s conduct, taking them out behind the back of the Knesset building and shooting them in the head.

Before running into their bomb shelters, brave IDF soldiers would force Israeli women and children into the firing line, sometimes breaking their legs to stop them getting away, and sometimes chaining them to buildings. Then they'd shoot missiles at the Palestinians, and leg it into the shelter. They'd emerge to find dead women and children, and call the foreign press over to take a look.

The IDF’s Engineering Corps would kill 160 Israeli child slaves during the construction of tunnels. The tunnels would be designed for blowing up Palestinian schools and homes, and for IDF freedom fighters to kidnap Palestinians to use as hostages.

If the tunnel kidnaps succeeded, Bibi would then use the hostages to force the release of the thousands of Jews in Palestinian jails who were responsible for organising the many Jewish suicide bombings. He would give them a heroes' welcome, and put them to work organising more suicide bombings.

The Israeli government would use most of Israel’s public money on terror tunnels and villas for Likud leaders, and put the rest in Swiss and Qatari bank accounts for Bibi and his friends to enjoy. This would sink Israel into poverty. They'd blame the poverty on the BDS movement, and demand more money from the international community to build more tunnels, and more villas for Likud leaders.

They would proudly announce, quoting the Israeli Declaration of Independence, that they're not going to stop until all of the Moslems in the world have been driven into the sea.

And then they'd come for you.

I think we can be thankful that Israel’s response is not proportionate.

Gaza again - it is coming

The four years preceding the last few months' events on the Gaza borders were relatively quiet. Yes, from time to time the silence was interrupted by a few rocket or grenade launches, but nothing too bad. However, ceasefire wasn't to the full satisfaction of the Gazan ruling clique, especially with the new blood in the top management:

That beast will never change its spots, that for sure. So here are some pictures and no predictions of the obvious and, seemingly, inevitable, soon to come.

Ashkelon 

Sderot

Sderot

Tel Aviv (training)

Terry Glavin on Gaza - when your friends are worried about you

This post isn't easy for me to write. Not because I don't know what it should say, just because I don't have a solution to the problem raised by Terry Glavin in the article A moral dilemma on the Israel-Gaza border. It is much easier to respond to a relentless propaganda attack by your enemies than to a true concern about you, expressed by your true friend.

Read more »

Matt Adler and the bitter reality of Israel

I have had a curious Facebook encounter recently that caused me to do some searching for an explanation. On an FB page that is dedicated to left wing Zionists' aspirations, I have got involved in a discussion of an ancient expression "אור לגויים" or, in a not totally precise, but widely accepted translation, "Light to the Nations". The expression itself, as could be easily (but only partially) seen from the links above, is quite a complex one and given to wide, and sometimes wild, interpretations.

The person who raised the issue, one Matt Adler (מטע אדלר) insisted that the current use of this expression in Israel is to stress the perceived superiority of people of Israel (or, rather, Israelis, which is not one and the same) over goyim. And that he hears it used all the time by these stuck up obnoxious Israelis.

I was quite surprised by that strong observation. In my experience almost all people who use that term, do it with a healthy dose of irony (or sarcasm, depending on the context) and in most cases it is self-deprecatory, as Jewish habits go. Which was the point I made. The response was quite surprising: in a minute or so I got blocked by Matt. That without any personal remarks or attacks, in the midst of a polite exchange of opinions.

It isn't that I am oversensitive. After many years of keyboard wars, one tends to grow a thick enough skin. It is just that, after finding Matt's blog, Planting Roots Bearing Fruits and reading a few posts there, I feel quite concerned about the author. Concerned because he seems to be good people and because we (the state of Israel) seem to be losing him. So, exactly as I am concerned about hundreds of thousands of other young people we have lost during these 70 years, I am worried about Matt.

Matt describes himself as "An open-minded* multilingual Jewish explorer". From his other remarks, it appears that he moved to Israel in July 2017 (less than an year here), that he is gay, belongs to the Reform community and strives "to learn and grow here in Israel".

And here is Matt's opinion, quite a firm one, crystallized in half an year of his presence here:

Israel is pretty awful when it comes to human rights, to respecting diversity, to preserving Jewish culture, to living up to Jewish values, to treating people with respect, and to pursuing peace both within society and with our neighbors.

Oh, and another one I almost missed:

Israel is a super stressful place to live...

So much so, that Matt's deep dissatisfaction with his findings ends in:

I’ve been pretty fed up with God lately, tired of Zionism, and not even really sure if I feel Jewish anymore. So I decided to see if maybe Diaspora Judaism, the Judaism I grew up with, still fit.

I am not sure what the deity or, for that matter, Zionism (rather a concept to tickle the Diaspora Jews - we don't deal much with Zionism here, we just live in the land) and the technicality of being Jewish - what measure of bitterness each of the three contributes to Matt's tiredness? but anyhow it's a rather troubling picture.

So what, would you ask, is the ideal situation Matt looks forwards too? Probably in this passage Matt gives a partial answer:

Much like Israel, Judaism needs a revamp. No need to throw everything out, but the way it’s going isn’t working- at least not for me. As I watched two Israelis living in Barcelona learn the Reform liturgy Friday night- and engage in gentler, more peaceful ways than I usually see in Israel- I see a bit of light. Jews outside of Israel need Israel. Yes, it’s a deeply f*cked place and I would rather the world not have states at all. And I’ll keep fighting for that.

Yes, a stateless open world, a gentle and peaceful globe, where the lamb will lie down with the lion. Wouldn't we all love that? I dare say only a hardened asocial psychopaths will willingly offer an objection to that proposal.

I don't think that I could parse all of Matt's complaints in the limited format of a blog post. But one thing should be said about many of them - and his blog in general is full of unhappy observations. "A little learning is a dangerous thing". And some of Matt's (quite firm) opinions and conclusions are indeed a result of little learning. Things that he picked up rather as a result of a confirmation bias than a well-rounded observation and research.

For example - human rights, in this case as related to Matt's view of the refugees issue. To start with, I am generally with Matt on the subject of forceful expulsion. Only generally, because there still is a need to resolve the question of who exactly is a refugee (asylum seeker) vs who is a work seeking migrant. But first and foremost, there is an issue of integration of refugees here. A grave mistake, made by our government, as it was made by practically all European governments, was in letting the refugees to gravitate to the same two gathering spots - one, smaller, in Eilat and the second in the poor neighborhoods of Tel Aviv. This "I wash my hands" policy, practiced by many governments, under the guise of so called "multiculturalism", was a total failure. Multiculturalism was clearly an euphemism for doing practically nothing and investing no effort in real integration of newcomers in the society. The problems created by this approach (or, rather, lack thereof) in south of Tel Aviv, with resulting bitterness of local population and eruption of what Matt considers to be racist affectations. It is easier to blame the government for trying to resolve the problem, as government clerks know to, by forcing the refugees out. As it is easier to blame the embittered south Tel Aviv Jews for their racism than to look a bit deeper into the issue.

But is it a Israeli-specific fault? I dare say hardly, and many a refugees' ghetto in Europe confirms my point of view. And how does Matt round up the discussion? From here:

The Israeli government, then, is willing to deport these people who it views as economically beneficial. Why? Jewish supremacy and racism.

And, to go for some proof:

It’s telling that the government isn’t stepping up enforcement of the thousands of Romanian or Ukrainian or Filipino workers. Just the really black ones.

This statement is interesting only as a proof of strong confirmation bias that allows a person to ignore a simple detail: that these "Romanian or Ukrainian or Filipino workers" usually come here with working visas, which are quite tightly controlled and only in rare cases these workers break the visa conditions. A bit different from the refugees, I would say. But when you are consumed by a righteous wrath against racist Israel, you can't be really bothered by details like this one, can you, Matt?

Matt is frequently raging. Against what he considers to be a all-consuming Jewish supremacy, the institutional racism, the mutual hate between various groups and subgroups of Israeli citizens. The problem with his observations, as I have mentioned, that they are too shallow, built on skimming the surface to confirm his existing prejudices and beliefs, to strengthen his preoccupation with (what he believes) is the only solution to he world't sickness:

What’s the best solution for the Middle East? Perhaps for the world? The no state solution. For anyone. We need a better way of organizing human life. I don’t- and can’t- have all the answers because it’s something we need to talk about together.

The saving grace is that in his heart of heart Matt does understand the necessity and rightfulness of this little and maddening state. From the post already quoted above, where Matt provides his litany of complaints about the place, quite a different sentiment:

Which brings me to what else Israel does well- it gives me a place where if people are ignorant about my tradition, they can learn on my terms. It gives me a place where I’m in a position of power- as fraught as that is. A place where if people want to expel us or lecture us or deride us, we don’t have to grit our teeth and put up with it.

Yes, Matt, and while we all strive to bring the stateless and borderless world to being, let's not forget what exactly was going on with your stateless tribe during the last, say two thousand years. After all, you seem to understand this point only too well, no matter how hard it is for you to make (temporary) peace with it.

There are a lot of other points wrong with Matt's observations on other issues, big and small (and no, Matt, the Adalah's "Discriminatory Laws Database" is not persuasive, sorry - it could be read in different ways, which Adalah is known to exploit quite well). But I really can't go on for much longer. Just to stress the importance of complete and unbiased observations, a small but oh so typical point. Matt on Tel Aviv Purim festivities - a side observation that is wrong too:

I can’t imagine a small town in Israel- Jewish or otherwise- putting together this level of festivity. It’s amazing.

In small villages, Matt, where people are much closer to each other, the Purim celebrations are, of course, not as grandiose as in Tel Aviv. However, after spending some time with my nearest and dearest in a village in the northern parts of the country, I can say that the week-long Purimspiel, with different costumes every day and lots of different daily activities for the kids puts Tel Aviv in a rather humble shadow... so there.

Oh, and another point. Matt, as long as you talk about the local population as "they" or "Israeli Jews" or any similar variation but not "we" and "us", you are not there yet. Consider it a point to study.


(*) Regarding Matt's open-mindedness: his propensity for blocking people who disagree with him was already noted (I wasn't the only one, by the way, as it appeared). Another testimony offered by Matt himself:

One commenter on my last blog suggested deporting African refugees isn’t racist because Israel “absorbed” Ethiopian Jewish immigrants.

If you follow the link to that last "blog" mentioned, titled There is no racism in Israel, you would search for the above mentioned comment in vain - Matt deleted or otherwise disappeared it. So much for open-mindedness...

False alarm on Hawaii and the people of Sderot

Even several days after the advent of the false alarm, issued on Hawaii by a hapless employee, the noise and the excitement caused by the alarm have not abated. The number of search results on the subject,  returned by Google, is staggering - above 5 million hits:

This CNN article reports on the level of anxiety and panic caused by the event, and it is quite helpful to watch the included clip to learn about the terror in the people's minds.

"You're thinking, 'Oh my gosh, are we going to die? Is it really a missile (headed) our way, or is it just a test?'" the 24-year-old told CNN. "We really didn't know."

Etc...

The Hawaiian incident started a wave of introspection in other places, interestingly. Such as this, fairly ridiculous BBC piece:

Hawaii false alarm: How would UK handle missile threat?

The conclusion is, as expected - poorly. Why wold anyone today aim a ballistic missile at London isn't the subject of the article. And the insignificant question of where was all that expected readiness years ago, during the Cold War, when such an outcome was more realistic, remains unanswered, of course.

After looking at all this for a while, I couldn't avoid comparing this affair with the almost weekly (and real) terror experienced by the citizens of Sderot* in their provincial and mundane routine. Such as shown in this clip:



Almost weekly, I said... yeah, and during a conflagration it happens many times a day. But panic, heartbreak and PTSD of Israeli kids and adults, happening in reality, are of much lesser interest, of course:

Nope, I don't really envy the popularity of that missile "incident", nor do I try to diminish the possible implications of Kim the Fatso madness, it is just that... what, really?

I don't know. You tell me.

(*) Apologies to the good people of many other towns and villages around the Gaza strip, not mentioned above. Me too, you know...

Israeli nuclear opacity and oversight: yes or no?

"We never had, don't have and will never have nuclear weapons. This doesn't mean that if someone decided to use such weapons against us, we wouldn't use them first."

Reportedly by Moshe Dayan*.

The above is an elegant (in an uncouth military way) prelude to the subject raised twice in three consecutive days by a Jerusalem Post writer:

JPOST EXCLUSIVE: ISRAEL NUCLEAR PROGRAM HAS LESS OVERSIGHT THAN OTHER DEMOCRACIES

IS IT TIME TO REGULATE ISRAEL’S ATOMIC AGENCY?

First of all, the bomb (no pun intended, it is only in the sense of a scoop here):

Israel has less oversight of its nuclear program than other Western democracies, a study by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, which was obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, concludes.

A summary of decades of work on the issue by Avner Cohen, a Professor of nonproliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey and a Senior Fellow at CNS, and CNS Davis fellow Brandon Mok, but updated with recent developments, the study is being publicized just days before the issue of oversight goes before the High Court of Justice on Wednesday.
...
...the study shows comprehensively for the first time that the three Western democracies with nuclear weapons, the US, Britain and France, all manage to maintain a high level of secrecy while providing for comprehensive legislation and robust oversight that Israel does not have.

That it took decades of work to reach this earth-shattering conclusion is a sure pointer to the permissiveness of some institutions of higher learning (in this case Middlebury Institute of International Studies, which is an "American graduate school within Middlebury College, a private university located in Middlebury, Vermont"). Since Vermont parents apparently invest a lot in the college, they might want to finance a study that will research a difference between Israel and the three Western democracies as well. Maybe it will take less than several decades, who knows?

Professor Cohen doesn't want his research to end up as a purely academic exercise, he and quite a few allies are going further:

Still, the High Court’s September 6 hearing will be the first time in history that a judicial body will exercise broad oversight over the IAEC, with Cohen being one of leaders of the charge.

You will notice that professor Cohen, in his magnanimity, doesn't disallow us to keep the (alleged, of course) nuclear weapons ("the issue for me is not disarmament"). He has even changed his mind on opacity:

His original battle to get Israel to phase out its opacity, to openly acknowledge its nuclear status, Cohen has stopped fighting.

Of course, it is easy to notice the neat trick: forcing the HCJ (High Court of Justice) to discuss the issue of oversight, which is what professor Cohen fights for, immediately makes the opacity issue a thing of the past. But whatever...

The expert on nonproliferation, professor Cohen has only pure and noble goals in mind. He even assures us that:

I wanted to also have people behind it who would be apolitical and support the petition regardless and independently of the issue of disarmament.

Indeed, and this is why among the petitioners, only those mentioned in the article, appear the Israeli Disarmament Movement, led by Sharon Dolev, who initiated the petition; Moshe “Mossi” Raz, a former Meretz MK; and the attorney who filed the petition, Itay Mack. You can look up on the net the opinions of the former MK and of the attorney. The Israeli Disarmament Movement, bless their simple and stupid little brains, doesn't require a lookup, does it? Surely as apolitical as they come. Now pull the other leg, professor.

Well, I didn't want to get personal in that post, and professor Cohen deserves all possible benefit of the doubt. I certainly hate to use terms like "traitor" some less moderate folks throw around, but he made not a small misstep here:

We live in a different world with different questions.

We? Be interesting whom exactly Professor Cohen means by that "we", since he couldn't possibly mean "we" as in "Israelis", could he now? Not to mention that, even if we discard the thorny issue of that "we" as a moot point, looking around from our small hillock in our small swamp, the "different world" mentioned looks somewhat worse than it used to be.

But no matter. I hope the HCJ will boot the petition out quickly enough.

As for my personal opinion on the whole brouhaha, which you undoubtedly crave for: I can tell you with full confidence that Windows 10 in its 64 bit version is an extremely stable and reliable OS for my desktop. Really - imagine two weeks in a row without a single reboot!

Update: the HCJ did boot the petition out. Good.

***

Yonah Jeremy Bob, the author of the two above articles, did his best not to infuse them with his (or his editors') personal or editorial opinions. However, one passage in the second article filled me with wonder:

This issue has become all the more poignant with an ongoing public debate about the “Submarine Affair” plaguing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and multiple cases by IAEC employees hitting the labor courts this week and last week.

How exactly does the nuclear opacity/oversight case connect to the submarine affair mentioned will remain an open question for me. Why don't issues like Brexit, global warming or POTUS' recent shenanigans make that opacity more poignant will never be explained to me, I feel. More's the pity.

(*) It is not a verbatim quote, and attribution is somewhat difficult too. I have heard it several times, but couldn't find a source. Any contribution will be welcome.

There are still judges in Jerusalem. For how long?

It is not news that our illustrious Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, is fighting the HCJ (High Court of Justice) for several years. It is not news that she and several other "patriotic" MKs are hell bent to reduce the authority of HCJ, especially its power to strike down the laws HCJ considers unconstitutional*.

The latest flare-up is related to the treatment of illegal aliens.

Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked attacked Tuesday the High Court of Justice's (HCJ) Monday decision—in which it ruled that illegal aliens refusing to be transferred to a third African country cannot be detained indefinitely—insisting that the principle of Zionsim will not be subordinated to 'a universalistic system of individual rights.'

Of course, as always with Ms Shaked, her unhappiness with this decision caused another eruption of bile, directed at HCJ. Not at the border guards that let the immigrants in, not at the (undefined) authorities that bussed the immigrants to the poor neighborhoods of Tel Aviv and left them there, mostly to cope for themselves. Nope, it is HCJ that is supposed to bear the brunt of her unhappiness, in her superbly demagogic crescendo.

In a speech before the Israel Bar Association conference in Tel Aviv, Shaked addressed the hot-button issue of demographics and the Zionist goal of preserving a Jewish majority in Israel at the expense of human rights for asylum seekers, genuine or otherwise.

Despite the vitriolic protests of some in the crowds, Shaked promised that "Zionism will not continue bowing its head before a universalistic system of individual rights."

"Israel of 2017 is a country that's constitutionally made up of crisscrossing individual rights, without its Basic Laws referencing Israel being the nation state of the Jewish people," Shaked lamented.

"Zionism has become a blind spot for the judiciary," she continued. "Questions concerning it have become irrelevant. National challenges are a judicial blind spot, not at all to be considered in today's climate, and certainly not to be ruled in favor of when faced with individual rights issues.

And of course, it is HCJ that stands in the way of Ms Shaked's dreams.

Shaked said the Israeli judicial branch operates as if in a "dream," adopting a "utopian and universal worldview sanctifying individual rights to an extreme degree and ceasing taking part in the struggle for Israel's very existence."

At this point, she called for an overhaul of the system that enables individual rights to displace the importance of national identity.

I have already dedicated two posts to this particular firebrand's and her colleagues' incessant attacks on HCJ. There is hardly anything to add but a short history lesson. To start with - Menachem Begin's view of democracy:

Begin’s deep commitment to democracy was also expressed in his belief that there is no democracy without the rule of law. In this matter as well, Justice Zamir attested that Begin served as an outstanding role model, who practiced what he preached. This was reflected, for example, in Begin’s respect for the independence of the Prosecutor-General’s Office and for the need to comply with judicial rulings, as evidenced by his saying “there are judges in Jerusalem.” A memorable example is the case of a High Court ruling declaring the Elon Moreh settlement to be illegal. Justice Zamir recalled that at the tempestuous cabinet session that followed the ruling, several ministers demanded that the Court’s decision be ignored. Begin, however, silenced them, declaring that “the courts in Israel have made their decision and the government is obligated to honor and carry out whatever they decided.”

There is more in that document, but let's see a more powerful example.

In 1952, on the eve of the reparations affair that year, the head of the Herut movement, our teacher and leader MK Menachem Begin, put in his writings ("a view of life" as his favorite expression) his view of the three elements of a national liberation movement: freedom of the individual, improvement [Tikun] of the society and the superiority of the law. ...

"The supremacy of the law will be expressed in the fact that an independent panel of judges will be granted not only the authority to determine, in the case of a complaint, the legality or justness of an administrative order or regulation issued by the executive branch, but also the power to adjudicate in the event of a complaint, whether the laws, enacted by the house of representatives (created, as we have seen, under a considerable influence of the government) are compatible with the Basic Law or the civil rights set forth in the law. "The right to a legal complaint in relation to the laws must be granted to every citizen if he considers himself directly or indirectly harmed by them.

Quite clear, isn't it? As well as timeless, but not for Ms Shaked and her bunch of supporters.

As well as being a critical issue that might be a first attempt to seriously undermine our democracy, the situation is a serious test for our (frequently spineless) prime minister. Does he understand the gravity of the attacks on HCJ? Is he aware of the dangers inherent in these attacks? Will he stand up to populism?

We shall see.

(*) To avoid nitpicking: there is no constitution in Israel, like in some other democracies, and the term "unconstititional" here means contradicting the basic laws of the state.

Putin and Netanyahu or journeys of a bibliophile

Netanyahu's trip to Sochi to meet Putin and to persuade him that Iranian corridor to Mediterranean is not a good idea, doesn't seem to be a great success story.

The Russian version of that same article in Pravda is titled: "Netanyahu's Fiasco in Sochi...". For the English version the Pravda's editors have chosen a softer version:

Benjamin Netanyahu’s nightmare comes true as Putin crushes his plans

The author of that article is slightly derisive of our Bibi, as could be seen in the opening paragraph:

Benjamin Netanyahu's nightmare is coming true. The guards of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and Hezbollah fighters prepare to attack Israel by using Syria as a springboard. The Israeli Prime Minister shared the "terrible news" on August 23, 2017 during a meeting with Vladimir Putin in Sochi (the meeting lasted for almost 2.5 hours). Despite Netanyahu's emotional state, the Russian leader remained calm.

The article, however, is not wholly unsympathetic to Israel's stand on Iranian expansion:

According to experts, Netanyahu does not exaggerate too much when he talks about Tehran's plans to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.

Putin, as usual, displayed his majestic indifference:

"Iran is Russia's strategic ally in the Middle East," Putin said. "But Israel is also an important partner for Russia in the region," he added.

In other words: nothing doing, Bibi. As a matter of fact, Russia is not as neutral as the above quote might make you think. The article doesn't mince words:

The truth is that Tehran is the only counterbalance for Moscow to the powerful alliance of wealthy Arabian monarchies that try to establish an Arab analogue of NATO in the endeavor to impose Washington's rules in the entire Middle East.

Therefore, the Kremlin is interested to further strengthen Tehran's influence in the region. The question of accepting Iran into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has almost been resolved. It is Russia that advocates the early adoption of Iran at the SCO. When it happens, the fact itself will remove US plans for air strikes on the Iranian territory.

And the conclusion is quite unequivocal:

Benjamin Netanyahu failed to convince Russian President Putin of the need "to stop Iran's expansion in the Middle East." Israel is a friendly country for Russia, but it is not up to Tel Aviv to teach the Kremlin how to structure Russia's policy in the Middle East.

Makes sense if you sit in Kremlin, of course.

The uncharacteristically brief statement by Bibi, after he emerged from the meeting, seems to confirm the Pravda's points. Very unlike the usually bombastic overwhelming success reports from same source.



Jerusalem Post, which in most cases is sympathetic to Bibi, has a completely different view of the meeting and its purpose(s). In the article What Netanyahu hoped to gain from meetings with Putin, its author, Herb Keinon, explains:

So why did Netanyahu go? Because the objective is less to try to convince Putin of Israel’s position, and more to look him in the eyes and tell him squarely what Israel will do if Iran begins to militarily entrench itself in Syria.

Israel’s message to Putin, which is the same message that was conveyed to the Americans last week via a blue-ribbon security delegation headed by Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, is that Israel will act militarily.

Netanyahu wants this to be a factor in Putin’s decision-making process.

That, of course, puts the visit in a totally different light - if you believe it.

Whatever. In any case, Bibi might (deservedly) claim that he didn't return from Sochi empty-handed. Because:

At their meeting in Sochi on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a copy of the first-ever Bible printed with Rashi’s commentary.

Putin certainly knows how to sweeten the bitter medicine, after all it is not the first time:

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu received a special gift from Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Moscow on Thursday — a nearly 500-year-old copy of Roman-Jewish historian Josephus’ book The Jewish War.

Well, at least there is a beginning of a library, if not much else.

Cool.

Update: Apparently there is a third version of the meeting coverage and its results. By Environmental Minister Ze’ev Elkin, a Russian speaker who was present at the meeting:

While refusing to comment on whether Netanyahu was able to convince Putin to rein in Iran’s regional military ambitions, Elkin said the meeting would have “very important implications.”

So, which version is your preferred one?

Border control and Israeli democracy

A disclaimer: the author of this post doesn't support* the new law that denies entry to BDS supporters and similar.

And no, I don't feel any sympathy to the BDS crowd who, by and large, diligently work to achieve one goal - so called "decolonization of Palestine". Unlike the fiery and dontcha-dare-argue-with-me Allison Kaplan Sommer, I don't believe that a visit to our place will possibly make a friend out of a BDS-nik enemy.

Saying this, I would like to address the concerns (or glee) of some of my friends and others who decry (or gloat upon) the supposed destructive impact this law has on Israeli democracy, imperfect as it is anyhow. Some of them even consider the law to be an abuse of human rights - no more and no less.

To consider the link between democracy and the right to visit (or emigrate to) a sovereign state, I would like to use a few recent examples from US of A.

Deportation of 35 Russian diplomats from the country by Barack Obama. Not only was it a rather sweeping measure (only a part of these 35 were involved in shady activities, most probably), there was also an issue of their families - all in all rather a nasty deal.

Obama putting an end to the 20-year-old "wet foot, dry foot" policy that allowed most Cuban migrants who reach U.S. soil to stay and become legal permanent residents after one year. No need to explain the meaning of this one, is there?

Trump's immigration ban(s).

If you think that I brought up these examples to attempt some "whataboutery", perish the thought. It is just that when Israel is being discussed, many people tend to lose their ability to think logically. So here we have three decisions related to states' borders and people rights. Some of these are less draconian, some totally amoral (guess which). All of these are relevant to citizens of other states.

Now, how do these decisions impact the state of American democracy? Well, not at all. The point is... I have already made my point: these three decisions are relevant to citizens of other states only. Democracy, by definition, is not about its treatment of foreign citizens. Moreover, democracies are known to treat other states (democracies included) quite shabbily. Democracies cheat one another at finances, spy one on another and sometimes even go to war one with another - all this while remaining democracies.

And there is no deity given right of a foreign citizen to cross the border of a democratic state. As everyone who ever stood in the line before border control and experienced the unwelcoming scowl of the border policeman/policewoman knows only too well.

So there.

(*) The new law is, first of all unnecessary: the border control has always had the authority to turn back unwanted visitors, which authority was exercised from time to time. The worrying tradition of our illustrious MKs to pile one unnecessary law upon another continues. After all, the competition of showing off his/her patriotism never ends with our solons.

The outpost law, the lawmakers and the near future

The unbearable lightness of lawmaking in Jerusalem was my personal pet peeve for a long time, as the links show. The recent advent of the so called "outpost law" only confirms this worry.

To those who would like to see it as a political issue: not on this page, please. Whether this law is the death knell for the so far mythical two state solution isn't in the scope of this post.

The hardheadedness of the 60 members of Knesset who brazenly pushed forward a law, condemned even by our own attorney general, that goes against any logic (that is, aside of "this is all our land anyway"), this stubborn insistence of ignoring the basic laws of the state (and the international laws as well) - this is very much in the scope.

To make clear what we are talking about:

On Monday night, Israeli lawmakers passed into law a measure that allows Israel to compensate Palestinians whose land has been taken over by settlers, instead of removing the outposts.

The law applies to 53 outposts and homes within existing settlements recognized by Israel as having been built on Palestinian land without a permit...

Of course, the law was immediately condemned by UN (as expected), France (same) and even by the recently visited* by our illustrious PM Britain, hours after his plane took off. But it is not the issue I want to discuss, not at all.

The coalition has decided to disregard the warning of the attorney general, the man who is supposed to serve as the midwife for the newly hatching laws. The coalition, usually having its far right firebrands and its moderates, this time decided** to follow the firebrands and to present a united stand. If I had to guess the logic of the moderate coalition members, it will be something like this: "OK, we'll show ourselves to be real Zionists and let the High Court shoot this law down, since it clearly wouldn't pass the High Court in any case". To tell you the truth, I much prefer the firebrands, at least with them you have a better chance of knowing what they think.

Unfortunately, passing of the law in Knesset bodes ill for the ever strained relations between the lawmaking branch of our government and the judicial one. Many, too many of our MKs, firebrands or not, don't seem to understand or to care about the difference between the law, the justice, the politics and the lawmakers' wishful thinking. It is far from being the first time when the High Court is pushed into another confrontation that could have been avoided, had the firebrands some respect for the law and had they listened to the attorney general.

It is not for nothing that minister Levin "attacked the legitimacy of Israel’s High Court to decide on the constitutionality of laws  (sic!) Tuesday morning, ahead of an expected challenge to a controversial law legalizing West Bank outposts passed late the night before". The minister knows very well that the High Court will be very quickly hit by a load of suits regarding the outpost law and clearly he is already preparing the ammo for the next round of attacks against the court. As for the chances of the law in the High Court, here comes a man in the know:

The bill could however still be challenged, with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman saying last week: "The chance that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court is 100 percent."

I hope not to see our country in a situation where the future judges of the High Court will be chosen from the members of the Likud Central Committee. Is it too much to ask?

P.S. As heard on the radio: attorney general intends to present to the High Court his arguments against the outpost law, if the law is challenged in High Court (which is practically a certainty). The man who is supposed to defend parliamentary laws in court... almost never happened before.

(*) Bibi, for some strange reason, decided to let the voting on that law go ahead while he was visiting London. Be interesting to know why, although one can easily guess: this is a typical for our hero way to wash his hands of both the future success or the future demise of that law. Not that the London visit itself was a great success...

(**) With the only exception of a man who always has my respect, if sometimes I might disagree with his position: Benny Begin. He called this law "a moral travesty that legalizes theft and leaves a stain on Israel". And Begin is far from being a lefty.

Something about percentage

I am never get too excited when someone tries to prove his/her point by stressing how many other people support it. Too many dumb decisions and upheavals happened in history just because a majority was supportive of a very bad idea or, at least, indifferent to the outcome of one.

So it doesn't impress me much when I read this:

Survey by the Rafi Smith Polling Institute finds only 38% of the public believes Kfir Brigade Sgt. Elor Azaria should stand trial for shooting a neutralized terrorist in Hebron.

I hope that Bibi, who is usually so sensitive to the result of the latest poll(s), will let the justice run its course.

That will be all.

Is Breaking the Silence collecting intelligence on the IDF?

I would hate to see a political movement get squashed for political reasons. However... watch this:



These are some mighty strange questions people concerned with human rights and violations thereof ask.

In short: this stinks to high heaven.

More.

Left, right, left, right: two tails that wag the dog

Warning: this is a long post about our extreme left and right and about the two tearing the nation, troubled as it is, apart. While the said nation's leaders diligently pursue the policy of doing nothing in either direction, preferring the grim status quo to any risk taking. Thus providing fertile ground for the extremists to do what they do best: provoke and incite.

Thankfully, due to circumstances out of my control, I didn't post earlier anything on the subject of BtS (Breaking the Silence). Thankfully, because during the last month or so more input came in and I had some time to digest it.

But first things first and let's start with a disclaimer: I've always resented the curious mix of matters military and human morality standards. The whole business of IDF or any other army contending for the title of "the most moral army in the world" smells false to me, being a clumsy attempt to apply a dress that is simply meant for somebody (something) else. Army is not about morality or justice, and while its goal - to defend - could be considered moral, the means used don't have much to do with morality, the opposite is true. Killing and subjugating people could be regulated by rules created by the people for their army, but "moral army" is still an oxymoron. With all due respect to professor Asa Kasher.

And the second disclaimer: as an ex-soldier, part of my military service was (unhappily) spent in various activities in the Judea and Samaria. Just as a citizen who happens to observe reprehensible behavior of a small part of his brethren, I happened to observe such behavior on part of (very few) IDF soldiers toward the Palestinians. IDF is just a representative part of population, no better and no worse than the latter. As any other army, I gather, with an added strain of being forced to do the work police would be much better suited to perform in the occupied territories. Any soldier who denies that cases like these occur is either deaf and blind or exceptionally lucky - if you believe in luck.

Left.

Some years ago, with the inception of BtS as a Hebrew-speaking initiative, aimed at reducing the unruly and/or unlawful behavior of IDF soldiers, I was rather pleased with the idea. Working hand in hand with the military police, military AG and the commanders in the field, such outfit could have brought if not a stop, at least a proper treatment and reduction of such behavior. Or so it seemed at the time. Unfortunately, with time the expectations were not exactly matched by reality. First of all, BtS folks got a taste for publicity, adding English to their site, thus securing more exposure... just a second, exposure to what? Justice? Morality? Hardly, mostly publicity. Surprisingly or not (Israelis speak almost all languages), articles in Dutch* appear as well. One naturally asks oneself: why a group whose declared purpose is to improve IDF's behavior, would want the international fame and glory? Especially since anyone could predict the negative impact of that fame on the relationship with IDF, the government and, indeed, with the general population... The trend of "internationalization" doesn't stop with the Internet site, BtS is taking the show on the road quite successfully as well:

BtS has been part of at least 50 events in Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and South Africa” in the past three years and the group’s work is, either directly or via third parties, “almost entirely funded by European governments.

But, publicity hungry or not, BtS continued to provide raw material, and whether you like them or not, you have to keep your ears open even to messages you don't like. As long as you believe the messenger. And here is precisely where I (like a lot of others, I guess) got an unpleasant shock.

A short introduction to the following clip: Amit Deri, a reservist officer, was incensed by some of the stories told by BtS and, as part of his private initiative, recorded a few episodes where one Avner Gvaryahu (the Director of Public Outreach for BtS in the past) leads a group of foreign tourists via various sites in in the Judea and Samaria, providing some fascinating stories, allegedly from his own military past. Exaggerated hearsay spiced by lies and/or pure inventions all of that. You can skip the Hebrew parts of the clip, watch only the recordings of the "tours", where English is used by Avner Gvaryahu.

The ex-comrades from Mr Gvaryahu's unit responded to his amazing performance as one in this (unfortunately Hebrew only) recording. I am proud to notice that not a single one used incendiary or simply unparliamentary expressions toward their subject. A brief of their response could be read here.

I was told that BtS distanced itself from the above performance of Avner Gvaryahu, however I couldn't find a trace of it in a public forum. Moreover, Gvaryahu's name proudly appears on various pages of BtS' site even today, after his travesty of "guided tours" became public. And when one of the leading members of BtS behaves as he does, what attitude could be expected from Israeli public opinion of the whole BtS business? "Business" is the fitting term now... More on BtS in an excellent review by Petra Marquardt-Bigman.

And recently the nation got another unpleasant shock from the extreme left, when the ugly case of an ugly man, Ezra Nawi, has clearly demonstrated that the extreme fringe of the anti-Zionist left has lost the last vestiges of morality in the pursuit of its ideological objectives. However, this fringe hasn't lost its support from the usual crowd of Haaretz irregulars and opinion makers.

Right.

And, while we here in Israel are being consoled by some rare rays of light, such as this publicly displayed favorable opinion of the leading military experts, the other (opposite?) side of the political map is not sitting still.

And I don't mean the wretched NGO transparency bill, nor do I care whether it is modeled on existing US law or on its Russian counterpart. Our Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, while a worthy subject for the issue of unbridled lawmaking activism, hardly burdened by too much thinking, is not on the agenda of this post.

I have in mind other dangerous ideological/criminal groups that, by their mere existence, not to mention activities, are busily digging under the democratic foundation of this nation. What started as a series of small acts of vandalism by "Price Tag", initially ignored by our security branches and treated too lightly by the police and the courts, became a well organized, well spread organization, ready to turn a page from petty vandalism to hateful acts of arson and murder, as in Duma arson. Where the left, as in case of Ezra Nawi, prefers to leave the killing to the other party, the brainwashed and fanatic followers of a few rabbis are ready to destroy and kill, believing in the celestial mandate.

This new wave of Jewish extremists is very well organized, their clandestine branch, based on small cells of fanatics, is a very tough nut to crack for our security organs. Their ideological leadership, the one responsible for brainwashing of easily flammable youth, is well protected by the laws and regulations of democracy they despise so much. Ironically or not, like everywhere else in the world, the anti-democratic extremists' groups learn perfectly well how to use the soft belly of democracy they aim to overthrow.

Thus the ideologists don't bother to hide their hateful views, knowing that there is not much the government could do about it, no matter how racist or anti-democratic their propaganda became.

Meir Ettinger, seen escorted by two cops in the picture above, is a specimen of the ideological branch. I doubt that the state will find enough evidence to link him to the Duma crime, he is more of a "thinker", inspiring the murderous actions of his followers. In one, quite important aspect, Ettinger and his likes might be even more dangerous to the well being of the state than his illustrious grandfather, Meir Kahane: where the latter considered himself a Zionist, Ettinger is as anti-Israeli as they come, openly promoting destruction of the Zionist state as his goal:

"The idea of the revolt is very simple," Ettinger wrote in his blog. "The State of Israel has many 'weak points', subjects people tiptoe around so as not to cause riots. What we will do is simply 'spark' all these powder kegs, all the questions and contradictions between Judaism and democracy. Between the Jewish character and the secular character, without fearing the consequences. Disrupting the ability to govern the country. That's the main part of the revolt's 'vort' (word) to break the rules and the entire status quo.

And more... whether he was directly involved in the Duma arson or not, the arsonists have done his bidding. Just like Hamas, the new generation of Sicarii thrives on blood and violence, sowing terror and unrest to reach their goals.

The infamous celebration of the Duma murders during a wedding, recorded and published some time ago, shows how widespread and shameless the right-wing extremism has become.

And while the "Price Tag" and related extremist gangs act on the fringe of the society, right wing outfits similar to Im Tirzu, while ostensibly deploring violence and claiming to be Zionist, use incendiary language as a matter of course. Their recent response to the (indeed deplorable) lies of described above BtS was nothing if not baying for blood. And, seeing how the extremist fringe is actively seeking targets for their own kind of righteousness, this call for blood might be answered quite soon.

The discourse of hatred

And of course, once incendiary language was mentioned, one should award points to both sides. But this is already done by Ben-Dror Yemini in his piece The discourse of hatred: A victory for marginal groups.

This is a warning call: Something bad is happening to us. The margins are taking over the public discourse, turning it into a discourse of hatred. The Israeli public is not there, but it's being dragged there. Israel has a sane majority, a huge majority, but instead of the Knesset presenting a model for a practical discussion, instead of keeping its distance from the violent discourse - it has moved closer to it.

Something bad is happening to us indeed.

But who is taking the challenge up?

(*) Not too surprising: Dutch folks appear in the list of the donating outfits. According to this source, "One Dutch organization demanded Breaking the Silence provide at least 90 testimonies of IDF soldiers and to publish what was described as 'The Occupation Encyclopedia'."

About the aftermath of Paris massacre

The thoughts below, were penned by David Sigeti on Facebook. Worthy reading.

I have refrained from posting these thoughts for about a day now, because I wanted to hold off from political debate in the immediate aftermath of the atrocities in Paris. Nevertheless, I think that it is important to make this point before the murders in Paris and the reactions to them by governments all over the world fade from the notoriously short attention span of the public mind.

The reactions of governments, including our own, to the terrorist attacks in Paris have mostly been very good. Expressions of solidarity have been the order of the day, and have been unencumbered by the sort of admonitions that undermine a statement of solidarity. There has been no false equivalencing, no admonitions to "both sides" to "refrain from incitement", no statements that imply that France is about to go on some kind of rampage against either its own Muslim population or Muslims in other countries, and no admonitions to France to exercise "restraint", even though the President of France has vowed to wage a "pitiless" war on the perpetrators of the attacks (an entirely appropriate vow, in my opinion).

But the same can not be said about the reactions of governments all over the world, including our own, to the wave of terrorist attacks in Israel over the last couple of months. In that time period, Israel has seen a number of terrorist murders that amount to about the same fraction of its population as the victims of the Paris attacks amount to as a fraction of the population of France. The statements of the American government in particular have shown nothing like the solidarity that it has shown with France, in the midst of an ongoing campaign of mass murder against Israeli citizens. In the beginning especially, the US made vague statements about deploring "violence" and called on "both sides" to refrain from "incitement", even though there was no incitement coming from the Israeli side at all and the terrorist wave was being openly and massively incited by all the political groups in Palestinian society, including the supposedly moderate Fatah, and by all levels of the leadership of Palestinian society, including the media, the religious leadership, institutions of higher education, professional organizations, and, of course, the Palestine Authority and its President, the supposedly moderate Mahmoud Abbas.

In fact, the early statements from the American government could hardly be distinguished from the disgusting statements by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who encouraged "both sides" to "show restraint".
Although American statements about the terrorist wave improved significantly over time due to domestic political pressure, they never approached the straightforward and plainly stated solidarity that has just been shown with France. Other governments, particularly the British and Canadian, made much better statements, but the international response overall was worlds away from the response to the attacks in Paris.

This is a massive and egregious double standard, especially since Israel is every bit as much an ally of the United States as France is, maybe more so. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of the failure of the Obama Administration to show support for Israel when it most needs it.

There, I said it. We can now return to mourning the victims of the attacks in Paris and discussing what we need to do both to punish the perpetrators and to prevent similar atrocities in the future. Let us just remember the massive and disgusting double standard that has just been shown, not just in attention in the international press but in the official statements of governments, including our own, and allow this memory to affect our thinking about Israel's situation in the future.

Israeli medics risk all to render aid to casualties of Syria's civil war

Not a daily occurrence, even for FOX. A worthy read.

Joseph’s Tomb is burning, to make Al Aqsa safe

Obviously, what other reason could have caused the "large group of Palestinians" to set fire to the compound containing Joseph’s Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus?



The libel works, it's a fact. Since 1929. Like a Swiss watch.

The Al-Aqsa libel: that lie that always works

"Jews are coming to take over the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pray in it and to destroy it! Save the Al-Aqsa!".


I am not exactly keeping track of that insidious lie, but in my memory it keeps coming back every year, with predictable results. Busily promoted by Hamas and its flock of sister terror outfits, by Israeli own Islamists, such as the infamous Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the radical wing of the Islamic Movement in Israel, benevolently watched and coddled by PA President Mahmoud Abbas and fully supported by his Fatah goons, this libel kills people - both Israelis and Palestinians.

And every single time it works, producing admirable results in the media, such as this inane paragraph:

Palestinians have been angered by events at the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem's Old City and fear Israel wants to change the religious status quo at Islam's third holiest shrine, revered by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and by Jews as the Temple Mount. Israel has said it has no intention to do so.

How can you beat that circular logic that doesn't need anything but itself? First create the rumor about the coming Zionist atrocity perpetrated on the defenseless mosque. Then throw in a gang of belligerent brainwashed youths, inflamed by your libelous lie. Then become angered "by events at the al-Aqsa mosque compound".

What could be better that this self-generating and self-perpetuating lie?

Well, possibly only this "balancing act" of nincompoopery:

For his part, Kerry said he shared his “deep concern” over the spiraling violence with Netanyahu and Abbas. Kerry “stressed the importance of upholding the status quo in word and deed at the al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount and of preventing inflammatory rhetoric and actions that will increase tensions,” said a statement from his office.

And meanwhile some folks are busily protecting the peace in the said mosque:

And that's all she wrote

Not really in a blogging mood. This is (partly) why:

Indeed, as an astute observer (Ollie Kent) once said:

19 holiday makers die in terrible fire aboard plane after New York building tragically collapses.

For more see Israellycool.